How to show that the Method of Moment Estimators for the Normal

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
4 replies · 3K views
trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
So I'm trying to show that the estimators for the normal distribution by the method of moments are consistent. So to show consistency, I have to :

1) Show E(θ(estimator) = θ (parameter)

2) lim n-->∞ Var(θ(estimator) = 0

So Since there are two estimators in the normal distribution ( [itex]\mu[/itex],[itex]\sigma[/itex]2) I have to prove that they are each consistent:

To prove [itex]\mu[/itex](estimator):

E([itex]\mu[/itex](estimate) = E(([itex]\sum[/itex]Xi)/n)

Working along I get that [itex]\mu[/itex] (estimate) is unbias as well as [itex]\sigma[/itex]2, but now to show the second condition I get tripped up for both estimators.

for [itex]\mu[/itex](estimate):

V([itex]\mu[/itex](estimate) = V(([itex]\sum[/itex]Xi)/n

= 1/n2[itex]\sum[/itex]V(Xi)

Similarly for V( [itex]\sigma[/itex]2(estimate):

1/n2[itex]\sum[/itex]V(Xi-X(bar))2

How do I proceed for these two estimators from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
trap101 said:
So I'm trying to show that the estimators for the normal distribution by the method of moments are consistent. So to show consistency, I have to :

1) Show E(θ(estimator) = θ (parameter)

2) lim n-->∞ Var(θ(estimator) = 0

So Since there are two estimators in the normal distribution ( [itex]\mu[/itex],[itex]\sigma[/itex]2) I have to prove that they are each consistent:

To prove [itex]\mu[/itex](estimator):

E([itex]\mu[/itex](estimate) = E(([itex]\sum[/itex]Xi)/n)

Working along I get that [itex]\mu[/itex] (estimate) is unbias as well as [itex]\sigma[/itex]2, but now to show the second condition I get tripped up for both estimators.

for [itex]\mu[/itex](estimate):

V([itex]\mu[/itex](estimate) = V(([itex]\sum[/itex]Xi)/n

= 1/n2[itex]\sum[/itex]V(Xi)

Similarly for V( [itex]\sigma[/itex]2(estimate):

1/n2[itex]\sum[/itex]V(Xi-X(bar))2

How do I proceed for these two estimators from here?

If you are estimating ##\sigma^2## using
[tex]\text{est}(\sigma^2) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n (X_i - \bar{X})^2[/tex]
then your estimate is biased.
 
Ray Vickson said:
If you are estimating ##\sigma^2## using
[tex]\text{est}(\sigma^2) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n (X_i - \bar{X})^2[/tex]
then your estimate is biased.


Then I established that result wrong. I did this:

Assuming [itex]\sigma[/itex]2 estimate:

= 1/n ([itex]\sum[/itex]E(Xi-X(bar))2

= 1/n ([itex]\sum[/itex][itex]\sigma[/itex]2

= 1/n (n[itex]\sigma[/itex]2)

= [itex]\sigma[/itex]2
 
Your error is stating that
[tex] E\left(X_i - \overline{X}\right)^2 = \sigma^2[/tex]
 
trap101 said:
Then I established that result wrong. I did this:

Assuming [itex]\sigma[/itex]2 estimate:

= 1/n ([itex]\sum[/itex]E(Xi-X(bar))2

= 1/n ([itex]\sum[/itex][itex]\sigma[/itex]2

= 1/n (n[itex]\sigma[/itex]2)

= [itex]\sigma[/itex]2

As 'statdad' has explained to you, ##E(X_i - \bar{X})^2 \neq \sigma^2##.

Take ##i = 1##, for example. We have [tex]X_1 - \bar{X} = \left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right) X_1 - \frac{1}{n} X_2 - \cdots - \frac{1}{n} X_n[/tex]
You need to square this, expand it out, then take the expectation----and yes, I am perfectly serious! Try it yourself; it is not as bad as you might think at first. The basic properties you need are ##E X_j^2 = \sigma^2 + \mu^2## and the fact that the different ##X_j## are independent, so that ##E X_i X_j## is easy to get for ##i \neq j##.