MHB Charasteristic function of integer valued distribution

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the probability mass function of an integer-valued distribution can be derived from its characteristic function using the formula p(k) = (1/2π) ∫ from -π to π e^(-ikt)φ(t) dt for all k in Z. Key to this proof is the integral property that states ∫ from -π to π e^(-ikt)e^(ilt) dt equals 2π when k equals l, and 0 otherwise. The approach involves changing the order of integration and summation in the integral of the characteristic function. Participants express gratitude for assistance in understanding this mathematical concept. The conversation emphasizes the relationship between characteristic functions and probability mass functions in integer-valued distributions.
bennyzadir
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
How to prove that if $\varphi$ is the characteristic function of an integer valued distribution, then the probability mass function can be computed as
$ p(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \cdot \int^{\pi}_{-\pi} e^{-ikt}\varphi(t) dt \;,\forall k \in \mathbb{Z} $

I would be really grateful if you could help me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zadir said:
How to prove that if $\varphi$ is the characteristic function of an integer valued distribution, then the probability mass function can be computed as
$ p(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \cdot \int^{\pi}_{-\pi} e^{-ikt}\varphi(t) dt \;,\forall k \in \mathbb{Z} $

I would be really grateful if you could help me.

You need to know that:

\( \displaystyle \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} e^{-ikt}e^{ilt}\; dt=2 \pi\) if \(k=l\) and \(0\) otherwise.

Then you just change the order of integration and summation in \( \int_{-pi}^{\pi} e^{-kt}\phi(t)\; dt\) to get the required result.

CB
 
CaptainBlack said:
You need to know that:

\( \displaystyle \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} e^{-ikt}e^{ilt}\; dt=2 \pi\) if \(k=l\) and \(0\) otherwise.

Then you just change the order of integration and summation in \( \int_{-pi}^{\pi} e^{-kt}\phi(t)\; dt\) to get the required result.

CB

Thank you so much!
 
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 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K