Finding probability using moment-generating functions

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a probability question using moment-generating functions from Schaum's Outline of Probability. The initial problem involves finding P(X=0) and P(X=1) given the moment-generating function 0.2 + 0.8e^t. A participant initially misinterprets the equation for P(X=0) but receives clarification that the random variable X only takes values 0 and 1, indicating it follows a Bernoulli distribution. The correct interpretation leads to the conclusion that P(X=0) equals 0.2, resolving the confusion.
brogrammer
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm working through Schaum's Outline of Probability, Random Variables, and Random Processes, and am stuck on a question about moment-generating functions. If anyone has the 2nd edition, it is question 4.60, part (b).

The question gives the following initial information: E[X^k]=0.8 for k = 1, 2, ... and the moment generating function is: 0.2+0.8\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{t^k}{k!}=0.2+0.8e^t.

The question is asking to find P(X=0) and P(X=1). I'm trying to do the first part and solve P(X=0). By the definition of a moment-generating function for discrete random variables, I know I can use the following equation:

\sum_{i}e^{tx_i}p_X(x_i)=0.2+0.8e^t

For P(X=0), the above equation becomes: e^{t(0)}p_X(0)=0.2+0.8e^t. The LHS simplifies to p_X(0) which means P(X=0)=0.2+0.8e^t. But I know that is not the right answer. The right answer is P(X=0)=0.2.

Can someone please show me where I'm going wrong? Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey brogrammer and welcome to the forums.

If you expand the sum and plug in the values for i you will get e^(0t)P(X=0) + e^(1t)P(X=1) = 0.2 + 0.8e^t = P(X=0) + e^(t)*P(X=1)

Now can you equate like terms with co-effecients?
 
Chiro -

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. My thick brain didn't realize that the question wants me to see that the sample space for the r.v. X is just 0 and 1, i.e. a Bernoulli trial. Now it makes sense.

Thanks man.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K