Poisson process: compute E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)]

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
note: N(t) is the number of points in [0,t] and N(t1,t2] is the number of points in (t1,t2].

Let {N(t): t≥0} be a Poisson process of rate 1.
Evaluate E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)].

If the question were E[N(3) |N(2)], then I have some idea...
E[N(3) |N(2)]
=E[N(2)+N(2,3] |N(2)]
=E[N(2)|N(2)] + E{N(2,3] |N(2)}
=N(2)+ E{N(2,3]} (independent increments)
=N(2) + 1
since N(2,3] ~ Poisson(1(3-2)) =Poisson(1)

But for E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)], how can I deal with the extra N(1)?

Thanks for any help! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kingwinner said:
But for E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)], how can I deal with the extra N(1)?

Apply the Markov property
 
bpet said:
Apply the Markov property
hmm...what is Markov property? How do we use it here?
Does it mean that E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)] = E[N(3)]?

Also, is Poisson process considered as a Markov process? Why or why not?

Can someone please explain more?

Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
kingwinner said:
Can someone please explain more?

The wikipedia article is a good place to start.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-time_Markov_process
"Markov property states that at any times s > t > 0, the conditional probability distribution of the process at time s given the whole history of the process up to and including time t, depends only on the state of the process at time t."

So according to this, it does not depend on ANY of its past history, and therefore E[N(3) |N(2),N(1)] = E[N(3)]?
 
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