Sums of exponentially distributed rvs

  • Thread starter Thread starter roadworx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distributed Sums
roadworx
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Can anyone derive the sum of exponentially distributed random variables?

I have the derivation, but I'm confused about a number of steps in the derivation.

Here they are:

Random variable x has the PDF,

f(s) = \left\{<br /> \begin{array}{c l}<br /> e^{-s} &amp; if s \ge 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; otherwise <br /> \end{array}<br /> \right. <br />

Let X_1, X_2, ... , X_n be independently exponentially distributed random variables.

The PDF of the sum, X_1 + X_2 + ... +X_n is

q(s) = e^{-(s_1+s_2+...+s_n)} where s s \ge 0

=> \int_{a \le s_1+s_2+...+s_n \le b} q(s) ds

= \int_{a \le s_1+s_2+...+s_n \le b} e^{-(s_1 + ... + s_n)} ds

Can anyone explain this stage? Going from the above integral to the following integral?

= \int^b_a e^{-u} vol_{n-1} T_u du

where T_u = [s_1+ ... + s_n = u]


What would vol_{n-1} be here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you need to do the problem this way? I can suggest two procedures that would be easier than this approach:
1) Since the Xs are i.i.d exponential, you can calculate the moment generating function of the sum quite easily, and identify the distribution from that
2) Rather than using all n of the variables in a single integration, start with

<br /> S_2 = X_1 + X_2<br />

and find its distribution, then continue to the case you have by induction.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top