Steve10
- 14
- 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,
X(T) = \sum_{n=0}^T f(n) where T = 0,1,2,... and X(0) = 0.
And I can write the expectation of X as,
<X> = < \sum_{n=0}^T f(n) > = \sum_{n=0}^T <f(n) > = 0 since <f(n)> = 0 (by definition).
My question:
if, instead X(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} f(n-k) then, for the expectaion of X, can I write,
< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} < f(n-k) >
or even,
< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n < e^{-\mu k}> < f(n-k) >
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
Let the variable X take the sum of the values of f(n) after n steps. Then I can write,
X(T) = \sum_{n=0}^T f(n) where T = 0,1,2,... and X(0) = 0.
And I can write the expectation of X as,
<X> = < \sum_{n=0}^T f(n) > = \sum_{n=0}^T <f(n) > = 0 since <f(n)> = 0 (by definition).
My question:
if, instead X(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} f(n-k) then, for the expectaion of X, can I write,
< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n e^{-\mu k} < f(n-k) >
or even,
< X(n)> = \sum_{k=0}^n < e^{-\mu k}> < f(n-k) >
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: