Use R to test (at $\alpha = 0.05$) the claim that skittles candies are blended in equal proportions. What is the result?

The designer of the process by which skittles candies are made ensured the company that, with this process, they can expect the skittles candies produced to have a mean weight of 1.04 grams. The mean weight for the skittles in the sampled bag appears to be slightly higher. Does the sample provide significant evidence that the average weight of skittles is more than 1.04 grames? Use R to test an appropriate claim (at $\alpha = 0.01$).

**What is the sum, rounded to 2 decimal places, of the $p$-value associated with the test conducted in part (a) and the test statistic and critical value for the test conducted in part (b)?**# import excel file skittles.xlsx using the "Files" panel... counts = as.vector(table(skittles$colors)) # check assumptions (all E >= 5) n = length(skittles$colors) n*0.2 >= 5 test1 = chisq.test(counts,p=rep(0.2,times=5)) # GOF test weights = as.vector(skittles$weights) # check assumptions... n >= 30 tt = t.test(weights,alternative="greater",mu=1.04,conf.level = 0.99) test1$p.value + tt$statistic + qt(0.99,df=n-1) # Ans: 50.25 (rounded to two decimal places)

R includes a dataset called

`iris`

that gives measurements in centimeters of the sepal length and width, and the petal length and width, respectively, for 50 flowers from three species (*setosa*,*versicolor*, and*verginica*) of iris plants.A friend claims it is easy to differentiate between the three species by their petal width, as

*iris virginica*has a wide petal,*iris setosa*has a thin petal, and*iris versicolor*typically falls somewhere in between.You decide to test the claim that the species and petal width are related (i.e., not independent) using the data found in the

`iris`

data set. However, the data needs to be altered slightly to suit your intended purpose:Create a categorical variable for the plants in the dataset which identifies each as either "thin", "average", or "wide" in terms of their petal width, by determining whether the petal width is in the bottom third, middle third, or top third of all petal widths sampled. Then add this categorical variable to the data frame.

Finally, conduct an appropriate test to determine if there is any evidence that these categories of petal width are related to species type.

The $p$-value for this test appears exceedingly small, suggesting there is indeed a statistically significant relationship between petal width and species.

**When the $p$-value is written in scientific notation, what is the exponent on $10$ used?**b1 = min(iris$Petal.Width)-1 b2 = quantile(iris$Petal.Width,1/3) b3 = quantile(iris$Petal.Width,2/3) b4 = max(iris$Petal.Width)+1 pet.cat = cut(iris$Petal.Width,breaks=c(b1,b2,b3,b4), labels=c("Thin","Average","Wide")) iris$Petal.Cat = pet.cat # check assumptions... addmargins(table(iris$Petal.Cat,iris$Species)) summary(table(iris$Petal.Cat,iris$Species)) # independence test # Ans: -56

- The Excel file temps.xls provides body temperatures for men and women at different times of day. You wonder, based on this data, if there is a significant difference between the body temperatures of men and women on day 1 at 12am. Perform an appropriate test in R.
Note, the file provided is incomplete -- not all subjects measured their body temperature at all of the times indicated. Any subject that is missing a body temperature on day 1 at 12am should not be considered when conducting the corresponding test. (

*Hint: one might find the*)`is.na()`

function in R useful to this end.Make sure to check the assumptions for the test -- which, among other things, involves conducting a secondary hypothesis test -- before proceeding with the primary hypothesis test. Also, remember that checking for normality can be accomplished with a QQ-plot (see the notes on the

`qqnorm()`

function.**To the nearest thousandth, what is the sum of the**(i.e., one for the primary test and one for the secondary test.)__two__$p$-values that result?men = temps[temps$SEX=="M" & !is.na(temps$'DAY 1 - 12AM'),"DAY 1 - 12AM"][[1]] women = temps[temps$SEX=="F" & !is.na(temps$'DAY 1 - 12AM'),"DAY 1 - 12AM"][[1]] var.test(men,women)$p.value # p-value = 0.7133 t.test(x=men,y=women,alternative="two.sided",conf.level=0.95,var.equal=TRUE)$p.value # p-value = 0.1196 # Ans: 0.8329366 (sum of 2 p-values)

In computer science, a

*hash function*is a function that turns its input into a number $h$ from $0$ to $(m-1)$, so that the input can be stored at position $h$ in some array of $m$ positions. For a hash function to work efficiently, the outputs for randomly chosen inputs should be as uniformly distributed between $0$ and $(m-1)$ as possible.The following R function is equivalent to what the Java language uses as the default hash function when the input is a string of text.

hash = function(s,m) { a.vals = utf8ToInt(s) h = 0 for (i in 1:length(a.vals)) { h = (31*h + a.vals[i]) %% m } return(h) }

Test the claim that this function produces values that are uniformly distributed between $0$ and $9$ when $m=10$ by applying it to each word found here, and then conducting an appropriate hypothesis test.

