Are Ratios of IID Exponential Variables Independent of Their Sample Average?

e12514
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have a sample X_1, ..., X_n of independently, identically distributed exponential random variables.

One result I deducted was that the ratio of any two of them (eg. X_1 / X_2) is independent of the sample average 1/n * \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_i.
(Aside: that ratio, as a random variable, has a Pareto distribution)

What's the reasoning/ intuitive appeal behind that? I know that any datapoint from an independently, identically distributed sample is in general not independent of the sample average unless there is zero variance, so.. How do we interpret this result here? Why is the ratio independent of the sample average?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My gut feeling is that this is a manifestation of some sort of scale invariance. Incidentally, we can simplify the situation by doing away with all of the other variables -- we're just looking at the independence of X/Y and X+Y.
 
Are X/Y and X+Y independent (given X and Y are)? I can't seem to show that in general...
 
e12514 said:
Are X/Y and X+Y independent (given X and Y are)? I can't seem to show that in general...

No. Just to pick a simple example, suppose that X and Y are IID taking the values 1,2 each with a 50% probability.

X/Y=1/2 or X/Y = 2/1 <=> X+Y = 3
X/Y = 1 <=> X+Y = 2 or 4

so they aren't independent.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top