Summation of geometric number of iid exponentially distributed random variables

redflame34
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am having difficulty approaching this problem:

Assume that K, Z_1, Z_2, ... are independent.
Let K be geometrically distributed with parameter success = p, failure = q.
P(K = k) = q^(k-1) * p , k >= 1

Let Z_1, Z_2, ... be iid exponentially distributed random variables with parameter (lambda).
f(z) =
(lambda)*exp(-(lambda)x) , x >= 0
0, otherwise

Find the cdf of Z_1 + Z_2 + ... + Z_K

I think there is some relation to the Gamma function here, but I'm not quite sure how...

Any hints/suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I would try something like this. Let S be your "random number of random variables", ie. Z1+Z2+...+ZK

P(S<X) = sum_n P(S<X | K=n) * P(K=n)

Then analyze P(S<X | K=n) by finding the PDF or CDF for a random variable that is the sum of n exponential random variables. You could use the result that the resulting distribution function is the convolution of the n distribution functions.

After you have found P(S<X | K=n), you can perform the sum of n.

Torquil
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top