Calculating expected values for a random variable with a continuous distribution

Click For Summary
To calculate E(e^(ax)) for a random variable X with the density f(x)=e^(-2|x|), it is necessary to consider the integral over the entire real line, from -Infinity to Infinity. The function |x| is not integrable as a single definition across the entire range, so it should be broken into two parts: one for x >= 0 and another for x < 0. This approach allows for a completely integrable function over the associated domains. It is essential to solve the expectation separately for these two cases of x to obtain accurate results. This method ensures proper handling of the continuous distribution's characteristics.
Halen
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
X is a random variable with a continuous distribution with density f(x)=e^(-2|x|), x e R
How would you calculate E(e^(ax)) for a e R?

Will it be right to take a certain range of a?
And also, can you take the bounds for the integral to be between -Infinity and Infinity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Halen said:
X is a random variable with a continuous distribution with density f(x)=e^(-2|x|), x e R
How would you calculate E(e^(ax)) for a e R?

Will it be right to take a certain range of a?
And also, can you take the bounds for the integral to be between -Infinity and Infinity?

|x| is not integrable over the whole range with a single definition. It is C0 continuous but you can't differentiate it and get a continuous function over the interval of the reals.

If you want to find the expectation break it up into parts where you have a completely integrable function over the associated domain.

As you know |x| = x if x >= 0 and -x if x < 0. That should hopefully give you a head start.
 
Thank you! Helps indeed!
So do you suggest that i solve it separately for the two cases of x?
 
Yes you will have to do that.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K