**To the nearest thousandth, what is the $p$-value for the test?**hash = function(s,m) { a.vals = utf8ToInt(s) h = 0 for (i in 1:length(a.vals)) { h = (31*h + a.vals[i]) %% m } return(h) } url = "http://math.oxford.emory.edu/site/math117/labFactorsTablesListsAndDataFrames/words.txt" words = read.table(url) hash.vals = as.vector(table(factor(sapply(as.vector(words[[1]]),hash,m=10)))) chisq.test(hash.vals,p=rep(0.1,times=10)) # Ans: 0.267 (rounded to nearest thousandth)

In mathematics, there are often multiple paths to get to something of interest. Consider the vertex of a parabola. In algebra, one learns how to find where the vertex of a parabola is located by completing the square. However, in calculus there is a simpler way to get to the same end -- simply set the derivative of the corresponding quadratic function to zero and solve for $x$.

Finding the line of best fit for some given bivariate data is no exception. One way to find the equation $y = mx + b$ of this line, given data $\{(x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2), (x_3,y_3), \ldots, (x_n,y_n)\}$, is to find $m$ and $b$ with the following formulas:

$$m = \frac{\sum (x_i-\overline{x})(y_i - \overline{y})}{\sum (x_i - \overline{x})^2} \quad \textrm{and} \quad b = \overline{y} - m\overline{x}$$That said, there is another way we could get at the same information -- one involving matrices. The explanation for why this next way works involves some concepts from both multivariable calculus as well as linear algebra, so we will not attempt an explanation here. However, the mechanics of the technique are easily understood, as the following will demonstrate.

Suppose one wishes to find the best fit line for the following data:

$$(1,0), (2,3), (3,7), (4,14), (5,22)$$To do so, we create a matrix $A$ whose first column consists of only $1$'s, and whose second column consists of the $x$-coordinates of the data. We also create a matrix $B$ consisting of a single column whose elements are the corresponding $y$-coordinates of the data.

$$A = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 1 & 2\\ 1 & 3\\ 1 & 4\\ 1 & 5 \end{bmatrix} \quad B = \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ 3\\ 7\\ 14\\ 22 \end{bmatrix}$$Using the standard notation $A^T$ for the transpose of a matrix (i.e., the matrix resulting from reversing the rows and columns of a given matrix), we compute the two matrix products $C = A^T \cdot A$ and $D = A^T \cdot B$:

$$C = A^T \cdot A = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 1 & 2\\ 1 & 3\\ 1 & 4\\ 1 & 5 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 5 & 15\\ 15 & 55 \end{bmatrix}$$ $$D = A^T \cdot B = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ 3\\ 7\\ 14\\ 22 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 46\\ 193 \end{bmatrix} $$Finally, we find the product of the inverse of $C$ and $D$:

$$C^{-1} \cdot D = \begin{bmatrix} 5 & 15\\ 15 & 55 \end{bmatrix}^{-1} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 46\\ 193 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1.1 & -0.3\\ -0.3 & 0.1 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 46\\ 193 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -7.3\\ 5.5 \end{bmatrix}$$This last column matrix gives us the numbers we need to form the best-fit line:

$$\widehat{y} = 5.5x - 7.3$$**Repeat this process for the bivariate data shown below. What is the predicted $y$ value to 2 decimal places using the best-fit line for $x=22$?**x y 27.71 91.07 33.34 103.83 23.72 75.03 32.4 106.78 19.95 73.16 29.25 95.41 28.08 94.36 26.4 88.88 30.38 98.5 25.71 91.47

Answer to be posted soon!

Suppose one wishes to simulate how frequently a new dam will overflow, which depends on the number of rainy days seen in a row. We might start by making observations over some sequence of consecutive days of whether each day was rainy (R) or sunny (S). What we observed is shown below.

