Probability: Infinite Convergent Series and Random Variables

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the validity of a probability mass function defined by the series Σ 12/(k+4)(k+3)(k+2). The user confirms that Maple indicates the series converges to 1, validating the function. A key method employed was partial fraction decomposition, which was initially thought to be non-telescoping but was later clarified to exhibit telescoping properties. The final consensus is that the series does indeed converge to 1 through proper manipulation of the fractions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of probability mass functions
  • Familiarity with series convergence concepts
  • Knowledge of partial fraction decomposition
  • Basic skills in using mathematical software like Maple
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of telescoping series in probability theory
  • Learn advanced techniques in partial fraction decomposition
  • Explore convergence tests for infinite series
  • Investigate the application of Maple for mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, statisticians, and students studying probability theory, particularly those interested in series convergence and probability mass functions.

ZellDincht100
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a random variable problem. I need to prove that my equation I came up with is a valid probability mass function.

In the problem, I came up with this for my probability mass function:

[tex]\Sigma[/tex] [tex]12/(k+4)(k+3)(k+2)[/tex]

Maple says that this does in fact converge to 1, so it's valid; however...I can't use "Maple said so" as an answer.

My attempt was to break it up using partial fraction decomposition:
([tex]6/(k+4)[/tex]) - ([tex]12/(k+3)[/tex]) + ([tex]6/(k+2)[/tex])

I was hoping that this would be telescoping, but it is not. Does anyone have an idea on how I can prove that this converges to 1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi ZellDincht100! :smile:
ZellDincht100 said:
My attempt was to break it up using partial fraction decomposition:
([tex]6/(k+4)[/tex]) - ([tex]12/(k+3)[/tex]) + ([tex]6/(k+2)[/tex])

I was hoping that this would be telescoping, but it is not.

Yes it is …

[6/(k+4) - 6/(k+3)] - [6/(k+3) - 6/(k+2)] :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi ZellDincht100! :smile:


Yes it is …

[6/(k+4) - 6/(k+3)] - [6/(k+3) - 6/(k+2)] :wink:

Ahhhh I see! :D

Thanks! Dunno how I didn't see that before..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K