Normalization: discrete vs. continuous

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of normalization in probability distributions, specifically contrasting discrete and continuous cases. Participants explore the implications of defining probabilities on a continuous roulette wheel and the mathematical foundations behind normalization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of a continuous probability distribution, suggesting that if x is truly continuous, the probability of hitting any specific value should be zero due to the infinite values between any two points.
  • Another participant explains that for a continuous probability distribution, probabilities are defined over intervals rather than at specific points, and that the probability density function (PDF) must be considered.
  • Concerns are raised about the normalization leading to a probability density of 1/(2pi), prompting questions about how this relates to defining intervals and the nature of continuity in this context.
  • There is a discussion about the transformation from radian measure to probability measure, emphasizing that while intervals can be defined continuously, the probability density applies to the width of those intervals.
  • A later reply highlights that continuous sets allow for flexible interval definitions without altering the set's mathematical properties, contrasting this with discrete sets where changing the number of elements affects cardinality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of continuity in the context of probability distributions and the implications of normalization. There is no consensus on whether the roulette wheel can be considered truly continuous or how to interpret the normalization process.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding the relationship between continuous distributions and discrete outcomes, as well as the implications of defining intervals and probability densities. The discussion remains open to interpretation and lacks resolution on several key points.

Pythagorean
Science Advisor
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
327
So, I'm taking an EE class and my teacher is terribly handwavy. She couldn't really explain this to me (not homework, lecture). I detect a fundamental problem in the math, coming from a science background, but it could just be my ignorance:

Here's her lecture:

physical setup: a continuous roulette wheel returns a random variable: o < x < 2pi

normalization:

int{Pdx} = 1, the x range is 2*pi, so for the total area to equal one, the probability is constantly 1/(2*pi) for every value of x.

here is where my red flag goes up. If x is truly continuous, wouldn't the probability of hitting any particular value of x be 0 since there are infinite values of x between 0 and x?

This implies to me, that x isn't continuous and that there is actually some delta-x instead of dx.

What is my issue here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pythagorean said:
This implies to me, that x isn't continuous and that there is actually some delta-x instead of dx.

What is my issue here?

A roulette wheel represents a set of discrete outcomes. If you know calculus, you know about continuous functions and evaluating the integral

[tex]\int_{a}^{b}(x)dx=F(b)-F(a)[/tex].

Clearly if F(b)=F(a), the integral equals zero. So for a continuous probability distribution, you can't have a non zero probability of a point. What you can have is a probability density between two distinct points on a probability density function (PDF). Note one point can be at infinity depending on the PDF. If both points are at infinity, then the probability density is 1 if the PDF is defined over that range.

However, for a continuous uniform distribution such as your roulette wheel with an infinite number of points, there can't be points at infinity since every equal interval would have to have the same probability density and that would be zero if there were points at infinity. (Points at infinity is just a term for a limit at infinity.)

Therefore, you can define your intervals as small as you wish, but to define a non zero probability density the intervals must be non zero and the number of intervals must be finite if each interval has the same (non zero) probability density.

So for example your wheel of [0,[tex]2\pi[/tex]] radians would be recalibrated to [0.1] broken down to n equal intervals, each with a probability density of 1/n. You can see why n cannot be infinite.
 
Last edited:
Ok, that's what I thought. But since the normalization leads to 1/(2pi) doesn't that determine our intervals? Which is kind of difficult since it's not an inverse integer.

Also, I'm still confused why we call it continuous when it's not.
 
Pythagorean said:
Ok, that's what I thought. But since the normalization leads to 1/(2pi) doesn't that determine our intervals? Which is kind of difficult since it's not an inverse integer.

In terms of radian measure the width of your intervals will be 2pi/(n) but your probabilities are based on the the entire space having an integral of one, so you need to transform from radian measure to probability measure.


Also, I'm still confused why we call it continuous when it's not.

The interior measure of the intervals is still continuous, but your probability density measure applies to the width of the interval. It's continuous in the sense that you define the intervals [a,b] any way you want, whereas with a discrete countable set you're sort of "stuck" with what you have.

EDIT: With a set of n discrete elements, you cannot divide the elements. If you change the number of elements, you change the cardinality of the set. All continuous sets have the same cardinality, so you are free to define intervals without changing the mathematical properties of the set
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K