Can var(x+y) Be Less Than or Equal to 2(var(x) + var(y))?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbilsback5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the inequality var(x+y) ≤ 2(var(x) + var(y)). The proof begins with the equation var(x+y) = var(x) + var(y) + 2cov(x,y) and utilizes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to establish that cov(x,y) squared is less than or equal to the product of var(x) and var(y). By manipulating the terms, it is shown that 2cov(x,y) can be bounded by the sum of the variances, leading to the desired inequality. The conclusion reinforces the relationship between variances and covariance, highlighting the importance of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in this context. This proof effectively demonstrates the stated inequality.
kbilsback5
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was hoping that someone might be able to please help me with this proof.

Prove that var(x+y) ≤ 2(var(x) + var(y)).

So far I have:

var(x+y) = var(x) + var(y) + 2cov(x,y)

where the cov(x,y) = E(xy) - E(x)E(y), but I'm not really sure to go from there.
Any insight would be very helpful!

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let \alpha=var(x),\beta=var(y),\gamma=cov(x,y). According to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%E2%80%93Schwarz_inequality for the proof), \gamma^{2}\leq{}\alpha\beta. We want to show \alpha{}+\beta{}+2\gamma\leq{}2(\alpha{}+\beta), which follows directly from

2\gamma\leq{}2(\gamma^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq{}2(\alpha\beta)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq{}2(\frac{\alpha{}+\beta}{2})\leq{}\alpha{}+\beta

where (\alpha\beta)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq{}\frac{\alpha{}+\beta}{2} follows from the well-known fact that the geometric mean is always smaller than the arithmetic mean (see http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/corollary.shtml for proof).
 
Awesome! Thanks so much for your help!
 
You are welcome.
 
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...
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.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top