High School Continuous uniform distribution - expected values

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the misunderstanding of calculating the expected value of the length of a square given the area is uniformly distributed. The correct approach involves using integration to find E(L) as E(L) = ∫(A^(1/2)) x (1/5) dA over the interval [15, 20]. Simply taking the square root of the expected area E(A) is incorrect because the expected value of a function of a random variable does not equal the function of the expected value unless the function is linear. The conversation highlights that while both methods may yield similar results in this specific case, they are fundamentally different, especially in broader contexts. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly applying statistical principles.
thebosonbreaker
Messages
32
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
If the area of a square is uniformly distributed over an interval, why is the expected value of the length different to the square root of the expected value of the square's area?
Hello,
I am currently stumped over a question that has to do with the continuous uniform distribution. The question was taken from a stats exam, and while I understand the solution given in the mark scheme, I don't understand why my way of thinking doesn't work.

The problem is:
The sides of a square are of length L cm and its area is A cm^2. Given that A is uniformly distributed on the interval [15, 20], find E(L).

The mark scheme solution uses integration [ by writing L = A^(1/2) ] so that E(L) = ∫(a^(1/2)) x (1/5)da between 15 and 20. I appreciate that this is making use of the fact that E[g(x)] = ∫g(x)f(x) dx for a CRV.

On the other hand, why can't we simply find E(A) and take its square root? If we expect the area to be E(A), is the length when it has this area not equal to the expected length?

If somebody could clarify this I would be very grateful for your help.

PS it just so happens in this case that both methods give you the same answer, but I know that my way is wrong and the mark scheme won't allow it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thebosonbreaker said:
Summary: If the area of a square is uniformly distributed over an interval, why is the expected value of the length different to the square root of the expected value of the square's area?

Hello,
I am currently stumped over a question that has to do with the continuous uniform distribution. The question was taken from a stats exam, and while I understand the solution given in the mark scheme, I don't understand why my way of thinking doesn't work.

The problem is:
The sides of a square are of length L cm and its area is A cm^2. Given that A is uniformly distributed on the interval [15, 20], find E(L).

The mark scheme solution uses integration [ by writing L = A^(1/2) ] so that E(L) = ∫(a^(1/2)) x (1/5)da between 15 and 20. I appreciate that this is making use of the fact that E[g(x)] = ∫g(x)f(x) dx for a CRV.

On the other hand, why can't we simply find E(A) and take its square root? If we expect the area to be E(A), is the length when it has this area not equal to the expected length?

If somebody could clarify this I would be very grateful for your help.

PS it just so happens in this case that both methods give you the same answer, but I know that my way is wrong and the mark scheme won't allow it.

You could look at it the other way round. Suppose the length was uniformly distributed, would that give a uniformly distributed area?

To simplify things you could further consider a simple discrete case.

If the length is ##1, 2## or ##3## with equal probability, then the expected length is ##2##.

But, the area is ##1, 4## or ##9## with equal probability, giving an expected area of ##14/3##.
 
  • Like
Likes thebosonbreaker
thebosonbreaker said:
PS it just so happens in this case that both methods give you the same answer, but I know that my way is wrong and the mark scheme won't allow it.

PS You may approximately get the same answer in this case , but it shouldn't be the same. From that point of view it's a poor question, as the two answers are nearly the same. This is because it's a relatively small interval relative to the starting point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes thebosonbreaker
thebosonbreaker said:
On the other hand, why can't we simply find E(A) and take its square root? If we expect the area to be E(A), is the length when it has this area not equal to the expected length?

It may help your intuition to state it as a generality.

If ##X## is a random variable with expected value ##\mu_X## and ##Y = f(X)## is a function of ##X## then your intuition is that the expected value of ##Y## should be ##f(\mu_X)##.

This works when ##f## is a linear function of ##X##. On the the other hand consider the example of income tax where there are various "brackets" instead of a flat rate. Is the average tax paid by a citizen equal to the tax paid by a citizen who has the average income?
 
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 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K