Prove that lim y->infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter oyth94
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit of a joint cumulative distribution function (CDF) as one variable approaches infinity, specifically examining the expression lim y->infinity F(X,Y)(x,y) = F(X)(x). Participants explore the definitions and implications of joint CDFs, conditional probabilities, and independence in probability theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the definition of F(X,Y) and whether it refers to a joint cumulative distribution function (CDF).
  • One participant suggests that lim y->infinity F(X,Y)(x,y) can be interpreted as P(X <= x, Y <= infinity), leading to the conclusion that this equals P(X <= x) = F(X)(x).
  • Another participant provides a formal definition of the joint CDF, stating that F(X,Y)(x,y) = P{X
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether their reasoning is correct or if any steps were skipped in their proofs.
  • A related question about independence and joint probabilities is raised, with participants discussing the implications of independence on the joint CDF and the conditions under which certain inequalities hold.
  • One participant proposes a counterargument regarding the relationship between conditional probabilities and joint probabilities, questioning the validity of certain assumptions without additional information about the distributions of X and Y.
  • There is a discussion about the integration process involved in proving inequalities related to joint and marginal CDFs, with participants seeking clarification on the correct approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the limit and the conditions under which certain statements about joint CDFs hold. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proofs or the assumptions made regarding independence and the distributions of X and Y.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the problem lacks sufficient information about the distributions of X and Y, which complicates the discussion. There are also unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the nature of the joint CDF and its relationship to marginal CDFs.

oyth94
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Prove that lim y->infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
re: Prove that lim y->infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)

oyth94 said:
Prove that lim y->infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)

What is F(X,Y) here? Is this the cumulative distribution function?

Are we given any information about X and Y in the problem?
 
TheBigBadBen said:
What is F(X,Y) here? Is this the cumulative distribution function?

Are we given any information about X and Y in the problem?

I think this is the joint cdf, This question is related to joint probability in some way.

i did lim y->infinity FX,Y(x,y) = P(X<= x, Y <= infinity)
after that i am not sure if i skipped a step or went the wrong direction but the next step i did was conclude that
= P(X<=x)
= F(X)(x)

please help!
 
Last edited:
oyth94 said:
Prove that lim y->infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)

By definition is...

$$F_{X,Y} (x,y) = P \{X<x,Y<y\}$$

... and because if y tends to infinity then $P \{Y<y\}$ tends to 1 we have...

$$\lim_{y \rightarrow \infty} F_{X,Y} (x,y) = P \{X<x\} = F_{X} (x)$$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
By definition is...

$$F_{X,Y} (x,y) = P \{X<x,Y<y\}$$

... and because if y tends to infinity then $P \{Y<y\}$ tends to 1 we have...

$$\lim_{y \rightarrow \infty} F_{X,Y} (x,y) = P \{X<x\} = F_{X} (x)$$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

So I did it correctly? No steps skipped?
 
oyth94 said:
So I did it correctly? No steps skipped?

I would think that unless your professor wants you to prove this using $\epsilon$s and $\delta$s, you've said as much as you need to say. However, the best way to know is to ask the person who will be grading your homework.
 
There is a similar question. But this one is not a limit question but does invoke joint probability, independence etc
The question is:

F(X,Y(x,y) <= FX(x),FY(y)

I know that when finding the integral for FX(x) it is in respect to y. And when finding the integral for FY(y) we find integral with respect to x. When we multiply the two together to find if it is independent we multiply the two together and see if it equals to FX,Y(x,y)
But I'm not sure if this question is regarding independence or something else. How must I go about proving this question?
 
oyth94 said:
There is a similar question. But this one is not a limit question but does invoke joint probability, independence etc
The question is:

F(X,Y(x,y) <= FX(x),FY(y)

I know that when finding the integral for FX(x) it is in respect to y. And when finding the integral for FY(y) we find integral with respect to x. When we multiply the two together to find if it is independent we multiply the two together and see if it equals to FX,Y(x,y)
But I'm not sure if this question is regarding independence or something else. How must I go about proving this question?

I don't think that the premise of the question is true in general, you would have provide more information about the distribution on $X$ and $Y$.
 
TheBigBadBen said:
I don't think that the premise of the question is true in general, you would have provide more information about the distribution on $X$ and $Y$.

This was all that was given in the question. So I am confused now... Or can we prove by contradiction if possible?
 
  • #10
oyth94 said:
This was all that was given in the question. So I am confused now... Or can we prove by contradiction if possible?

Sorry, I was a little hasty with that; let me actually be sure about what the question states. My understanding is that you are to prove that for any $X,Y$ with some joint cdf $F_{X,Y}$ and where $X$ and $Y$ are not necessarily independent, we can state that
$$
F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_X(x)\cdot F_Y(y)
$$
Or, phrased in a different way:
$$
P(X< x \text{ and } Y< y) \leq P(X < x)\cdot P(Y < y)
$$

If the above is what you meant, I would pose the following counterargument: we could equivalently state
$$
P(X< x|Y<y) \cdot P(Y< y) \leq P(X < x)\cdot P(Y < y) \Rightarrow \\
P(X<x|Y<y) \leq P(X<x)
$$
and that simply isn't true for all distributions. That is, prior knowledge of another variable can increase the probability of an event. Would you like a counter-example to this claim?

