Expected value of bernoulli random variable.

Click For Summary
A Bernoulli random variable X has outcomes of 1 with probability p and 0 with probability 1-p, leading to an expected value of E(X) = p. The law of large numbers indicates that in a large number of independent trials, the average outcome will approximate this expected value. The discussion clarifies that the success fraction is calculated as the number of successes divided by the total number of trials, reinforcing that k/n equals p. Misunderstandings arise when considering the average of successes and failures; however, as n increases, the average outcome converges to the expected value. Overall, the concept emphasizes the relationship between probability and the average outcome in repeated trials.
kidsasd987
Messages
142
Reaction score
4
"Let X be a Bernoulli random variable. That is, P(X = 1) = p and P(X = 0) = 1 − p. Then E(X) = 1 × p + 0 × (1 − p) = p. Why does this definition make sense? By the law of large numbers, in n independent Bernoulli trials where n is very large, the fraction of 1’s is very close to p, and the fraction of 0’s is very close to 1 − p. So, the average of the outcomes of n independent Bernoulli trials is very close to 1 × p + 0 × (1 − p)."
I don't understand why it gives the average of 1 × p + 0 × (1 − p).
So, we are given with total n number of independent trials. Then, let's say we have k number of success, and n-k number of failures.

then, 1*p*k will be our success fraction, and (1-p)(n-k)*0 will be the failure fraction. If we find the average for n trials, it must be pk/n.

how do we have 1 × p + 0 × (1 − p) as our average
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kidsasd987 said:
then, 1*p*k will be our success fraction, and (1-p)(n-k)*0 will be the failure fraction.
Hi kidsasd:

This is where you went astray. Your success fraction is the number of successes divided by the number of trials, that is, k/n = pn/n = p.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi kidsasd:

This is where you went astray. Your success fraction is the number of successes divided by the number of trials, that is, k/n = pn/n = p.

Regards,
Buzz

Thanks. But I guess n number of independant trials has to consist of number of success k and failure (n-k). Since each trial is independent, thus we cannot have success only.

for example, if I toss a fair coin i'd observe two possible outcomes. Head and tail. If I toss a coin n times, it would not give all head or all tail. that's what I thuoght, and why I introduced k. Please correct me where I got this wrong.
 
kidsasd987 said:
Thanks. But I guess it(n number of independant trials) has to be divided into number of success k and failure (n-k). Since each trial is independent, we cannot have success only.
Hi kidsasd:

You said:
kidsasd987 said:
So, we are given with total n number of independent trials. Then, let's say we have k number of success, and n-k number of failures.

Do you agree that the "success fraction" is the number of successes divided by the number of trials? If so, then what is the number of successes, and what is the number of trials?

Regards,
Buzz
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi kidsasd:

You said:Do you agree that the "success fraction" is the number of successes divided by the number of trials? If so, then what is the number of successes, and what is the number of trials?

Regards,
Buzz
isn't success fraction, 1*P(X=1)*k?
where number of trials=n, and number of success=k.

avg={1*P(X=1)*k+P(X=0)*(n-k)*0}/n
Oh now I see where I got it wrong.

so if n is a small number then there is a greater possibility of deviating the fraction but such trend is minimized as we set n to a large number.

Thanks!
 
Hi kidsasd:

Glad to have been of help.

Regards,
Buzz
 
  • Like
Likes kidsasd987
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 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K