Undergrad Probability that X is less than a set

  • Thread starter Thread starter showzen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the transformation of random variables in the context of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) as presented in the textbook "Statistical Inference" by Casella and Berger. The main focus is on finding the CDF of a transformed variable Y = g(X) and understanding the notation used for inverse mappings. Participants clarify that the notation used in the textbook is non-standard but necessary for comprehension. The key takeaway is that g^{-1}(y) represents a number while g^{-1}({y}) denotes a set, which is crucial for interpreting the equality P(X ≤ g^{-1}(y)) = P({x ∈ S_x | g(x) ≤ y}).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs)
  • Familiarity with random variables and their transformations
  • Knowledge of inverse functions and set notation
  • Basic concepts from probability theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of inverse functions in probability theory
  • Learn about cumulative distribution functions in detail
  • Explore non-standard notations in statistical texts
  • Review supplementary resources on transformations of random variables
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in statistics, particularly those studying probability theory and transformations of random variables, as well as anyone using "Statistical Inference" by Casella and Berger for their coursework or research.

showzen
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I am currently working through the textbook Statistical Inference by Casella and Berger. My question has to do with transformations.

Let ##X## be a random variable with cdf ##F_X(x)##. We want to find the cdf of ##Y=g(X)##. So we define the inverse mapping, ##g^{-1}(\{y\})=\{x\in S_x | g(x)=y\}##. Now, ##F_Y(y)=P(Y\leq y)=P(g(X)\leq y)=P(X\leq g^{-1}(y))##.

My textbook then states ##P(X\leq g^{-1}(y))=P(\{x\in S_x | g(x)\leq y\}##.

The issue I have is with this last equality. Are we defining the meaning of ##X## less than or equal to a set here, or am I missing some intuition on sets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
showzen said:
Are we defining the meaning of XX less than or equal to a set here, or am I missing some intuition on sets?
It looks like the former. You are not missing any intuition on sets. It is non-standard notation, which I have not encountered before. But if you have to use that book then you'll need to bear with their notation.
 
showzen said:
Hi everyone, I am currently working through the textbook Statistical Inference by Casella and Berger. My question has to do with transformations.

Let ##X## be a random variable with cdf ##F_X(x)##. We want to find the cdf of ##Y=g(X)##. So we define the inverse mapping, ##g^{-1}(\{y\})=\{x\in S_x | g(x)=y\}##. Now, ##F_Y(y)=P(Y\leq y)=P(g(X)\leq y)=P(X\leq g^{-1}(y))##.

My textbook then states ##P(X\leq g^{-1}(y))=P(\{x\in S_x | g(x)\leq y\}##.

The issue I have is with this last equality. Are we defining the meaning of ##X## less than or equal to a set here, or am I missing some intuition on sets?
The notation is a little confusing. ##g^{-1}(y)## is a number, ##g^{-1}(\{y\})## is a set.
 
If there is more than one ##x## for which ##g(x)=y## then ##g^{-1}(y)## is a set.
 
andrewkirk said:
It looks like the former. You are not missing any intuition on sets. It is non-standard notation, which I have not encountered before. But if you have to use that book then you'll need to bear with their notation.

Is there any supplementary resource that you would recommend?
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K