How Do Permutations Affect Sums in Random Walk Equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dirk_mec1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Random Random walk
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of permutations on sums within the context of random walk equations. Participants are exploring the relationship between the arrangement of random variables and the resulting sums, particularly focusing on the implications of these permutations in probability statements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the nature of permutations and their impact on the sums of random variables. There are questions about how to establish equivalences between different sums and the conditions under which these hold. Some are exploring the implications of changing the order of terms in permutations and how that affects the overall sum.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing hints and suggestions for exploring the problem further. There is an acknowledgment of potential errors in the original problem statement, and various interpretations of the permutations are being examined. No consensus has been reached yet, but there are productive lines of reasoning being developed.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the amount of direct assistance they can provide to each other. There is also a focus on understanding the underlying mathematical properties rather than deriving explicit solutions.

dirk_mec1
Messages
755
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4711/52047019pc2.png

Homework Statement





Homework Equations


Random walk equations: Xi is i.i.d. and [tex]S_n = X_1+...+X_n[/tex] and S0=0


The Attempt at a Solution


I don't have a idea where to begin. I couldn't start because I don't know how to apply the random walk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
For starters, there may be a slight error in the question. I think the result to be proven should be [tex]P\displaystyle{\{} \sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jX_{j} \leq a \displaystyle{\}} = P\displaystyle{\{} \sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jX_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a \displaystyle{\}}[/tex].

Since [tex](X_{1},X_{2},...,X_{n})[/tex] is equally likely to be any of the n! permutations of (1,2,...,n), it suffices to prove that the number of permutations

satisfying [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \leq a[/tex] is equal to the number of permutations satisfying [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a[/tex].

Now, to prove this, we show that given a permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] satisfying [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \leq a[/tex], we can use this permutation to find another permutation [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex] having the property [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jy_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a[/tex], and vice versa.

How can the other permutation be found? Hint: In a permutation, order matters! So, moving the terms around seems a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you're right about the mistake, my instructor told us that but I forgot to tell you.So by permutations they mean:

[tex]\left( \begin{array}{c}n \\ x \end{array} \right)[/tex]

where x can be 1,...,n and the answer for one x corresponds to a Xi, right?But then [tex]\sum_{j=1}^n j x_j = \sum_{j=1}^n \left( \begin{array}{c}n \\ x \end{array} \right) = \sum_{j=1}^n \left( \begin{array}{c}n \\ n-x \end{array} \right)[/tex]

Is this what you mean? But how can I proceed then because if the above expression is smaller than a how can I pop up a n(n+1)^2?
 
A permutation is simply an arrangement of the numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., n. So, examples of permutations are (1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n) ,
(2, 3, 4, ..., n, 1) etc. There are n! such permutations in all, as mentioned in the question.
 
pizzasky said:
A permutation is simply an arrangement of the numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., n. So, examples of permutations are (1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n) ,
(2, 3, 4, ..., n, 1) etc. There are n! such permutations in all, as mentioned in the question.

Right, I understand. But how can I interpretet then (for example) [tex]\sum_{j=1}^n j X_j = 1 \cdot (1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n) + 2\cdot (2, 3, 4, ..., n, 1)+...[/tex]

I presume the sum means 'per element of the permutation' but how can such a thing be bounded by a? Is that componentwise bounded?
 
Take for example the permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}) = (1, 2, ..., n)[/tex]. We have [tex]\sum_{j=1}^n j x_j = 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + n^2[/tex].

Thus, the question is asking us to show that the probability of a permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] having the property [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \leq a[/tex] is the same as the probability of a permutation having the property [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a[/tex].
 
Last edited:
I've thought about your hint and I don't see how changing the order is going to effect anything.

Suppose x= (x1,..xn) =(1,...,n) then if you calculate the sum you'll get a sum of squares:

[tex]1^2 +2^2+...+n^2 = \frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{ 6}[/tex]

Is this the direction where I should be going?
 
I believe changing the order of the terms is going to have an effect on the sum at least. Suppose [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}) = (1, 2, ..., n)[/tex] and [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n}) = (n, ..., 1)[/tex]. In general, [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j}[/tex] is not equal to [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jy_{j}[/tex].

Here's a possible approach to the question:

Let A be the set of permutations [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] satisfying [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \leq a[/tex] and B be the set of permutations [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex] satisfying [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jy_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a[/tex]. Let |A| and |B| denote the number of elements in A and B respectively. Our goal is to show that |A| = |B| (refer to the second post). We will prove this statement in 2 parts.


Part 1: [tex]|A| \leq |B|[/tex]
We prove this by showing that for every permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] in A, we can change the order of the terms in a certain way to create a permutation [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex] that will be in B. This will mean that |B| cannot be smaller than |A|, and thus [tex]|A| \leq |B|[/tex] (since this mapping from set A to set B is injective or one-to-one). Now, consider a permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] in A. We will try to shuffle the terms around in a certain manner, and show that the new permutation [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex] we get is an element of B. What is one obvious guess for [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex]? Try then to show that [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jy_{j} \geq \frac{n(n+1)^2}{2}-a[/tex], given the fact that [tex]\sum_{j\displaystyle{=}1}^n jx_{j} \leq a[/tex].

Part 2: [tex]|B| \leq |A|[/tex]
The idea of this part is the same as before; we show that for every permutation [tex](y_{1},y_{2},...,y_{n})[/tex] in B, we can change the order of the terms in a certain way to create a permutation [tex](x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})[/tex] that will be in A. The structure of the proof is similar to Part 1.

Combining our results for both parts, we get |A| = |B| and we are done.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K