MHB Given probability density function find its cumulative distribution function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the cumulative distribution function (CDF) from a given probability density function (PDF) of a random variable X. The user attempted two integration methods to derive the CDF, both involving the arctangent function. The correct CDF is identified as (2/π)arctan(x) + 1/2, with a note on a minor error in the closing parenthesis in the user's second attempt. The forum members confirm that the second method is the appropriate approach for determining the CDF. The conversation highlights the importance of careful notation in mathematical expressions.
sofanglom
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi :) Here's my problem along with what I've done.

Here is the problem:

View attachment 8716

That is the p.d.f. of a random variable X.

I have to find the cdf. I don't know which I should do so I tried it two ways. First:

$\int_{-1}^{1} \ \frac{2}{\pi(1+x^{2})} dx = {{\frac{2}{\pi} arctan(x)]}^{1}}_{-1}=1$

Second:

$\int_{-1}^{x} \ \frac{2}{\pi(1+t^{2})} dt = {{\frac{2}{\pi} arctan(x)]}^{x}}_{-1}=\frac{2(arctan(x)+\frac{\pi}{4}}{\pi}$

Which one is the required CDF for X?
 

Attachments

  • save.PNG
    save.PNG
    1.6 KB · Views: 100
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

Which one is the required CDF for X?
The second one, except for the missing closing parenthesis. That is, the CDF is $\dfrac{2}{\pi}\arctan x+\dfrac12$.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top