About the joint density function

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, an example is provided where two random variables, x and y, each have their own probability density functions (pdfs), but their joint density function does not exist. This occurs when y is defined as a linear transformation of x, specifically y = 2*x, resulting in the joint distribution being concentrated on a set of measure 0 in the x-y plane. Consequently, there is no joint pdf since it cannot integrate to 1 over a set of measure 0. The conversation emphasizes the difficulty in interpreting this concept, particularly regarding the existence of a derivative of the signed measure. Overall, the explanation clarifies the relationship between individual and joint distributions in probability theory.
simpleeyelid
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Could anyone help to give an example

where in the same proba space, x and y have each the density function, while the joint density function does not exist?

Thanks in advance,

Best regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, that's easy. Let x be any r.v. with a pdf. Then, let y = 2*x. Thus, y also has a pdf, but the joint distribution is entirely concentrated on a set of measure 0 (in the x-y plane, that is), and so there is no joint pdf.
 
First, thanks very much indeed..

but, yes, honestly, not easy for me, I have to think about it...

how to interpret this by saying the derivative of the signed measure does not exsit??
 
could we say that, since y=2x is a line in R², we have nothing to integrate? sorry that I am so unintuitive...
 
Basically, yeah. Since the joint distribution is only nonzero on a set of measure 0 (in the xy plane), you can't have a bounded function that integrates to 1 over it (i.e., a joint pdf).
 
OK, thanks for this, really clear explanation, best wishes for you~
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top