1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A proving on random variables

  1. Sep 11, 2004 #1
    Hello, I need some help on the independence of random variables...
    "How do I prove that if X and Y are two independent random variables, then U=g(X) and V = h(Y) are also independent?"

    - Isn`t that if random variables X and Y are independent, it implies
    that f(x,y) = g(x)h(y) and vice versa? Also, note that g(x) and h(y) are
    two marginals. But what I don`t understand is that what does it mean to
    have U = g(X) to be a capital "X"?

    - {then U=g(X) and V = h(Y) are also independent} what am I supposed to
    show in this proof? And lastly, what is my first step/strategy in proving
    this? Hope you can give me hints.. =)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 11, 2004 #2

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    U is g of the random variable X. You do this all the time, such as when working out the variance: it is
    E(X^2)-E(X)^2, So there's a function of a random variable there (X^2).

    Are these continuous of discrete R.V.'s? Not that it matters two much. If it 's continuous look at the pdf of the joind dist. since g is a function of X alone, and h a function of Y alone the double integrals INT dxdy split as int dx int dy. If discrete replace integrals with sums.
     
  4. Sep 11, 2004 #3
    Sir matt grime/anyone... =]
    I hope someone can guide me.
    I want to prove first the continuous. So, the joint pdf can be described as

    f[g(X),h(Y)] = INTaINTb g(x)h(y) dx dy -> am I right here?
    where a and b are arbitrary intervals.
    = INTa h(y) [INTb g(x)dx] dy -> h(y) is treated as a constant.
    = [INTb g(x)dx] [INTa h(y)dy] -> [INTb g(x)dx] is now a constant
    = g(X) h(Y)

    I believe I got screwed up in my notations... is this the proof? I hope it is.. but can someone help me edit this... will I use u's and v's here?... I think not.

    For the discrete case...

    f(g(X), h(Y)) = P(U = g(X), V = h(Y)) = P(U = g(X)) P(V = h(Y)) = g(X)h(Y)?

    Is this the right proof? I hope someone can help me.. =]
     
  5. Sep 12, 2004 #4
    I believe you made a mistake here, it's not

    [tex] f[g(X),h(Y)] = g(x) \cdot h(y)[/tex]

    but it's

    [tex]

    f(X,Y) = g(x) \cdot h(y)

    [/tex]

    You were on the right track, but it should be

    [tex] f(U,V) = g(U)h(V) = g(g(x)) \cdot h(h(y)) [/tex]

    I believe that U and V (g(x) and h(y), respectively) should be independent since Y cannot influence g(x) and X cannot influence h(y) since X and Y are independent. I just don't know how to prove it in mathematical notation, but it's worth a try =)
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A proving on random variables
  1. Random variables (Replies: 2)

  2. Random variables (Replies: 6)

  3. Random variable (Replies: 2)

  4. Random Variable (Replies: 1)

  5. Random variable (Replies: 1)

Loading...