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

AI Thread Summary
In a Poisson process with a rate of 1, the expectation E[N(3) | N(2), N(1)] is discussed, focusing on how to incorporate the additional variable N(1). The initial evaluation for E[N(3) | N(2)] shows that it equals N(2) + 1 due to independent increments. The conversation then shifts to the Markov property, which suggests that the future state of the process depends only on the current state, not on past states. Participants question whether E[N(3) | N(2), N(1)] simplifies to E[N(3)] based on this property. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that the expectation does not depend on past history, affirming the Markov nature of the Poisson process.
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)]?
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top