Finding the PMF of a function of a discrete random variable

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the probability mass function (PMF) of a new variable Y derived from a discrete random variable K. The PMF of K is defined with specific probabilities for values 0, 1, and 2. Participants clarify that Y takes values based on the transformation Y = 1/(1+K), resulting in Y values of 1, 1/2, and 1/3. The correct approach involves calculating the probabilities for each Y value based on the corresponding K values, emphasizing that the PMF for Y should not solely rely on K's probabilities. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between the variables to accurately derive the PMF for Y.
Bill Headrick
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The discrete random variable K has the following PMF:

p(k) = { 1/6 if k=0
2/6 if k=1
3/6 if k=2
0 otherwise
}

Let Y = 1/(1+K), find the PMF of Y


My attempt:
So, I am really confused about what this is asking.

I took all of my possible K values {0, 1, 2} and plugged them into the formula for Y to get:

Y = {1,1/2,1/3}
Then the only Y value that is also a K value is 1 so:

p(y): {1 if y=1
0 ptherwise
}

This does not look right to me.

Am I approaching this the right way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question is confusing (I don't know what PMF is supposed to be).

The density function for y:
p(y=1) = 1/6, p(y=1/2) = 1/3, p(y=1/3) = 1/2
 
PMF = probability mass function, since this is a discrete random variable the term "density" isn't typically used.
You don't want to base your probabilities for Y only on the ones for K. Think this way.
k = 0 if and only if Y = 1/(1+0) = 1, so p(y=1) = (fill in the blank)
K = 1 if and only if Y = 1/(1 + 1) = 1/2, so p(y = 1/2) = (again, fill in the blank)

Keep going this way.
 
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K