If that's not what you meant, or if there's more information about $X$ and $Y$ that you're leaving out, do say so.
 
  • #11
I realize what you conceivably could have meant (and probably did mean) is

$$
\text{for any }y:\; F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_X(x) \text{ AND }\\
\text{for any }x:\; F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_Y(y)
$$

Is this what you meant to prove? Then yes, we can prove this by integration, as you rightly mentioned.

Please, please, please: try to be clearer in the future about what you mean, even if it makes your post a little longer.
 
  • #12
TheBigBadBen said:
I realize what you conceivably could have meant (and probably did mean) is

$$
\text{for any }y:\; F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_X(x) \text{ AND }\\
\text{for any }x:\; F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_Y(y)
$$

Is this what you meant to prove? Then yes, we can prove this by integration, as you rightly mentioned.

Please, please, please: try to be clearer in the future about what you mean, even if it makes your post a little longer.

Hi my apologies this is actually what I meant to say. So how does it work after integration? An I doing: the Integral from 0 to y for FX(x)dy multiply with integral from 0 to x of FY(y)dx to get integral of FXY(x,y)? Okay something is wrong I don't think that makes sense does it?
 
  • #13
Re: Prove that lim y-&gt;infinity F(X,Y) (x,y) = F(X)(x)

TheBigBadBen said:
Sorry, I was a little hasty with that; let me actually be sure about what the question states. My understanding is that you are to prove that for any $X,Y$ with some joint cdf $F_{X,Y}$ and where $X$ and $Y$ are not necessarily independent, we can state that
$$
F_{X,Y}(x,y)\leq F_X(x)\cdot F_Y(y)
$$
Or, phrased in a different way:
$$
P(X< x \text{ and } Y< y) \leq P(X < x)\cdot P(Y < y)
$$

If the above is what you meant, I would pose the following counterargument: we could equivalently state
$$
P(X< x|Y<y) \cdot P(Y< y) \leq P(X < x)\cdot P(Y < y) \Rightarrow \\
P(X<x|Y<y) \leq P(X<x)
$$
and that simply isn't true for all distributions. That is, prior knowledge of another variable can increase the probability of an event. Would you like a counter-example to this claim?

If that's not what you meant, or if there's more information about $X$ and $Y$ that you're leaving out, do say so.

For the counter argument why did you use conditional probability? And multiplied by p(Y<y)?

- - - Updated - - -

oyth94 said:
For the counter argument why did you use conditional probability? And multiplied by p(Y<y)?

Oh sorry never mind I understand why you used the conditional probability multiply with P(Y<y) because it is te intersection of X<x and Y<y. So that is the counter argument used against this proof?
 
  • #14
oyth94 said:
Hi my apologies this is actually what I meant to say. So how does it work after integration? An I doing: the Integral from 0 to y for FX(x)dy multiply with integral from 0 to x of FY(y)dx to get integral of FXY(x,y)? Okay something is wrong I don't think that makes sense does it?

So the proof of the first inequality via integrals would go something like this:
First of all, definition. We state that there is some (joint) probability density function of the form $f_{X,Y}(x,y)$. We can then supply the following definitions of $F_X,F_Y,$ and $F_{X,Y}$ in terms of integrals:
$$
F_{X,Y}(x,y)=\int_{-\infty}^y \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy\\
F_{X}(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy\\
F_{Y}(y)=\int_{-\infty}^{y} \int_{-\infty}^\infty f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy
$$

With that in mind, we may state that
$$
F_{X}(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy\\
= \int_{-\infty}^{y} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy +
\int_{y}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy
$$
Since $f_{X,Y}(x,y)$ is a probability distribution, it is non-negative at all $(x,y)$, which means that both of the above integrals are non-negative. This allows us to state that
$$
\int_{-\infty}^{y} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy +
\int_{y}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy \geq \\
\int_{-\infty}^{y} \int_{-\infty}^x f_{X,Y}(x,y)\,dx\,dy = F_{X,Y}(x,y)
$$
Thus, we may conclude that in general, $F_{X,Y}(x,y) \leq F_Y{y}$.

However, it is not necessary to appeal to these integral definitions in order to go through the proof. I'll post an alternate, simpler proof as well
 
  • #15
The Easier Proof (via set theory)

Consider the following definitions:
$$
F_{X,Y}(x,y)=P(X< x \text{ and } Y < y)\\
F_{X}(x)=P(X< x)\\
F_{Y}(y)=P(Y< y)
$$

We note that the set of $(x,y)$ such that $X< x \text{ and } Y < y$ is the intersection of the set of $(x,y)$ such that $X< x$ and the set of $(x,y)$ such that $Y < y$. Since this set is a subset of each set, the probability of the associated event is less than or equal to the probability of either of the other events.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K