How Can I Prove the Independence of Functions of Independent Random Variables?

franz32
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hello, I need some help on the independence of random variables...
"How do I prove that if X and Y are two independent random variables, then U=g(X) and V = h(Y) are also independent?"

- Isn`t that if random variables X and Y are independent, it implies
that f(x,y) = g(x)h(y) and vice versa? Also, note that g(x) and h(y) are
two marginals. But what I don`t understand is that what does it mean to
have U = g(X) to be a capital "X"?

- {then U=g(X) and V = h(Y) are also independent} what am I supposed to
show in this proof? And lastly, what is my first step/strategy in proving
this? Hope you can give me hints.. =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
U is g of the random variable X. You do this all the time, such as when working out the variance: it is
E(X^2)-E(X)^2, So there's a function of a random variable there (X^2).

Are these continuous of discrete R.V.'s? Not that it matters two much. If it 's continuous look at the pdf of the joind dist. since g is a function of X alone, and h a function of Y alone the double integrals INT dxdy split as int dx int dy. If discrete replace integrals with sums.
 
Sir matt grime/anyone... =]
I hope someone can guide me.
I want to prove first the continuous. So, the joint pdf can be described as

f[g(X),h(Y)] = INTaINTb g(x)h(y) dx dy -> am I right here?
where a and b are arbitrary intervals.
= INTa h(y) [INTb g(x)dx] dy -> h(y) is treated as a constant.
= [INTb g(x)dx] [INTa h(y)dy] -> [INTb g(x)dx] is now a constant
= g(X) h(Y)

I believe I got screwed up in my notations... is this the proof? I hope it is.. but can someone help me edit this... will I use u's and v's here?... I think not.

For the discrete case...

f(g(X), h(Y)) = P(U = g(X), V = h(Y)) = P(U = g(X)) P(V = h(Y)) = g(X)h(Y)?

Is this the right proof? I hope someone can help me.. =]
 
franz32 said:
f[g(X),h(Y)] = INTaINTb g(x)h(y) dx dy -> am I right here?
where a and b are arbitrary intervals.
= INTa h(y) [INTb g(x)dx] dy -> h(y) is treated as a constant.
= [INTb g(x)dx] [INTa h(y)dy] -> [INTb g(x)dx] is now a constant
= g(X) h(Y)

I believe you made a mistake here, it's not

f[g(X),h(Y)] = g(x) \cdot h(y)

but it's

<br /> <br /> f(X,Y) = g(x) \cdot h(y)<br /> <br />

You were on the right track, but it should be

f(U,V) = g(U)h(V) = g(g(x)) \cdot h(h(y))

I believe that U and V (g(x) and h(y), respectively) should be independent since Y cannot influence g(x) and X cannot influence h(y) since X and Y are independent. I just don't know how to prove it in mathematical notation, but it's worth a try =)
 
Last edited:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top