# Calculate standard error for very large number of observations [closed]

I have a very large dataset (with > 2 million simulated values). I want to compute standard error for this dataset. To do that, I divide the standard deviation by square root of number of observations. However, because of the large number of observations, the standard error is quite low. Is there a way to subsample instead and compute standard error?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by Ben Bolker, kjetil b halvorsen, Peter Flom♦Dec 29 '18 at 12:29

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• At first glance, it's not obvious why the standard error calculated as (std dev)/sqrt(n) wouldn't be "statistically valid". Can you clarify? – Ben Bolker Dec 28 '18 at 21:13
• By the law of large numbers, the mean is a consistent estimator under relatively weak assumptions. As such, its standard deviation (aka standard error) will approach 0 for large n. There is nothing wrong with the formula for large n. – Michael M Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
• to follow up: why do you think it's artificially low? Can you tell us what it is about the small value of the standard error that's problematic for you? – Ben Bolker Dec 28 '18 at 21:40
• What is it you think the standard error measures? – Glen_b Dec 29 '18 at 10:05
• There is nothing artificial about it being low. If you want to simulate a smaller data set, then just simulate fewer values. – Peter Flom Dec 29 '18 at 12:28

• Standard error is $\sqrt{\dfrac{Var}{n}}$, and as such is a biased estimate of error, worse for small $n$. It is not a variance, per se. – Carl Dec 29 '18 at 1:35