Probability in a small interval is ##P. dx##

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of probability in a small interval, particularly focusing on the relationship between probability and infinitesimal changes in a variable. Participants explore the implications of expressing probability as a Taylor series and the necessity of such an approach in the context of probability distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Reif's assertion that the probability of a variable falling within an infinitesimal range is proportional to the magnitude of that range, suggesting a Taylor series expansion for probability functions.
  • Others argue that the meaning of a probability distribution is that the probability to find a random variable in an infinitesimal interval is given by ##P(x) \mathrm{d} x##, independent of Taylor expansion.
  • A participant suggests that calculating the integral over a small interval leads to an approximation of the function value times the width of the interval, questioning the necessity of a Taylor series for this reasoning.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the relevance of the Taylor expansion in the context of the discussion, indicating that it may not be necessary for understanding the probability in small intervals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and relevance of using Taylor series to describe probability in small intervals. There is no consensus on whether the Taylor expansion is essential for the discussion, with some advocating for its use while others dismiss it as unnecessary.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the function need not be differentiable, which raises questions about the assumptions underlying the use of Taylor series in this context. Additionally, there is mention of missing context and figures that could clarify the original author's intent.

Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Reif says
" ... variable ##u## which can assume any value in the continuous range ##a_{1}<u<a_{2}##. To give a probability description of such a situation, one can focus attention on any infinitesimal range of the variable between ##u## and ##u+d u## and ask for the probability that the variable assumes a value in this range. One expects that this probability is proportional to the magnitude of ##d u## if this interval is sufficiently small"

" Indeed, the probability must be expressible as a Taylor's series in powers of du and must vanish as ##d u \rightarrow 0##. Hence the leading term must be of the form ##P d u##, while terms involving higher powers of ##d u## are negligible if ##d u## is sufficiently small"So expanding probability function as Taylor series I've

##P(x+d x)=P(x)+\frac{P^{\prime}(x)}{1 !} d x+\frac{P^{\prime \prime}(x)}{2 !} d x^{2}+\cdots##

in limit ##dx## is small we've

##P(x+d x)=P(x)+{P'(x)} d x##

Now how do I make the connection that "probability is proportional to the magnitude of ##d x## if this interval is sufficiently small"?
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
The meaning of a probability distribution is that ##P(x) \mathrm{d} x## is the probability to find the random variable ##X## to take a value in an "infinitesimal interval" of length ##\mathrm{d} x## around ##x##. I has nothing to do with a Taylor expansion of ##P## around ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
Kashmir said:
Reif says
> ... variable ##u## which can assume any value in the continuous range ##a_{1}<u<a_{2}##. To give a probability description of such a situation, one can focus attention on any infinitesimal range of the variable between ##u## and ##u+d u## and ask for the probability that the variable assumes a value in this range. One expects that this probability is proportional to the magnitude of ##d u## if this interval is sufficiently small;

>- Indeed, the probability must be expressible as a Taylor's series in powers of du and must vanish as ##d u \rightarrow 0##. Hence the leading term must be of the form ##P d u##, while terms involving higher powers of ##d u## are negligible if ##d u## is sufficiently small.So expanding probability function as Taylor series I've

##P(x+d x)=P(x)+\frac{P^{\prime}(x)}{1 !} d x+\frac{P^{\prime \prime}(x)}{2 !} d x^{2}+\cdots##

in limit ##dx## is small we've

##P(x+d x)=P(x)+{P'(x)} d x##

Now how do I make the connection that "probability is proportional to the magnitude of ##d x## if this interval is sufficiently small"?
You've calculated ##P(x + dx)##. What you want to calculate is $$\int_x^{x + dx}P(x')dx'$$Which, for small enough ##dx## is approximately ##P(x)dx##. You don't need a Taylor expansion to see this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and sysprog
Kashmir said:
Indeed, the probability must be expressible as a Taylor's series in powers of du and must vanish as du→0. Hence the leading term must be of the form Pdu, while terms involving higher powers of du are negligible if du is sufficiently smal
Why does the author then discuss Taylor expansion @PeroK, @vanhees71
 
Kashmir said:
Why does the author then discuss Taylor expansion @PeroK, @vanhees71
No idea unless you tell us the context.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
IMG_20220303_093055.JPG

This is the whole passage.

Please see the footnote marked with aestrik* . Also the figure are missing, I've only this xeroxed photocopy.
 
First, it's clear that an integral over a small interval is approximately the function value at (any) point in the interval times the width of the interval. It's the area under the curve, right?

You can prove that rigorously for a continuous function using an epsilon-delta proof. There is no need to express the function as a Taylor series. Not least because the function need not even be differentiable.

Given that the author hasn't actually done the proof, it's safe to say he mentioned Taylor series without realising that's not necessary.

Move on. It takes long enough to learn QM without worrying about things like this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
828
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
682
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K