Return to Question

I am not understanding Which is more accurate, the hit-and-miss method or the improved Monte-Carlo method?

here it is written that that the hit-and-miss has a higher variance but they showed (variance of improved Monte-Carlo) - (variance of hit-and-miss method) > 0 $$\sigma^2_M-\sigma^2_H>0$$

Doesn't it imply improved Monte-Carlo method has a higher variance?

Can you please explain it experimentally to me with an easy example ? Such as for a small integration.

I do not understand Which is more accurate, the hit-and-miss method or the improved Monte-Carlo method?

Here it is written that that the hit-and-miss has a higher variance but they showed (variance of improved Monte-Carlo) - (variance of hit-and-miss method) > 0 $$\sigma^2_M-\sigma^2_H>0$$

Doesn't it imply improved Monte-Carlo method has a higher variance?

Can you please explain it experimentally to me with an easy example (such as for a small integration)?

I am not understanding Which is more accurate, the hit-and-miss method or the improved Monte-Carlo method?

here it is written that that the hit-and-miss has a higher variance but they showed variance of improved Monte-Carlo-variance of hit-and-miss method>0 $$\sigma^2_M-\sigma^2_H>0$$

Doesn't it imply improved Monte-Carlo method has a higher variance?

Can you please explain it experimentally to me with an easy example ? Such as for a small integration.

I am not understanding Which is more accurate, the hit-and-miss method or the improved Monte-Carlo method?

here it is written that that the hit-and-miss has a higher variance but they showed (variance of improved Monte-Carlo) - (variance of hit-and-miss method) > 0 $$\sigma^2_M-\sigma^2_H>0$$

Doesn't it imply improved Monte-Carlo method has a higher variance?

Can you please explain it experimentally to me with an easy example ? Such as for a small integration.