Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here is the actual question: $A$ is random variable representing the lifespan of a component. It is an exponential law with an average of 10. Considering a system with $n$ components $A$, what is the minimum value of $n$ so that the system has a fiability of 0.999 for a 4 year period?

I thought about approximating it with the normal law (even if it's probably a pretty bad approximation). This gave me this random variable $Z_n = (Y-\nu)/(\sigma \sqrt{n})$.

Then I figured I was looking for $\mathbb P(Y \geq 4) = 1 - \mathbb P(Y \leq 3)$. In this case $\mathbb P(Y \leq 3)$ would be 0.001 since $\mathbb P(Y \geq 4) = 0.999$. With the cdf table I find that it gives -3.09. So I solve the equation $(3-10n) / (10 \sqrt{n}) = -3.09$. This gives an answer of 10 (around that). The actual answer is 7.

What have I done wrong and how could I find the answer of that question?

Edit : The components are independent from each other; if only one works, the system works. So basically only one of the components needs to have a life span of 4 years. The problem doesn't mention if the components are replaced so I assumed they weren't.

share|improve this question
2  
This question does not seem well-posed as of yet. When does the system fail? When all $n$ components have failed where they all start functioning from the beginning? Or, are the $n$ components replaced one after another once the previous one fails? The answer you're looking for appears to depend on such details. –  cardinal Oct 30 '11 at 18:55
    
The components are independent from each other; if only one works, the system works. So basically only one of the components needs to have a life span of 4 years. The problem doesn't mention if the components are replaced so I assumed they weren't. –  Djeezus Oct 30 '11 at 18:57
    
Then, you're looking for the maximum. Here is a hint: $$\mathbb P(\text{system lasts $x$ years}) = 1 - \mathbb P(\text{system fails before $x$ years})$$ and $$\mathbb P(\text{system fails before $x$ years}) = \mathbb P(A_1 < x, A_2 < x, \ldots, A_n < x) \>.$$ Can you continue from there? –  cardinal Oct 30 '11 at 19:01
    
I think I already had figured out the first one. As for the second one, I'm not sure what this represents. The individual probability that each component fails before x years? –  Djeezus Oct 30 '11 at 19:07
    
If the system fails before $x$ years, then that means that all of the components failed before $x$ years. (Right?) And, the latter is the joint probability that each component has a lifetime of less than $x$. Now, to continue, think about the extra structure you have in your problems. Namely, can you rewrite the right-hand side using assumptions about the $A_i$? –  cardinal Oct 30 '11 at 19:11

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If (and this is a big if) what you mean is that the $n$ components all start at time zero, that each component has a lifetime exponentially distributed with mean $10=1/\lambda$ and if the question is to know for which minimal value of $n$ one has $p_n\leqslant\varepsilon$ where $\varepsilon=1/1'000$ and $p_n$ is the probability that none of the $n$ components is still in function at time $t=4$, then here is your answer.

The probability that a given component is not functioning at time $t$ is $p_1=1-\exp(-\lambda t)$ hence the probability that none of them is functioning is $p_n=(p_1)^n=(1-\exp(-\lambda t))^n$. Numerically, $p_6=0.0013$ and $p_7=0.0004$ hence $p_6>\varepsilon>p_7$ and the minimal $n$ is $7$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Oh, and there is no approximation by a normal law in the picture (this is not needed and not asked and anyway, $n=6$ or $7$ would be rather small values for this approach). –  Did Oct 30 '11 at 19:17
    
Thanks a lot for the answer! I thought it was an approximation by normal law because this was the subject of the chapter. Seems like it was much simpler than that. –  Djeezus Oct 30 '11 at 19:19
    
I'm just wondering, though, isn't the probability $(1-\lambda\exp(-\lambda t))$? –  Djeezus Oct 30 '11 at 19:36
    
No it is not, see here. –  Did Oct 30 '11 at 19:39

For a continuous random variable:

$$P(Y\le 3) \neq P(Y<4) \; ,$$

therefore use

$$P(Y\ge 4) = 1 - P(Y < 4) \; .$$

share|improve this answer
    
Why the restriction to continuous random variables? –  cardinal Oct 30 '11 at 19:04
    
Because $Y$ is a continuous random variable in his problem. And you'll notice that he applies an identity that only holds for discrete variables. That's why his end result is wrong. –  Raskolnikov Oct 30 '11 at 19:06
    
My point is your identity has no such restriction! :) (I think the OP's issues start even before that.) –  cardinal Oct 30 '11 at 19:07
    
OK, I agree that it is true for discrete variables as well, but I meant to say that $P(Y\le 3) \neq P(Y<4)$ for continuous random variables. –  Raskolnikov Oct 30 '11 at 19:08
    
I tried solving with what you proposed and it still doesn't give me the correct answer. Is my method of using the approximation with the normal distribution wrong? –  Djeezus Oct 30 '11 at 19:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.