Anonymous Wrote:It wouldn't matter how many consecutive as long as they are consecutive.
not true as written.
possibility (a) - literal interpretation of what you wrote:
IF you're trying to say that the standard deviation is the
same number, regardless of the number of consecutive integers in the set, then that's wrong.
you could use the formula you wrote to prove this, but here's a more conceptual way to think about it:
say we have a set of 7 consecutive integers.
then these integers are 3 less than, 2 less than, 1 less than, equal to, 1 more than, 2 more than, and 3 more than the mean.
now let's say we have a set of 9 consecutive integers.
then that's the same as the set of 7 consecutive integers - except we've added numbers that are 4 less than and 4 more than the mean. since these new numbers are farther from the mean than any of the pre-existing numbers, it follows that the standard deviation must be a
bigger number once we've added those numbers.
possibility (b)
IF you're trying to say that it's good enough to be given the EXACT NUMBER of consecutive integers in the set, REGARDLESS of what that number actually is, then you're right.
in other words:
any set of, say, 7 consecutive integers must have the same standard deviation as any other set of 7 consecutive integers.
(the reason is because, as mentioned above, any such set consists of numbers that are 3 less than, 2 less than, 1 less than, equal to, 1 more than, 2 more than, and 3 more than the mean, regardless of the actual value of the mean.)