I Randomly Stopped Sums vs the sum of I.I.D. Random Variables

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on two theorems related to Probability Generating Functions (PGFs) for sums of random variables. The first theorem states that for a known number of independent random variables, the PGF of their sum is the product of their individual PGFs. In contrast, the second theorem involves a random variable that determines the number of summed variables, leading to a PGF that requires the use of conditional expectation to account for the randomness of the count. The confusion arises from incorrectly applying the proof of the first theorem to the second, as the dependence on the random variable N must be properly managed. Clarification is provided that to compute the expected value, one must condition on the value of N, thus differentiating the two scenarios effectively.
CGandC
Messages
326
Reaction score
34
I've came across the two following theorems in my studies of Probability Generating Functions:

Theorem 1:
Suppose ##X_1, ... , X_n## are independent random variables, and let ##Y = X_1 + ... + X_n##. Then,
##G_Y(s) = \prod_{i=1}^n G_{X_i}(s)##

Theorem 2:
Let ##X_1, X_2, ...## be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with common PGF ##G_X##. Let ##N## be a random variable, independent of the ##X_i##'s with PGF ##G_N##, and let ##T_N = X_1 + ... + X_N = \sum_{i=1}^N X_i##. Then the PGF of ##T_N## is:
##G_{T_N}(s) = G_N (G_X(s))##

Question:
I don't understand the difference between these two theorems.
From reading here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/que...topped-sums-vs-the-sum-of-i-i-d-random-variab
I understand that in first theorem ## n ## is a number that we know so we know how many ## X_i ## will appear in the sum in ## Y ##.
But in the second theorem ## N ## is a random variable so we don't know how many ## X_i ## will appear in the sum ## Y ##.

But I still don't fully understand.

the proof for the first theorem goes as follows:
##
G_Y(t) =G_{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_n}(t)=\mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_n}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{i=1}^n t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n G_{X_i}(t)
##

Then I tried to prove the second theorem using exactly the same proof as follows:
##
G_Y(t) =G_{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_N}(t)=\mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_N}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{i=1}^N t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^N \mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^N G_{X_i}(t)
##
this proof is specious, but I don't understand why. I mean, the number of ## X_i## 's that will be multiplied by each other is determined by ## N ## ,even if we don't know it, so I don't understand what's the problem.Thanks in advance for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CGandC said:
I've came across the two following theorems in my studies of Probability Generating Functions:

Theorem 1:
Suppose ##X_1, ... , X_n## are independent random variables, and let ##Y = X_1 + ... + X_n##. Then,
##G_Y(s) = \prod_{i=1}^n G_{X_i}(s)##

Theorem 2:
Let ##X_1, X_2, ...## be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with common PGF ##G_X##. Let ##N## be a random variable, independent of the ##X_i##'s with PGF ##G_N##, and let ##T_N = X_1 + ... + X_N = \sum_{i=1}^N X_i##. Then the PGF of ##T_N## is:
##G_{T_N}(s) = G_N (G_X(s))##

Question:
I don't understand the difference between these two theorems.
From reading here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/que...topped-sums-vs-the-sum-of-i-i-d-random-variab
I understand that in first theorem ## n ## is a number that we know so we know how many ## X_i ## will appear in the sum in ## Y ##.
But in the second theorem ## N ## is a random variable so we don't know how many ## X_i ## will appear in the sum ## Y ##.

But I still don't fully understand.

the proof for the first theorem goes as follows:
##
G_Y(t) =G_{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_n}(t)=\mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_n}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{i=1}^n t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n G_{X_i}(t)
##

Then I tried to prove the second theorem using exactly the same proof as follows:
##
G_Y(t) =G_{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_N}(t)=\mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_N}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{i=1}^N t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^N \mathbb{E}\left[t^{X_i}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^N G_{X_i}(t)
##
this proof is specious, but I don't understand why. I mean, the number of ## X_i## 's that will be multiplied by each other is determined by ## N ## ,even if we don't know it, so I don't understand what's the problem.Thanks in advance for any help!

\prod_{i=1}^N G_{X_i}(t) = (G_{X_1}(t))^N is a random variable: it's a function of N. To find \mathbb{E}(t^Y) you need to remove this dependence on N by using conditional expectation: <br /> \begin{split}<br /> \mathbb{E}(t^{Y}) &amp;= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mathbb{E}(t^{X_1 + \dots + X_N} | N = n)\mathbb{P}(N = n) \\<br /> &amp;= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mathbb{E}(t^{X_1 + \dots + X_n})\mathbb{P}(N = n) \end{split}
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara and CGandC
Ahh! that makes sense, thank you alot!
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top