Showing stability under scaling and additivity of distriubtions

In summary, the student attempted to solve the homework equation by using the mgfs of x and y and ended up with mgf(x+y) = (1/1-Bt)^(a1 + a2 ). I am told this is enough to prove i, is this correct or what could i say to make it better?
  • #1
stukbv
118
0

Homework Statement


I need to show that if X ~ r(a1,B) Y ~ r(a2,b) where r means gamma distribution then if X and Y are independent
i) X+Y ~ r(a1+a2,B)
ii) cX ~ r(a1,cB)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



i) i use the mgfs of x and y and ended up with mgf(x+y) = (1/1-Bt)^(a1 + a2 )
I am told this is enough to prove i, is this correct or what could i say to make it better?

ii) i am a bit stuck on this one, i mean, would you just put c in front of all the x's in the pdf and then re-derive the mgf? or is there something extra?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
stukbv said:

Homework Statement


I need to show that if X ~ r(a1,B) Y ~ r(a2,b) where r means gamma distribution then if X and Y are independent
i) X+Y ~ r(a1+a2,B)
ii) cX ~ r(a1,cB)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



i) i use the mgfs of x and y and ended up with mgf(x+y) = (1/1-Bt)^(a1 + a2 )
I am told this is enough to prove i, is this correct or what could i say to make it better?

ii) i am a bit stuck on this one, i mean, would you just put c in front of all the x's in the pdf and then re-derive the mgf? or is there something extra?

thanks

I suppose your "i" is supposed to be "I", rather than the square root of -1? Anyway, your result in (i) would be OK if you wrote it properly, with brackets to make things clear. That is, instead of writing (1/1-Bt)^(a1+a2)---which equals [1 - Bt]^(a1+a2)---you should write 1/(1-Bt)^(a1+a2), or (1 - Bt)^(-a1-a2) or (1-Bt)^{-(a1+a2)}. As to (ii): what is the problem? If f(x) is the density function of a random variable X, what is the density function of Y = c*X for a constant c? Alternatively, if F(x) is the (cumulative) distribution function of X, that is, P{X >= x} = F(x), then what is the cumulative distribution of Y = c*X? Then you can differentiate the distribution to get the density.

RGV
 
  • #3
Is this where I say X = Y/c so then i put into fx y/c in place of all x's and then multiply by 1/c to get fY?
 
  • #4
If F(x) = P{X <= x} and Y = c*X (with c > 0 a constant) then P{Y <= y} = P{c*X <= y} = P{X <] y/c} = F(y/c). The density of Y is g(y) = (d/dy)F(y/c) = f(y/c)/c, where f(x) = probability density of X. Alternatively: g(y)*dy = P{y < Y < y+dy} = P{y < c*X < y+dy} = P{y/c < X < y/c + dy/c} = f(y/c)*dy/c, so g(y) = f(y/c)/c. So, the answer to your question is YES, but I much prefer to get it from first principles.

RGV
 
  • #5
Ok so now I have 1/c ( 1/(r(a)B^a) * (y/c)^a-1 .e^(-y/cB)
Is that right ?
 
  • #6
I don't know. You have all the formulas you need.

RGV
 

Related to Showing stability under scaling and additivity of distriubtions

1. How do you define stability under scaling and additivity of distributions?

Stability under scaling and additivity of distributions refers to the property of a distribution to remain unchanged when its values are multiplied or added by a constant factor. In other words, the distribution maintains its shape, spread, and location even after scaling or adding.

2. Why is it important to show stability under scaling and additivity of distributions?

Stability under scaling and additivity of distributions is essential for ensuring the reliability and consistency of statistical analyses. When a distribution is stable, it allows for meaningful comparisons between different data sets and makes it easier to draw accurate conclusions from the data.

3. How is stability under scaling and additivity of distributions measured?

Stability under scaling and additivity of distributions is typically measured using statistical tests such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or the Anderson-Darling test. These tests compare the observed distribution to a theoretical distribution and determine if they are significantly different.

4. Can distributions be stable under scaling but not additivity, or vice versa?

Yes, it is possible for a distribution to be stable under scaling but not additivity, or vice versa. For example, a normal distribution is stable under scaling but not additivity, while a Cauchy distribution is stable under additivity but not scaling.

5. How can stability under scaling and additivity of distributions be achieved?

Stability under scaling and additivity of distributions can be achieved by using appropriate statistical methods and techniques, such as logarithmic transformations or standardization, which can help to stabilize the distribution. Ensuring a sufficiently large sample size can also contribute to the stability of the distribution.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
332
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
314
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
774
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
626
Back
Top