Want this question answered?
Do you mean Nurenberg germany?
The answer depends on the probability of whatever it is that you are trying to observe and its variability. If the probability of a particular outcome is very high then you will need a lot of trials before you get one where the outcome does not occur. Conversely, a rare event will also require many trials. If there is a lot of random variation in the outcome of the trials, you will need more trials before you can be confident of the accuracy of any estimates.
No. The fact that the outcome of one trial does not affect the outcome of any other trial follows from the fact that the trials that are independent. Whether the distribution is binomial or not is totally irrelevant.
Lotti Loder was born on August 18, 1910, in Nrnberg, West Germany.
No, juries do not always decide trials. A person will sometimes have the option of not using a jury for their trial because they are afraid of the outcome.
No. The more trials the better. You can only estimate the probability of an outcome based on the data from experimentation. But if you find that the percentage in 90 trials is practically identical to the percentage in 30 trials, that is an indication that the percentage will hold true for even larger numbers of trials.
Yes it is. For a binomial, there must be a fixed number of trials, the probability must remain constant for trials, trials must be independent, and each outcome must be classified into 2 categories.
It models the outcome of a number of independent trials in which each trial has only one outcome [that is of interest] with a constant probability of that outcome. There are random processes that meet these requirements exactly as well as others that may be approximated by the distribution.
Probability = 0 can be interpreted as an outcome that can not occur after infinite independent trials. A relative frequency (also termed an empirical or experimental probability) of zero, even after a large number of trials, can not have the same interpretation. If, after say a million trials, a particular outcome has not occurred, the correct interpretation based solely on the data, is that the outcome is highly unlikely to occur, but not impossible. The conclusion of "impossible to occur" and "highly unlikely to occur" are mutually exclusive conclusions. If an event is highly unlikely to occur, then there exists a probability > 0 of occurring, and after infinite trials, this event must occur.
The outcome of the Salem witch trials was the remembrance of a situation which casts Salem into infamy. A hysteria had gripped the town, and the people of Salem had senselessly killed a lot of people.
The theoretical probability provides a model for predicting the outcome of trials. You then carry out a number of trials. Compare the outcome of your trials with the results predicted by the theoretical model. The comparison will usually involve "hypothesis testing", a branch of statistics. This is a method to test how likely the actual outcomes are if the theoretical probabilities were true. The exact nature of the test will depend on the theoretical basis and so the answer cannot be simplified.
No, because it really wasn't their fault. They didn't help the outcome, but they were not the cause.