I On the expected value of a sum of a random number of r.v.s.

  • Thread starter Thread starter psie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability theory
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a theorem regarding the expected value of the sum of a random number of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. It establishes that if the expected number of terms, EN, and the expected value of the individual terms, E|X|, are both finite, then the expected value of the sum, ES_N, equals EN multiplied by EX. The author seeks clarification on why both conditions are necessary for the existence of ES_N through generating functions, suggesting that the finiteness of E|S_N| implies the need for EN and E|X_1| to be finite. The conversation also touches on the relationship between S_N and the random variables involved, confirming that S_N is a function of both N and the X variables. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of these conditions in deriving the expected value of S_N.
psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I am confused about a proof concerning the expectation of a sum of a random number of random variables
There's a theorem in An Intermediate Course in Probability by Gut that says if ##E|X|<\infty\implies EX=g_X'(1)##, where ##g_X## is the probability generating function. Now, consider the r.v. ##S_N##, which is the sum of a random number ##N## of terms of i.i.d. r.v.s. ##X_1,X_2,\ldots## (everything's nonnegative integer-valued, and ##N## is independent of ##X_1,X_2,\ldots##). One can derive the probability generating function for ##S_N##, namely ##g_{S_N}(t)=g_N(g_X(t))##. I am now reading a theorem that states;

Theorem If ##EN<\infty## and ##E|X|<\infty##, then ##ES_N=EN\cdot EX##.

The author proves this using the theorem I stated in the beginning, namely that ##E|X|<\infty\implies EX=g_X'(1)##. What I don't understand is why we require ##EN<\infty## and ##E|X|<\infty##. For ##ES_N## to exist via generating functions, we require ##E|S_N|<\infty##, but I don't see how this means that we should require ##EN<\infty## and ##E|X|<\infty##.

One idea that comes to mind is the following, but I'm not sure if this is correct: $$E|S_N|=E(|X_1+\ldots +X_N|)\leq E(|X_1|+\ldots +|X_N|)=E (N|X_1|)=EN E|X_1|,$$and so we see that ##E|S_N|## is finite if ##EN## and ##E|X_1|## are finite, as required by theorem. But I'm doubting if ##E(|X_1|+\ldots +|X_N|)=E (N|X_1|)## is correct. Grateful for any confirmation or help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can start with
##E|S_N|=\sum_{k=1^\infty} P(N=k) E|X_1+..+X_k|##

And now you are doing triangle inequalities on fixed number of terms
 
Office_Shredder said:
You can start with
##E|S_N|=\sum_{k=1^\infty} P(N=k) E|X_1+..+X_k|##

And now you are doing triangle inequalities on fixed number of terms
Silly question maybe, but which variables is ##S_N## and consequently ##|S_N|## a function of? Certainly ##N##, but is it correct to say it is also a function of ##X_1,\ldots,X_N##?
 
I think we should be able to write $$S_N = \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty}X_j \mathbf1_{j \leq N},$$ so ##S_N## is ##\sigma((Y_n)_{n\in\mathbb N})##-measurable, where ##Y_1=N, Y_2=X_1, Y_3=X_2, \ldots##.
 
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K