CDF: Prove a>0 for F(x) = 1 - e^(-ax) - axe^(-ax)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fateswarm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cdf Probabilities
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the function F(x) = 1 - e^(-ax) - axe^(-ax) defined for x≥0, and the participants are exploring the conditions under which this function can be classified as a cumulative distribution function (CDF). The primary focus is on determining the values of 'a' that ensure F(x) meets the necessary properties of a CDF.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the requirement that F(x1) > F(x2) for x1 > x2 and question the implications of this for the parameter 'a'. There are considerations about the conditions F(x) ≥ 0 and F(x) ≤ 1, as well as the behavior of the derivative of F. Some participants suggest checking the derivative to confirm that it is non-negative, while others express uncertainty about solving inequalities related to F(x).

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various approaches being explored. Some participants have suggested checking the derivative and the conditions for F(x) to be non-negative and bounded by 1. There is recognition of the need to consider the implications of 'a' being negative or zero, and how that affects the properties of F(x).

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the integral of the associated function f(x) and its behavior as x approaches infinity. There is mention of the need for further exploration in a subsequent question regarding the probability density function (pdf).

fateswarm
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given the function F(x) = 1 - e^(-ax) - axe^(-ax) for x>=0 and 0 elsewhere, for which values of 'a' does the function constitute a CDF?

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I started with saying for that to occur, provided x1>x2 -> F(x1) > F(x2)

Though I've only managed to say for x1=0 and x2=1 -> a>0 but I'm not sure if it's an unequivocal answer.

How can I prove it decisively?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fateswarm said:
I started with saying for that to occur, provided x1>x2 -> F(x1) > F(x2)
That should be ≥.

What about F(x)≥0? F(x)≤1?
Did you check the derivative?

If all of them are fine, you are done.
 
If you want to show that F is an increasing function, then show that its derivative is never negative.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
HallsofIvy said:
If you want to show that F is an increasing function, then show that its derivative is never negative.

Oh, good idea (+thanks). I'll look into it. I may return if I see an issue.
 
I've got a bit of trouble. The derivative>0 appears to conclude to (a^2)xe^(-ax)>0 which appears to be true for any 'a' belonging in IR. It appears to be more direct to do 0<=F(x)<=1 which appears to conclude to 0<=(e^-ax)(1-ax)<=1 but how do I learn how to solve that inequality?
 
fateswarm said:
I've got a bit of trouble. The derivative>0 appears to conclude to (a^2)xe^(-ax)>0 which appears to be true for any 'a' belonging in IR. It appears to be more direct to do 0<=F(x)<=1 which appears to conclude to 0<=(e^-ax)(1-ax)<=1 but how do I learn how to solve that inequality?

Aren't you forgetting something very important? If ##f(x) = a^2 x e^{-ax} 1_{\{x \geq 0 \}},## then you need two things:
(1) \; f(x) \geq 0 \text{ for all }x; \text{ and }\\<br /> (2)\; \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) \, dx = 1.
In the current case the integral goes from 0 to ∞ because f(x) = 0 for x < 0. So, if you have a = 0 do these conditions hold? What about if a < 0?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Well I can I show that for a negative 'a' F will not be approaching 1 for x->+oo. The integral of f(x) between 0 and +oo appears to be 'a' times the expected value of any Exp(a) so it's 1 for any 'a', hrm.. provided a>0 (for any Exp(a)) so I guess that might be enough. It's a bit confusing since the exercise goes on to ask for the fx(x) in a later question so I'm unsure if it needs it exposed directly on this first question.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K