Minimum of two iid exponential distributions

ait.abd
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Let X_1, X_2 \sim Exp(\mu) and Y = min(X_1, X_2) then find E[Y].
My attempt is as follows:
$$E[Y] = E[Y/X_1<X_2]P(X_1<X_2) + E[Y/X_1>X_2]P(X_1>X_2) \\
= \frac{1}{2} (E[X_1/X_1<X_2] + E[X_2/X_1>X_2] ) \\
= \frac{1}{2} (1/\mu + 1/\mu) \\
= 1/\mu$$
But, we know that minimum of two exponentially distributed RVs is another exponentially distributed RV with mean 1/(2\mu). I don't understand why the above method doesn't work ?
I used the following property of exponential distribution.
P(X_1&lt;X_2) = \frac{\mu_1}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
On the first glance E(X_1|X_1&lt;X_2)≠E(X_1)=1/\mu

The instances of X_1 where it is smaller than X_2 should average lower than an unconditional X_1.
 
ait.abd said:
$$
= \frac{1}{2} (E[X_1/X_1<X_2] + E[X_2/X_1>X_2] ) \\
= \frac{1}{2} (1/\mu + 1/\mu) \\
$$

Your method assumes E[X_1|X_1&lt; X_2] = E[X_1] = E[X_1| X_1 &gt; X_2]
I don't think that's true. Could you prove it by writing out the integrals involved? The probability densities would be distributions of the "order statistics" of the exponential distribution.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Your method assumes E[X_1|X_1&lt; X_2] = E[X_1] = E[X_1| X_1 &gt; X_2]
I don't think that's true. Could you prove it by writing out the integrals involved? The probability densities would be distributions of the "order statistics" of the exponential distribution.

Got it! Thanks!
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top