Finding Covariance with Joint PDF and Distribution Table: How to Solve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter laura_a
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Covariance Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the covariance of two random variables, X and Y, given a joint probability density function (pdf) f_{XY}(x,y) = (2+x+y)/8. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the application of the covariance formula and the interpretation of expected values.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the covariance formula and its components, questioning the meaning of E(X - mu) equating to zero. There is an exploration of the relationship between the joint pdf and the correlation of variables, with emphasis on the necessity of evaluating expectation values through integration.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the evaluation of expectation values and the importance of normalization of the pdf. There is recognition of the need to clarify the domain of integration and the implications of non-normalizable distributions.

Contextual Notes

The domain of the random variables is specified as -1 < x < 1 and -1 < y < 1. Participants also reflect on the general requirement for the pdf to integrate to 1 for proper normalization.

laura_a
Messages
64
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have a joint pdf f_{XY}(x,y) = (2+x+y)/8

and I have to find cov(x,y)

Homework Equations


Now I know the formula is cov(X,Y)=E((X-mu)(Y-v)) where E(X)=mu and E(Y)=v

Well I found that formula on wikipedia, but it doesn't make sense to me because if E(X)=mu then doesn't E(X-mu) equal zero?

Well that's my main problem, I don't know how to use the formula.

The Attempt at a Solution



I've worked out the distribution table to see if that would help

. . . . y
. . . -1___0___1
. -1 0, 1/8, 1/4 (X=-1) =3/8
x 0 1/8, 1/4, 3/8 (X=0) =3/4
. .1 1/4, 3/8, 1/2 (X=1)=1/18
(Y=-1) = 3/8 (Y=0)=3/4 (Y=1) = 1/1/8

Sorry its not in LaTex I couldn't remember how to start the code.

I've also worked out that the var(Y) = 1 if that is any help? I have an exam on this very soon and I really want to be able to get a hold of all the main concepts... thanks for any information
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cov(X,Y) = E[(X-\mu)(Y-\nu)] = E(X Y) - \mu \nu

You are right to say that E(X) = \mu, E(Y) = \nu which is why the cross terms are gone, but...

since the pdf is not separable the variables are correlated and E(XY) \neq E(X) E(Y) and your expression is non-zero.

You must evaluate the expectation values by integration. What is your domain? I ask that because it can't be over the whole space, because your pdf would be non-normalizable.
 
The expectation value for a random variable, say for example X^3 Y^2, is given by

E(X^3 Y^2) = \int dx dy f(x,y) x^3 y^2 if your distribution is already normalized else it's given by

E(X^3 Y^2) = \frac{\int dx dy f(x,y) x^3 y^2}{\int dx dy f(x,y)}
 
The domain is -1 < x < 1 and -1 < y < 1
 
DavidWhitbeck said:
The expectation value for a random variable, say for example X^3 Y^2, is given by

E(X^3 Y^2) = \int dx dy f(x,y) x^3 y^2 if your distribution is already normalized else it's given by

E(X^3 Y^2) = \frac{\int dx dy f(x,y) x^3 y^2}{\int dx dy f(x,y)}

Out of curiosity, why would she need to normalize it? From what I understand normalizing would be done to find the correlation matrix.
 
Last edited:
exk said:
Out of curiosity, why would she need to normalize it? From what I understand normalizing would be done to find the correlation matrix.

Well the expectation value/mean/average wouldn't be uniquely defined otherwise. It has nothing to do with the correlation matrix, it has to do with the fact that E(1) = \int f dA = P(\textup{entire domain}) = 1. See, it's just one step from an axiom of probability theory.
 
Ah of course. I usually check that the pdf integrates to 1 over the domain (general case with classroom problems) and it slipped my mind that this may not be a case like that.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K