It means you can take a measure of the variance of the sample and expect that result to be consistent for the entire population, and the sample is a valid representation for/of the population and does not influence that measure of the population.
3.92
efficiency variance, spending variance, production volume variance, variable and fixed components
Variance
Sigma
No, it is biased.
You cannot prove it because it is not true.The expected value of the sample variance is the population variance but that is not the same as the two measures being the same.
It's a lower-case Greek sigma followed by a superscript 2, in other words, "sigma-squared".
It means you can take a measure of the variance of the sample and expect that result to be consistent for the entire population, and the sample is a valid representation for/of the population and does not influence that measure of the population.
(Population) variance = 6.4664
In statistics, this is the symbol for the "Variance"
The n-1 indicates that the calculation is being expanded from a sample of a population to the entire population. Bessel's correction(the use of n − 1 instead of n in the formula) is where n is the number of observations in a sample: it corrects the bias in the estimation of the population variance, and some (but not all) of the bias in the estimation of the population standard deviation. That is, when estimating the population variance and standard deviation from a sample when the population mean is unknown, the sample variance is a biased estimator of the population variance, and systematically underestimates it.
yes, it can be smaller, equal or larger to the true value of the population varience.
1
It is a biased estimator. S.R.S leads to a biased sample variance but i.i.d random sampling leads to a unbiased sample variance.
s2, using the Roman lower case letter.
The lognormal distribution, probably.