Z(subscript: 1) = 1 / [ 1 + K ] and
Z(subscript: i+1) = 1 / [ 1 + 1 / (J + Z(subscript: i)) ]
Basically, his understanding was, that as J --> 0, (J being defined as d/v
or the change in variance over the variance) (i.e. minimizing the
fluctuation), the above formulas should revert to the familiar Z(subscript:
n) = n / [ n + K ]. The formulas actually simplify to Z(subscript: n) = 1
/ [ n + K ] when J=0. What are we missing? Is there a gap in his logic?
Is there no foundation for his assumption of n/[n+K]?
If there is someone out there who can offer their wisdom, I would rather
not (re)read the entire chapter and its references to brush up on my
credibility theory. Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
===============================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.