Multiplying Normal Distributions: Rules & Examples

AI Thread Summary
Multiplying two independent normal distributions does not yield a normal distribution; instead, the sum of two independent normal variables results in another normal distribution. Specifically, if S ~ N(0, 3^2) and D ~ N(0, 2^2), the sum S + D has a mean equal to the sum of their means and a variance equal to the sum of their variances. The initial confusion arose from misinterpreting the notation, where P(S) + P(D) was mistakenly equated to P(S)P(D). For independent events, the joint probability is correctly expressed as P(A & B) = P(A)P(B). Understanding the distinction between summing and multiplying distributions is crucial for accurate calculations.
chota
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Hi say I have two "independent" Normal distributions,

S ~ N(0,3^2) and D~(0,2^2)

since I know that S and D are indpendent then

P(S ) + P(D) = P(S)P(D)

however we know they are both normal distributed so I amm just wondering what the general rule is for multiplying two normal distributions
thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you mean by

<br /> P(S) + P(D) = P(S) P(D)<br />

Are you trying to say that when normal random variables are added, the resulting random variable is their product? Not true.

If

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> S &amp; \sim n(\mu_S, \sigma^2_S)\\<br /> D &amp; \sim n(\mu_D, \sigma^2_D)<br /> \end{align*}<br />

and they are independent, then the sum S + D is normal, with mean

<br /> \mu_S + \mu_D<br />

and variance

<br /> \sigma^2_S + \sigma^2_D<br />

A similar result is true even if the two variables have non-zero correlation (the formula for the variance of the sum involves the correlation).

If by 'product' P(S) P(D) you mean the convolution of the distributions, you could go through that work, but it leads you to the same result I quoted above.
 
chota said:
... since I know that S and D are indpendent then

P(S ) + P(D) = P(S)P(D)

I'm guessing you meant to say

P(S & D) = P(S)P(D)

where "S" here really means a statement along the lines of "S lies between A and B", and similarly for "D".
 
For events A and B, normally distributed or not, P(A&B)= P(A)P(B|A)= P(B)P(B|A) where P(A|B) and P(B|A) are the "conditional probabilities" : P(A|B) is "the probability that A will happen given that B happened" and P(B|A) is "the probability that B will happen given that A happened".

IF the A and B are independent then P(A|B)= P(A) and P(B|A)= P(B) so you just multiply the separate probabilities. If they are not independent, just knowing the probabilities of each separately is not enough. You must know at least one of P(A|B), P(B|A) or P(A&B) separately from the individual probabilities.
 
I answered as I did because

  • the OP used S, D in his notation, and I took these as the names of the random variables rather than any interval or event.
  • I took the question to mean he was asking how to combine normal distributions rather than calculate any particular probability
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top