Calculating Expectation for a Random Walk with a Time-Varying Function

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Random
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the expectation of a random walk represented by the function X(n) = ∑_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} f(n-k), where f(n) takes values of +/- 1 with equal probability. The expectation of X(n) can be expressed as = ∑_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} . Given that = 0, it follows that = 0, provided that μ is a constant and independent of f(n). The confirmation of μ as a constant solidifies the conclusion that the expectation remains zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of random variables and their expectations
  • Familiarity with the concept of a random walk
  • Knowledge of exponential functions and their properties
  • Basic principles of probability theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the properties of random walks in probability theory
  • Study the implications of time-varying functions in stochastic processes
  • Learn about the application of exponential decay in random processes
  • Investigate the role of constants in expectation calculations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, statisticians, and data scientists interested in stochastic processes, particularly those analyzing random walks and their expectations.

Steve10
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I have a random function f(n) which takes the values +/- 1 with equal probability.
Let the variable X take the sum of the values of f(n) after n steps. Then I can write,
[tex]X(T) = \sum_{n=0}^T f(n)[/tex] where T = 0,1,2,... and X(0) = 0.
And I can write the expectation of X as,
[tex]<X> = < \sum_{n=0}^T f(n) > = \sum_{n=0}^T <f(n) > = 0[/tex] since <f(n)> = 0 (by definition).
My question:
if, instead [tex]X(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} f(n-k)[/tex] then, for the expectaion of X, can I write,
[tex]< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} < f(n-k) >[/tex]
or even,
[tex]< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n < e^{-\mu k}> < f(n-k) >[/tex]
If I can do either of the above then can I also use <f(n)> = 0 to say that <X(n)> = 0, which I'm pretty sure it would have to be to answer the rest of my question.

TIA
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You left out one important definition - what is mu? Is it a random variable or is it a constant? If it is random, how does it relate to f(n)? If it is constant or independent of f(n), then your conclusion is correct.
 
Thanks, I should have mentined that about mu. It is a constant value.
So I was correct after all. :smile:
I guess that's just as well, since I'm already typing up my results based on that conclusion!
Many thanks for the confirmation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K