Prove the mean of the weibull distribution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chantry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution Mean
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the mean of the Weibull distribution, specifically focusing on expressing a constant in terms of parameters and demonstrating a relationship involving the gamma function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various attempts at substitution and integration techniques to simplify the integral involving the Weibull probability density function. Questions are raised about effective substitutions to manage the exponential term.

Discussion Status

One participant has reported success in deriving the mean after exploring substitution methods and integrating by parts. Others are engaging with the problem, seeking clarification on specific substitutions and approaches.

Contextual Notes

There is a correction noted regarding the form of the probability density function, which may affect the setup of the problem. Participants are also navigating the complexities of the integral and the gamma function in their attempts.

Chantry
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is the full question, but we're only asked to do b.

A random variable x has a Weibull Distribution if and only if its probability density is given by f(x) = {kx^(b-a) *exp(-ax^b) for x > 0 }
where a and b > 0.

a) Express k in terms of a and b.
b) Show that u = a^(-1/b) * gamma(1 + 1/b)

Homework Equations



All of the following could be of use.
Mx(t) = ∫exp(xt)f(x) dx
and the limit as t → 0 of M'x(t) = u = mean
u = Ex(x) = ∫xf(x)dx
gamma(a) = ∫x^(1-a)exp(-x)dx

Also the integral of f(x) = 1.

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried making a substitution for x, so that I could get the gamma function out of the integral, but that x^b really throws me.

I tried integrating by parts, but that just gives an even more complicated expression. I wanted to get rid of part of the equation by setting it to one, but no matter how you treat it you'll have a nasty exp(-ax^b) to deal with.

There's obviously some trick I'm supposed to use to figure it out.

Can anyone provide any hints? I've spent a good couple hours both trying to solve it and googling similar solutions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bumping back to first page.
 
What substitution did you try? What is the obvious one to get rid of the power within the exponential?
 
Not sure why, but it's not letting me edit the first post.

It should be kx^(b-1) *exp(-ax^b) not ∫kx^(b-a) *exp(-ax^b), but anyway, I took another crack at it and I solved it!

u = ax^b
du = abx^(b-1) dx

∫kx^(b-1) *exp(-ax^b) dx
= k/(ab)∫exp(-u) du
= k/ab[1] = 1, so k = ab.

∫kx^(b) *exp(-ax^b) dx
= k∫x^(b) *exp(-ax^b) dx
= k/(ab)∫(u/a)^(1/b) exp(-u)du
= a^(-1/b)k/(ab) ∫u^(1/b) exp(-u) du
= a^(-1/b-1)k/b Γ(1/b + 1)
sub k = ab in and you get
=a^(-1/b)Γ(1/b + 1)

Thanks a lot! I guess I just needed to know that substitution was the method to solve it for me to be able to do the math.
 
Last edited:
Good show.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K