• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Need help simplifying a summation with binomials

  • #1
793
37

Homework Statement


"Prove that ##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty s^m e^{-\mu}\frac{\mu^m}{m!}=\sum_{m+n=0}^\infty s^{n+m} e^{-(\lambda+\mu)} \frac{(\lambda + \mu)^{m+n}}{(m+n)}!##

Homework Equations


Binomial theorem: ##(x+y)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n x^ky^{n-k}##
Vandermonde's identity: ##\binom {n+m} m =\sum_{k=0}^m \binom n k \binom m {m-k}##

The Attempt at a Solution


##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty s^m e^{-\mu}\frac{\mu^m}{m!}=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{m!n!}=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \binom {m+n}{n} \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{(m+n)!}##
##=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \sum_{k=0}^n \binom m k \binom n k \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{(m+n)!}##

I'm afraid to go any further, because it won't get me my ##(\lambda + \mu)^{n+m}## term. If anyone has any pointers on what I should do next with this expression (or giving me another expression), or an alternate way to prove using probability-generating functions, that the sum of two independent Poisson r.v.'s have mean equal to the sum of each individual mean, then that would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
DrDu
Science Advisor
6,023
755
Binomial formula?
 
  • #3
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,728

Homework Statement


"Prove that ##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty s^m e^{-\mu}\frac{\mu^m}{m!}=\sum_{m+n=0}^\infty s^{n+m} e^{-(\lambda+\mu)} \frac{(\lambda + \mu)^{m+n}}{(m+n)}!##

Homework Equations


Binomial theorem: ##(x+y)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n x^ky^{n-k}##
Vandermonde's identity: ##\binom {n+m} m =\sum_{k=0}^m \binom n k \binom m {m-k}##

The Attempt at a Solution


##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty s^m e^{-\mu}\frac{\mu^m}{m!}=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{m!n!}=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \binom {m+n}{n} \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{(m+n)!}##
##=e^{-(\lambda+\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty s^{n+m} \sum_{k=0}^n \binom m k \binom n k \frac{\lambda^n \mu^m }{(m+n)!}##

I'm afraid to go any further, because it won't get me my ##(\lambda + \mu)^{n+m}## term. If anyone has any pointers on what I should do next with this expression (or giving me another expression), or an alternate way to prove using probability-generating functions, that the sum of two independent Poisson r.v.'s have mean equal to the sum of each individual mean, then that would be much appreciated.
Does your formula ##(x+y)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n x^ky^{n-k}## work for ##n = 2## or ##n = 3?##
 
  • #4
Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
6,958
1,203
or an alternate way to prove using probability-generating functions, that the sum of two independent Poisson r.v.'s have mean equal to the sum of each individual mean, then that would be much appreciated.
Are you allowed to use the result that the moment generating function of a poission distribution with parameter ##\lambda## is ##M(t) = e^{\lambda (e^t -1)}## ?
 
  • #5
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,728
Are you allowed to use the result that the moment generating function of a poission distribution with parameter ##\lambda## is ##M(t) = e^{\lambda (e^t -1)}## ?
That should be ##e^{\lambda (t-1)}.##
 
  • #7
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,728
Sorry, no you are correct. I meant the moment-generating function of the probability mass function, while you meant the moment-generating function of the random variable. Of course, they are different. (Your terminology "generating function of a Poisson distribution" threw me: I have seen it used both ways in different sources.)

See, eg., https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/gordanz/notes/lecture5.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #8
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
1,142
542
It wasnt clear to me what ##s## is in the original post, though I now believe we're classically talking about ##s \in (-1,1)## -- though ##s \in (0,1) ## really is what is of interest -- as the original post appears to already using an Ordinary Generating Function, and hence the identity to be proven comes from the fact that by stochastic independence:

##\text{left hand side} = E\big[s^{X_1}\big]E\big[s^{X_2}\big] = E\big[s^{X_1}s^ {X_2}\big] = E\big[s^{X_1 + X_2}\big] = \text{right hand side}##

OP just needs to confirm that ##g(X) = s^{X}## is a random variable and that the transform doesn't change dependencies (the fact that generating functions are in principle invertible implies this)

- - - -
Equivalently, OP's question seems to be (while using OGFs) that the convolution of two Poissons with parameters ##\lambda ## and ##\mu## is a Poisson with parameter ##\lambda## and ##\mu##. There's a very elegant and probabilistic argument for this that uses memorylessness and the fact that there must be some constant ##\alpha \gt 0## where ##\mu \cdot t = (\alpha \lambda) \cdot t = \lambda \cdot (\alpha t)## ...

- - - -
a less probabilistic take would be to consider properties of the exponential function and simplify. E.g. for starters

##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!} = e^{-\lambda} \big(\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(s\lambda)^n}{n!}\big)=e^{-\lambda}\big(e^{s\lambda}\big) = e^{-\lambda + s\lambda}##

and apply this process to other parts of the original equation, then simplify.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
793
37
Does your formula ##(x+y)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n x^ky^{n-k}## work for n=2n = 2 or n=3?
Oops, it should be ##(x+y)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n \binom n k x^ky^{n-k}##.

a less probabilistic take would be to consider properties of the exponential function and simplify. E.g. for starters

##\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^n}{n!} = e^{-\lambda} \big(\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(s\lambda)^n}{n!}\big)=e^{-\lambda}\big(e^{s\lambda}\big) = e^{-\lambda + s\lambda}##

and apply this process to other parts of the original equation, then simplify.
Oh, so ##G_{X+Y}(s)=G_X(s)G_Y(s)=(e^{-\lambda + s\lambda})(e^{-\mu + s\mu})=e^{(\lambda+\mu)(s-1)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-(\lambda+\mu)} \frac{(\lambda+\mu)^n}{n!}## implies that ##X+Y## has a distribution ##\text{Poiss}(\lambda+\mu)##?
 
  • #10
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
1,142
542
Oh, so ##G_{X+Y}(s)=G_X(s)G_Y(s)=(e^{-\lambda + s\lambda})(e^{-\mu + s\mu})=e^{(\lambda+\mu)(s-1)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty s^n e^{-(\lambda+\mu)} \frac{(\lambda+\mu)^n}{n!}## implies that ##X+Y## has a distribution ##\text{Poiss}(\lambda+\mu)##?
Yes. That's really all there is to it from the OGF standpoint. Since an OGF uses a power series in ##s## and the Poisson uses the power series for the exponential function, it should be an easy result.
 
  • #11
793
37
Thank you, everyone.
 

Related Threads for: Need help simplifying a summation with binomials

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
599
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Top