Undergrad Expected number of random variables that must be observed

Click For Summary
The expected number of random variables to be observed is calculated as E[N] = p^{-4}q^{-3} + p^{-2}q^{-1} + 2p^{-1}. There was a discussion about a potential typographical error in the expression for XN, which should be corrected to XN = p^{-4}q^{-3} - p^{-3}q^{-2} - p^{-2}q^{-1} - p^{-1}. The author’s answer to part (a) was confirmed as correct, while another participant acknowledged their mistake. The method used in the calculations was praised as innovative and effective. Overall, the conversation focused on clarifying the correct formulas and acknowledging errors in the initial responses.
WMDhamnekar
MHB
Messages
378
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Expected number of random variables that must be observed before any specific sequence.
1681819271091.png

1681819316814.png

In my opinion, answer to (a) is ## \mathbb{E} [N] = p^{-4}q^{-3} + p^{-2}q^{-1} + 2p^{-1} ##
In answer to (b), XN is wrong. It should be XN=p-4q-3 - p-3 q-2- p-2 q-1 - p-1. This might be a typographical error.
Is my answer to (a) correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WMDhamnekar said:
In my opinion, answer to (a) is ## \mathbb{E} [N] = p^{-4}q^{-3} + p^{-2}q^{-1} + 2p^{-1} ##
Please explain your reasoning.

For b) I agree with you.
 
haruspex said:
Please explain your reasoning.

For b) I agree with you.
Answer to (a) given by author is correct. My answer is wrong. Thanks for bringing my error to my notice.
 
WMDhamnekar said:
Answer to (a) given by author is correct. My answer is wrong. Thanks for bringing my error to my notice.
You are welcome.
I had never seen this method before. It's brilliant- thanks for posting.
 
  • Like
Likes WMDhamnekar
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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K