Summation notation from a multinomial distribution calculation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the expected value E[N] from a multinomial distribution using its probability mass function (pmf). The pmf is expressed as \(\frac{n!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!... n_{r}!}p^{n_{1}}_{1}}p^{n_{2}}_{2} ... p^{n_{r}}_{r}\). The user seeks clarification on the summation notation, specifically regarding the index 'i' which does not appear in the expressions provided. The conversation highlights the need for a clearer definition of the summation limits and the role of the index in the context of multinomial calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multinomial distributions
  • Familiarity with probability mass functions (pmf)
  • Knowledge of expected value calculations in statistics
  • Basic comprehension of summation notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the expected value from multinomial distributions
  • Learn about the properties of probability mass functions
  • Explore advanced summation techniques in statistical calculations
  • Review examples of multinomial distribution applications in real-world scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Statisticians, data scientists, and students studying probability theory who are working with multinomial distributions and require clarity on expected value calculations.

Somefantastik
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Getting E[N] from the multinomial dist, where

[tex]\frac{n!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!... n_{r}!}p^{n_{1}}_{1}}p^{n_{2}}_{2} ... p^{n_{r}}_{r}[/tex] is the pmf.

Does this look right?

[tex]\Sigma^{n}_{i=1}E\left[e^\left\{{\Sigma^{r}_{k=1}t_{k}N_{k}}\right\}}\right][/tex]
[tex]=\Sigma^{n}_{i=1}\left[e^\left\{{\Sigma^{r}_{k=1}t_{k}N_{k}\right\}}} \frac{n!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!... n_{r}!}p^{n_{1}}_{1}}p^{n_{2}}_{2} ... p^{n_{r}}_{r} \right]\right\}[/tex]
[tex]=\Sigma^{n}_{i=1}\frac{n!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!... n_{r}!}\left(p_{1}e^{t_{1}}\right)^{n_{1}}...\left(p_{r}e^{t_{r}}\right)^{n_{r}}[/tex]

If so, where do I go from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The statement of the problem is very confusing. Your summation index is i, but i does not appear anywhere in the various expressions.
 
And that, the index for sums over n(i) values shall run from 0.
 

Similar threads

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