MHB Can PMF and MGF Be Directly Summed for Poisson and Exponential Variables?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nacho-man
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the probability mass function (PMF) and moment generating function (MGF) of Poisson and exponential random variables can be directly summed. Participants express confusion about the clarity of the problem statement, particularly regarding the identification of a distribution. The PMF for the Poisson distribution is provided, along with its MGF, which helps clarify the mathematical approach. There is a consensus that the question lacks clarity, but the provided information is deemed helpful for further understanding. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of clear problem statements in mathematical discussions.
nacho-man
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
is part a) simply the sum of the PMFs of the poisson and exponential random variables we are given?

I can't quite make sense of this question. Where it says "identify a distribution..."
is it looking for us to say something like a gamma random variable or a geometric random variable etc?

thank you!
 

Attachments

  • ass q1.jpg
    ass q1.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 96
Physics news on Phys.org
nacho said:
is part a) simply the sum of the PMFs of the poisson and exponential random variables we are given?

I can't quite make sense of this question. Where it says "identify a distribution..."
is it looking for us to say something like a gamma random variable or a geometric random variable etc?

thank you!

The statement of the problem is not clear at 100 x 100, but what I undestand is the PMF and MGF of the number N of customers arriving in a time T. N is Poisson distributed so that the PMF is... $\displaystyle P \{ N = n \} = \frac{(\beta\ T)^{n}}{n!}\ e^{- \beta\ T}\ (1)$ ... and the MGF is... $\displaystyle E \{ e^{N\ t}\} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P \{N = n\}\ e^{n\ t} = e^{\beta\ T\ (e^t-1)}\ (2)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma, a million thank yous are not enough to express my gratitude for you.

someone make this man a mod, he is legendary.

i am also happy that you also thought the question wasn't clear, that gives me some confidence :)

Thanks again, this is enough to get me started on the rest !
 
nacho said:
... someone make this man a mod, he is legendary...

Thank for Your compliments!... regarding the 'moderation' I consider myself totally unable to cover the role of moderator because I think that, in a family of people with the ideal to promote the mathematical knowledge, the figure of moderator shouldn't be necessary. For that reason I prefer to remain 'site helper' and to continue to do my best possible to MHB...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
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.