MHB Exponential distribution question

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the exponential distribution and its related functions, specifically \(R_X(y)\), \(R'_X(y)\), and \(F'_X(0)\). It clarifies that \(R_X(y)\) is defined as \(1 - F_X(y)\), leading to the relationship \(R_X'(y) = -F_X'(y)\) and confirming \(R_X(0) = 1\). The limit process used to derive these functions is explained, emphasizing the connection between the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and the probability density function (PDF). The solution to the differential equation is confirmed as \(R_X(y) = K \cdot e^{R'_X(0) y}\). This discussion highlights the mathematical relationships within the exponential distribution framework.
WMDhamnekar
MHB
Messages
378
Reaction score
30
Hi,
1594715485258.png
1594715729229.png


I want to know how the highlighted steps are arrived at in the first page. What are \(R_X (y), R'_X (y),F'_X (0) ? \)How \(R_X (0) = 1 ?\) Solution to differential equation should be \(R_X (y)=K*e^{\int{R'_X (0) dx}}\) But it is different. How is that?

What is $-R'_X (0)=F'_X(0)=f_X(0)$ I know derivative of CDF is PDF, but in this case it is somewhat difficult to understand.

If any member of MHB knows how to satisfy my queries correctly, may reply to this question:confused::unsure:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Dhamnekar Winod,

In the first step they apply:
$$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{F_X(t)[1-F_X(y)]}{t} = \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{F_X(t)-F_X(0)}{t}\cdot [1-F_X(y)] = F_X'(0)\cdot [1-F_X(y)]$$

Apparently they defined $R_X(y)=1-F_X(y)$ as an intermediate step to solve the differential equation.
It follows that $R_X'(y)=-F_X'(y)$ and $R_X(0)=1$.
The corresponding equation then follows from the previous equation.

The solution of the differential equation is indeed:
$$R_X (y)=K\cdot e^{\displaystyle\int_0^y{R'_X (0) dx}} = K\cdot e^{\displaystyle\big[R'_X (0) x\big]_0^y} = K\cdot e^{R'_X (0) y}$$
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
4K