1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

First central moment

  1. Apr 14, 2007 #1
    The "first central moment" of a real-valued function

    [tex]\mu_1 \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty (x - \mu) f(x)\,dx = 0[/tex]

    where

    [tex]\mu \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty x\, f(x)\,dx[/tex]

    so we have

    [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty (x - \left ( \int_{-\infty}^\infty x\, f(x)\,dx \right ) ) f(x)\,dx = 0[/tex]

    Intuitively, it seems to make sense, but how do we manipulate those integrals to prove this equality?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 14, 2007 #2

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This equality, as you have expressed it, is not true. I can easily come up with a counterexample. There are at least a couple of things you can change to make a true equality.

    This looks like homework. You need to show some work before people here will help you.
     
  4. Apr 14, 2007 #3
    1. It's not homework.

    2. Perhaps I should have specified that f(x) is a probability distribution. As for it not being true, I have read it in a number of places such as
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Moment.html
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(mathematics)
    and elsewhere.

    The the reason I posted the question is that I realized that I have no idea how to manipulate an integral that contains an integral as part of the integrand, so trying to "show some work" would be pointless. If you know how, I would appreciate any help or examples of how to handle such a function.
     
  5. Apr 14, 2007 #4

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Perhaps you should have. You said [itex]f(x)[/itex] is a real-valued function. The relation is true only if [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)dx = 1[/itex].

    Use the fact that f(x) has unit area.
     
  6. Apr 14, 2007 #5
    Sorry, I still don't see it.

    I want to show that

    [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty x f(x)\,dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(\int_{-\infty}^\infty x\, f(x)\,dx \right ) f(x)\,dx[/tex]

    That would be obvious (given the fact that [itex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)\,dx = 1[/itex] if I could say

    [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(\int_{-\infty}^\infty x\, f(x)\,dx \right ) f(x)\,dx = \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)\,dx \cdot \int_{-\infty}^\infty x\, f(x)\,dx[/itex]

    but what gives me the right to do that? The only thing I've seen that allows that is Fubini's theorem, which I thought is only valid over a rectangle. I can't call this a rectangle, can I?
     
  7. Apr 14, 2007 #6

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What gives you the right to do that is that "dx" is a dummy variable. The inner integral is just a number.

    Look back to your original post:

    [tex]\mu_1 \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(x-\mu)f(x)dx[/tex]

    [itex]\mu[/itex] is is just a number. Thus

    [tex]\mu_1 = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}xf(x)dx - \mu\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f(x)dx[/tex]

    The first term is just [itex]\mu[/itex] by definition. The second term is also [itex]\mu[/itex] since [itex]f(x)[/itex] is a probability distribution function. Thus [itex]\mu_1 = 0[/itex].
     
  8. Apr 14, 2007 #7
    Heh heh...

    I tried to tell myself that before posting the original question, but my self was not convinced. What's not quite clear to me is exactly when is the inner integral "just a number"?

    Is the inner integral "just a number", and can I always do this...

    [tex]\int_a^b \left(\int_c^d f(x)\,dx \right ) f(y)\,dy = \int_a^b f(y)\,dy \cdot \int_c^d f(x)\,dx[/tex]

    as long as c and d are not functions of y?

    (Surely it's not ALWAYS just a number, or there would be no need for Fubini, right?)
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2007
  9. Apr 14, 2007 #8

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's not a number when it's a function.

    In other words, this is not valid:

    [tex]\int_a^b\int_c^d f(x,y) dy\; g(x) dx = \int_c^d f(x,y) dy \int_a^bg(x) dx[/tex]

    because [itex]\int f(x,y) dy[/itex] is a function of x.
     
  10. Apr 14, 2007 #9
    I think we're saying essentially the same thing with different examples.

    Compromising...in

    [tex]\int_a^b\int_{h_1(x)}^{h_2(x)} f(y) dy\; g(x) dx = \int_c^d f(x,y) dy \int_a^bg(x) dx[/tex]

    isn't

    [tex]\int_{h_1(x)}^{h_2(x)} f(y) dy[/tex]

    also a function of x?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: First central moment
  1. First principles (Replies: 2)

  2. First variation (Replies: 1)

  3. First Derivative (Replies: 5)

Loading...