Conditional Probability: Converting CDF to PDF for Independent Random Variables

AI Thread Summary
To convert a conditional cumulative distribution function (CDF) to a conditional probability density function (PDF) for independent random variables, the relationship f(X|Y) = f(X) is utilized, derived from the independence property f(X ∩ Y) = f(X)f(Y). A LaTeX document was created to illustrate this derivation, but concerns were raised about the integration approach used. Specifically, it was noted that the integral should be taken with respect to x while fixing y, rather than the other way around. Additionally, the discussion highlighted that certain inequalities cannot always be simplified into a standard form, emphasizing the complexity of the problem. This exploration aims to clarify the derivation process for a homework problem that is not covered in traditional textbooks.
joshthekid
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Basically I am wondering how you deal with a conditional cdf and turning that into a conditional pdf when the random variables are independent. I know that f(X|Y) =f(X)f(Y)/f(Y)=f(X)

I tried to derive this in a nice attached laTex document but it does not seem right to me.

Note(this is for a homework problem but this is only a derivation I am trying to use to solve it so I decided to post it here because it is not a textbook problem)
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I have only seen this explained as
##f(X|Y) = \frac{f(X \cap Y)}{f(Y)} ## where ##f(X \cap Y) = f(X)f(Y)## by the definition of independence.
In your work, it seems like in part (6) you were taking the integral with respect to y, where you should be considering a fixed y and taking the integral with respect to x.
I have not put pen to paper, but it looks like that could get you something in a more recognizable form.
 
The inequality g(x,y) < z can't necessarily be rewritten in the form x < h(y,z).

For example, the solution x^2 + y < z might require that x be in an interval of the form -a < x < a rather than in an interval of the form x < a.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top