Hello,
I'm stuck on (i) - the answer in the examiner's report makes sense but I used a different method and although I found the right answer in the end (yay) I also found something else that puzzles me..
Here's what the question asks:
Studies of the lifetimes of a certain type of electric light bulb have shown that the probability of failure, q0 , during the first day of use is 0.05 and after the first day of use the force of failure , x , is constant at 0.01.
(i) Calculate the probability that a light bulb will fail within the first 20 days.
I tried calculating the probability of failing within 20 days directly instead of doing 1-P(not failing within 20 days).
The following formula gives the right answer:
0.05 + 0.95*Integral[0 to 19] {exp(-0.01*t)*0.01} dt
where
0.05 = probability of failing during day 1
0.95 = probability of surviving during day 1
exp(-0.01*t) = probability of surviving from day 0 to day t
0.01 = instantaneous rate of failure at time t (which is constant..)
Using latex: \[ 0.05 + 0.95 \int_{0}^{19} e^{-0.01t}0.01 dt \]
However, my initial formula (which made more sense to me, intuitively) is wrong and I don't see why:
0.05 + 0.95*Integral[1 to 20] {exp(-0.01*t)*0.01} dt
where
0.05 = probability of failing during day 1
0.95 = probability of surviving during day 1
exp(-0.01*t) = probability of surviving from day 1 to day 1+t
0.01 = instantaneous rate of failure at time t (which is constant..)
Using latex: \[ 0.05 + 0.95 \int_{1}^{20} e^{-0.01t}0.01 dt \]
Ultimately, the only difference between the 2 formulas is the limits of the integral..
Going from 1 to 20 makes more sense to me since we are given the probability of failing on the first day (ie day 0).
If anyone has any idea why this is wrong please tell meee!
thanks
Anj
Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2016