RRRRRRRRSSSSSSSRSSSSSRSSSSRRRRRRRRRRSRRRRSSSSSS

It appears that exactly half of the days observed were rainy. As such, one might try to simulate similar data by essentially "flipping a coin" for each day so that the chance that it rains on any particular day is 50%. This would be easy to do in R with the following:

s = sample(c("R","S"),size=28,replace=TRUE,prob=c(0.5,0.5)) paste0(s,collapse="")

Below is some data simulated in this way:

RRRSSSRRRRSSSRRRSRSRRRRSSSRSSRRRSRSSSSSRRSSRRRS

Notice how the simulated sequence doesn't look quite like the actual observed data. In the original data, there are long sequences of R's and S's, while the observed data has much shorter sequences. Granted, this is just one sequence, so additional observations and simulations are made. Strangely, the same pattern is seen in these as well. The observations always seem to have longer subsequences of R's and S's than the simulated data.

Upon reflection, you might realize that one possible reason for the discrepency is that the probability that any particular day is sunny or rainy is not independent of whether or not the previous day was sunny or rainy. In particular, it appears that if a day is rainy, the probability the next day is rainy is higher than if it was sunny. Likewise, if a day is sunny, the probability the next day is sunny is higher than if it was rainy.

Based on all your observations, it appears that consecutive days have the same weather 90% of the time. With this, we can build the following model:

*Markov chain*, named after Andrey Markov, a Russian mathematician who first published a paper on the topic in 1906.In the model above, there are two "states" (R and S). However, a general Markov chain can have many more. One of the more interesting characteristics of a Markov chain is that the probability that you land in any one state after some number of iterations (i.e., days in the example discussed) can be found through a power of an associated

*transition matrix*.Let's see how this works...

Suppose it is rainy today (day 1), and you want to know what is the probability that it is rainy or sunny tomorrow (day 2). Of course, the answer is simple -- 90% chance of rain, 10% chance of sun.

Suppose however that you want to know the probability that it is rainy or sunny the day after that (day 3). We can find such a probability using our basic probability rules. For the calculations that follow, suppose $R_i$ is the event "day $i$ was rainy" and $S_i$ is the event "day $i$ was sunny". Then notice:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} P(R_3) &=& P((R_2 \, \& \, R_3) \, \textrm{or} \, (S_2 \, \& \, R_3))\\ &=& P(R_2 \, \& \, R_3) + P(S_2 \, \& \, R_3)\\ &=& P(R_2)P(R_3 | R_2) + P(S_2)P(R_3 | S_2)\\ &=& (0.90)(0.90) + (0.10)(0.10)\\ &=& 0.82 \end{array}$$We could of course use the fact that R and S are complements to find $P(S_3)$, but let's find it in a manner similar to the above:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} P(S_3) &=& P((R_2 \, \& \, S_3) \, \textrm{or} \, (S_2 \, \& \, S_3))\\ &=& P(R_2 \, \& \, S_3) + P(S_2 \, \& \, S_3)\\ &=& P(R_2)P(S_3 | R_2) + P(S_2)P(S_3 | S_2)\\ &=& (0.90)(0.10) + (0.10)(0.90)\\ &=& 0.18 \end{array}$$Similar calculations reveal the probabilities for day 4:

$$\begin{array}{rcll} P(R_4) &=& (0.90)(.82) + (0.10)(.18) \quad & [= 0.756]\\ P(S_4) &=& (0.10)(0.82) + (0.90)(0.18) \quad & [= 0.244] \end{array}$$More generally, we have the following relationship:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} P(R_{i+1}) &=& 0.90 \cdot P(R_i) + 0.10 \cdot P(S_i)\\ P(S_{i+1}) &=& 0.10 \cdot P(R_i) + 0.90 \cdot P(S_i)\\ \end{array}$$Which we could express using matrices with

$$\begin{bmatrix} P(R_{i+1})\\ P(S_{i+1}) \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 0.90 & 0.10\\ 0.10 & 0.90\\ \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} P(R_{i})\\ P(S_{i}) \end{bmatrix} $$The middle matrix above (i.e., the one with the 0.90's and 0.10's in it) is called the

*transition matrix*for this Markov chain. It can be applied over and over again to find the probabilities associated with both states after any number of days.**With all of this in mind, find to four decimal places the probability given that it rains on day 1, that it also rains on days 12 and 13.***(Hint: Remember the events of raining on day 12 and raining on day 13 are not independent!)*Answer will be posted soon!