Sum of random variables and Fourier transform

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that for independent random variables X_1 and X_2 in \mathbb{R}^n, the Fourier transform of their sum, denoted as \hat{\rho}_{X_1+X_2}(\xi), equals the product of their individual Fourier transforms: \hat{\rho}_{X_1}(\xi)\hat{\rho}_{X_2}(\xi). This relationship holds true when n=1 and is derived from the convolution theorem. The challenge arises when extending this proof to n>1, where the appropriate variable change for integration is not immediately clear.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of independent random variables in probability theory
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms and their properties
  • Knowledge of convolution integrals
  • Basic concepts of probability density functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fourier transforms in higher dimensions
  • Research convolution theorems in probability theory
  • Explore variable change techniques in multivariable calculus
  • Examine applications of Fourier transforms in statistical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, statisticians, and data scientists interested in probability theory, Fourier analysis, and the behavior of random variables in higher dimensions.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
If [itex]X_1[/itex] and [itex]X_2[/itex] are independent random variables in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex], and [itex]\rho_{X_1}[/itex] and [itex]\rho_{X_2}[/itex] are their probability densities, then let [itex]\rho_{X_1+X_2}[/itex] be the probability density of the random variable [itex]X_1+X_2[/itex]. Is it true that

[tex] \hat{\rho}_{X_1+X_2}(\xi) = \hat{\rho}_{X_1}(\xi)\hat{\rho}_{X_2}(\xi),[/tex]

when [itex]\hat{\rho}[/itex] is the Fourier transform

[tex] \hat{\rho}(\xi) = \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^n} \rho(x)e^{-2\pi ix\cdot\xi} d^nx?[/tex]

I believe it is true, but am unable to prove it when [itex]n>1[/itex]. If [itex]n=1[/itex], then I can show that

[tex] \rho_{X_1+X_2}(x) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\rho_{X_1}(x-y)\rho_{X_2}(y) dy.[/tex]

This follows from a suitable variable change:

[tex] P(0\leq X_1+X_2\leq a) = \int\limits_{0\leq x_1+x_2\leq a} dx_1\; dx_2\; \rho_{X_1}(x_1)\rho_{X_2}(x_2)<br /> = \int\limits_0^a\Big(\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho_{X_1}(x-y)\rho_{X_2}(y) dy\Big) dx[/tex]

The result [itex]\hat{\rho}_{X_1+X_2} = \hat{\rho}_{X_1}\hat{\rho}_{X_2}[/itex] is then an easy result about convolutions and Fourier transforms.

If [itex]n>1[/itex], then a similar approach would start from the probability

[tex] P(X_1+X_2\in [0,a_1]\times\cdots\times [0,a_n]) = \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^n} \Big( \int\limits_{-x_1 + [0,a]^n} \rho_{X_1}(x_1) \rho_{X_2}(x_2) d^nx_2\Big)d^nx_1[/tex]

but now I'm not sure what kind of variable change would work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K