These help to distribute the frequency much better than the latter. The noise might not be as loud or boisterous this way.
Yes. If the sample is a random drawing from the population, then as the size increases, the relative frequency of each interval from the sample should be a better estimate of the relative frequency in the population. Now, in practical terms, increasing a small sample will have a larger effect than increasing a large sample. For example, increasing a sample from 10 to 100 will have a larger effect than increasing a sample from 1000 to 10,000. The one exception to this, that I can think of, is if the focus of the study is on a very rare occurrence.
There may or may not be a benefit: it depends on the underlying distributions. Using the standard normal distribution, whatever the circumstances is naive and irresponsible. Also, it depends on what parameter you are testing for. For comparing whether or not two distributions are the same, tests such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or the Chi-Square goodness of fit test are often better. For testing the equality of variance, an F-test may be better.
A frequency distribution with the total frequency equated to one hundred and the individual class frequencies expressed in proportion to that figure. :) Im so smart ;) No one better improve this answer.You welcome Person who asked this question.
The different methods evolved separately. Also, different ways are sometimes better in different situations.
Not all statisticians would agree that the statement is true.
These help to distribute the frequency much better than the latter. The noise might not be as loud or boisterous this way.
You are comparing different years of the same model. Which is better, and apricot or a guava?
This is a matter of personal preference.They are two completely different artists with two completely different styles. Comparing them is like comparing chalk and cheese.
When comparing characters from different series, it depends on what series you prefer.
Neither horse is better than the other. They are two different breeds developed for two different purposes, so comparing them would be pointless.
Certainly, comparing bank loans is good common sense. Comparison shopping is no different when dealing with banks, some are going to have better rates than others.
A lower accident frequency rate is better as "frequency" means "how often something occurs".
Comparing in the science process involves looking at different objects or phenomena to identify similarities and differences, leading to a better understanding of their properties or behaviors. It helps scientists draw conclusions, make predictions, or establish relationships between variables. Comparing is an essential step in scientific inquiry to analyze data and draw valid conclusions.
Better than what? - It isn't clear what you are comparing with what.
MW2? Do you mean Modern Warfare 2? It's like comparing an apple to a sunflower... Two different games.
Relative conductivity refers to the ability of a material to conduct electricity compared to a standard material. It is commonly used to compare the conductivity of different materials based on their relative values. Materials with higher relative conductivity values exhibit better electrical conductivity than materials with lower relative conductivity values.