Timeline for Intuitive explanation for dividing by $n-1$ when calculating standard deviation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2023 at 3:55 | comment | added | JonathanReez |
@whuber I've plotted what happens if we use n-0, n-2 and other values in my answer below to show this visually.
|
|
| Jan 11, 2021 at 14:32 | comment | added | Jarle Tufto | (+1) It indeed does not minimise mean square error - if that is the goal one should instead divide by $n+1$. | |
| S Aug 25, 2017 at 17:16 | history | suggested | Mooncrater | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
mathjax magic
|
| Aug 25, 2017 at 17:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 25, 2017 at 17:16 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen♦ | In much use it will not matter, when used in tests or for confidence intervals one would have to adjust other parts of the procedure and in the end obtain the same result! | |
| Aug 29, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | Mark L. Stone | My last sentence was friendly advice to all concerned, as opposed to an attack on the OP. | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 17:45 | comment | added | whuber♦ | (+1) The more I think about this situation (and I've given it some real thought, to the extent of researching the earlier papers such as Student's 1908 Biometrica contribution to try to track down when and why $n-1$ made its appearance), the more I think that "because it's customary" is the only possible correct answer. I am unhappy to see the downvotes and can only guess that they are responding to the last sentence, which could easily be seen as attacking the O.P., even though I doubt that was your intention. | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 15:28 | history | answered | Mark L. Stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |