Trying to derive a result on conditional probability
$begingroup$
We have $X_1,...$ indepdent random variables with common distribution $F$ and $N$ is a geometric random variable independent of $X_i$'s. Let $M = max(X_1,...X_N)$. Im trying to convince myself that
$$ P( M leq x mid N > 1 ) = F(x) P(M leq x ) $$
I understand that since $X_1$ is independent of all $X_i's$ and from $N$, when we can pull it out of the probability and we have
$$ P(X_1 leq x) P( max(X_2,....,X_N ) leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
And then we have
$$ F(x) P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
How does
$$ P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) = P( M leq x ) $$
??
probability
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have $X_1,...$ indepdent random variables with common distribution $F$ and $N$ is a geometric random variable independent of $X_i$'s. Let $M = max(X_1,...X_N)$. Im trying to convince myself that
$$ P( M leq x mid N > 1 ) = F(x) P(M leq x ) $$
I understand that since $X_1$ is independent of all $X_i's$ and from $N$, when we can pull it out of the probability and we have
$$ P(X_1 leq x) P( max(X_2,....,X_N ) leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
And then we have
$$ F(x) P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
How does
$$ P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) = P( M leq x ) $$
??
probability
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have $X_1,...$ indepdent random variables with common distribution $F$ and $N$ is a geometric random variable independent of $X_i$'s. Let $M = max(X_1,...X_N)$. Im trying to convince myself that
$$ P( M leq x mid N > 1 ) = F(x) P(M leq x ) $$
I understand that since $X_1$ is independent of all $X_i's$ and from $N$, when we can pull it out of the probability and we have
$$ P(X_1 leq x) P( max(X_2,....,X_N ) leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
And then we have
$$ F(x) P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
How does
$$ P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) = P( M leq x ) $$
??
probability
$endgroup$
We have $X_1,...$ indepdent random variables with common distribution $F$ and $N$ is a geometric random variable independent of $X_i$'s. Let $M = max(X_1,...X_N)$. Im trying to convince myself that
$$ P( M leq x mid N > 1 ) = F(x) P(M leq x ) $$
I understand that since $X_1$ is independent of all $X_i's$ and from $N$, when we can pull it out of the probability and we have
$$ P(X_1 leq x) P( max(X_2,....,X_N ) leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
And then we have
$$ F(x) P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) $$
How does
$$ P( max( X_1,...,X_{N-1} leq x mid N > 1 ) = P( M leq x ) $$
??
probability
probability
asked Dec 4 '18 at 18:53
NeymarNeymar
375214
375214
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Essentially, the conditional distribution of $N-1$ given $N > 1$ is also geometric.
$$P(N-1 = k mid N > 1) = P(N = k+1)/P(N>1) = (1-p)^k p / (1 - p) = (1-p)^{k-1} p.$$
So $max(X_1, ldots, X_{N-1})$ given $N > 1$ has the same distribution as $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025962%2ftrying-to-derive-a-result-on-conditional-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Essentially, the conditional distribution of $N-1$ given $N > 1$ is also geometric.
$$P(N-1 = k mid N > 1) = P(N = k+1)/P(N>1) = (1-p)^k p / (1 - p) = (1-p)^{k-1} p.$$
So $max(X_1, ldots, X_{N-1})$ given $N > 1$ has the same distribution as $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Essentially, the conditional distribution of $N-1$ given $N > 1$ is also geometric.
$$P(N-1 = k mid N > 1) = P(N = k+1)/P(N>1) = (1-p)^k p / (1 - p) = (1-p)^{k-1} p.$$
So $max(X_1, ldots, X_{N-1})$ given $N > 1$ has the same distribution as $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Essentially, the conditional distribution of $N-1$ given $N > 1$ is also geometric.
$$P(N-1 = k mid N > 1) = P(N = k+1)/P(N>1) = (1-p)^k p / (1 - p) = (1-p)^{k-1} p.$$
So $max(X_1, ldots, X_{N-1})$ given $N > 1$ has the same distribution as $M$.
$endgroup$
Essentially, the conditional distribution of $N-1$ given $N > 1$ is also geometric.
$$P(N-1 = k mid N > 1) = P(N = k+1)/P(N>1) = (1-p)^k p / (1 - p) = (1-p)^{k-1} p.$$
So $max(X_1, ldots, X_{N-1})$ given $N > 1$ has the same distribution as $M$.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 18:58
angryavianangryavian
41.8k23381
41.8k23381
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
I understand, but Im not convinced, since by your reasoning, then we would have also $$ P(M leq x ) = P ( M leq x mid N > 0 ) $$
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:30
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
$begingroup$
@Neymar I am using geometric distributions that take values $1,2,ldots$, so $N>0$ always holds.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Dec 4 '18 at 21:45
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025962%2ftrying-to-derive-a-result-on-conditional-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Why not compute $P(Mleqslant x,N>1)$, $P(N>1)$ and $P(Mleqslant x)$ separately, and compare the results? For example, $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(Mleqslant x,N=n)=sum_{ngeqslant2}P(X_1leqslant x,ldots,X_nleqslant x,N=n)$$ hence $$P(Mleqslant x,N>1)=sum_{ngeqslant2}F(x)^np(1-p)^{n-1}=cdots$$
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
i dont understand how this helps. How is the RHS of second expression equal to $P(M leq x )$ . I dont see it. I understand if you use the law of total probability, but I want to understand the above without using law of total probability
$endgroup$
– Neymar
Dec 4 '18 at 21:19
$begingroup$
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "the RHS of second expression". Anyway, once you would have computed the probabilities I suggested, simply use $$P(Mleqslant xmid N>1)=frac{P(Mleqslant x,N>1)}{P(N>1)}$$ and conclude.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 4 '18 at 21:22