What is the Confidence Limit for p in f(x;p)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter legatus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding a one-sided lower confidence limit for p in the equation f(x;p) = p*f(x) + (1-p)*g(x), where f(x) and g(x) are probability density functions of normal distributions. Participants express confusion over the implications of combining these pdfs and the resulting distribution of f(x;p). Clarifications are made regarding the relationship between scaling a pdf and the corresponding random variable, emphasizing that linear combinations of pdfs must meet specific criteria. Ultimately, the consensus is that the distribution of f(x;p) is not crucial for solving the problem, and the CDF transform technique can be applied to simplify the analysis. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment that the initial confusion has been resolved.
legatus
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Let f(x;p) = p*f(x) + (1-p)*g(x) where f(x) is the pdf of r.v. X1 dist N(1,1) and g(x) is the pdf of r.v. X2 dist N(0,1). Find one-sided lower confidence limit for p based on a sample size n=1.

This question has been driving me crazy. Everything that I've tried seems to be going nowhere, am I missing something obvious. What's throwing me off is that the new pdf is a sum of two others, and its not entirely obvious what the distribution f(x;p) looks like.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cZ~N(cmu,c^2sigma^2) where Z~N(mu,sigma^2)

and X+Y~N(mu_x+mu_y,sigma_x^2+sigma_y^2) (assuming x and y are independent).
 
thanks for the response,

just a clarification, I don't see how it's entirely obvious that c*f(x) is equivalent to cX. The latter is a pretty obvious result from MGF's but the former I'm not sure about.
 
Hmmm?

Please clarify what you mean.

c*f_x(x) is not the density function for cX. Unless, c=1.
 
its alright, I have it.

To answer your question, that's exactly what I meant. cX is not equivalent to c*f(x)

But from you're earlier post, you just stated that a linear combination of normal variables is also normal. Thats only true when we're talking about the random variable itself, not its pdf. I was curious about the linear combination of the pdf of normal variables.

However, the answer doesn't depend on the distribution of f(x;p) anyways, so its all a moot point either way, just use the CDF transform technique and it becomes uniform(0,1).
 
Linear combinations of pdfs don't make sense unless a) they integrate to probability 1 and b) they are nonnegative.

cf(x) integreates to c whenever f(x) is a pdf.
 
thats pretty obvious, i don't see how it helps with the question, its figured out anyways
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K