Cumulative distributed function example

xeon123
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
I was looking to a video about cumulative distribution function () and he show the following function:\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | 1/4, 0 \leq x \leq1 \\<br /> f(x) =&lt;(x^3)/5, 1 \leq x \leq 2 \\<br /> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |0, otherwise.

At minute 8:45, he presents the cumulative distribution as:<br /> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | 0, x \leq 0 \\<br /> F(x) = &lt; \frac{1}{4}x, 0 \leq x \leq 1 \\<br /> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | \frac{1}{20}(x^4+4), 1 \leq x \leq 2 \\<br /> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | 1, \ x \geq 2<br />

I don't understand why F(x) is 1 for x \geq 2, if f(x) is 0, otherwise. Why?BTW, I hope that that my functions are legibles, because I don't know how to put big curly brackets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
xeon123 said:
I don't understand why F(x) is 1 for x \geq 2, if f(x) is 0, otherwise. Why?

Look at a simpler example. Suppose f(x) = 1/2 when x = 1 or x = 2 and f(x) = 0 otherwise. The value of the cumulative distribution F(x) would be 1 at x = 3 because F(3) gives the probability that x is equal or less than 3. The condition that x is equal or less than 3 includes the cases x = 1 and x = 2.
 
I understand what you said, but the probability of happening 3 is 0, because it's not defined in f(x). For me, F(3) should never be defined.
 
xeon123 said:
F(3) should never be defined.

Do you mean "should" in some moral or religious sense? Mathematics would only care about you opinion if you could show some logical contradiction in the standard definition of cumulative distribution function.

because it's not defined in f(x).

It is defined in the domain of f(x). f(3) = 0. That's part of the "f(x) = 0 otherwise" clause.
 
Last edited:
xeon123 said:
I understand what you said, but the probability of happening 3 is 0, because it's not defined in f(x). For me, F(3) should never be defined.
You seem to be thinking that "F(3)" is the probability that x is equal to 3. That is not the case. F(X) is the probability that x is less than or equal to 3. Since, by the definition of f(x), x must be less than or equal to 2, x therefore must be less than or equal to 3. F(x)= 1 for any number larger than or equal to 2.

If f(x) is the "probability density function" then F(X)= \int_{-\infty}^X f(x)dx is the probability that x is less than or equal to X.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top