Undergrad The CDF from the Characteristic Function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the cumulative distribution function (CDF) directly from the characteristic function without first obtaining the probability density function (PDF). It is established that the difference F(b) - F(a) can be expressed using an integral involving the characteristic function φ(t). The integration approach clarifies that x serves as a dummy variable, and the limits can be adjusted to find F(x). The method emphasizes that the derived expression remains valid even in the absence of a known PDF. Overall, the conversation highlights a direct relationship between the characteristic function and the CDF.
EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Is there a way to find the CDF of a random variable from its characteristic function directly, without first finding the PDF through inverse Fourier transform, and then integrate the PDF to get the CDFÉ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let F(x) be the desired cdf. You can get F(b)-F(a)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-itb}-e^{-ita}}{-it}\phi(t)dt$.
 
mathman said:
Let F(x) be the desired cdf. You can get F(b)-F(a)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-itb}-e^{-ita}}{-it}\phi(t)dt$.

Sorry, this isn't clear to me. Could you elaborate more? Where is ##x## in the integration to have ##F(x)##?
 
x is a dummy variable. Integrate the expression for f(x) (pdf) from a to b to and then switch the order of integration to get the expession I presented. The important thing is that the same expression holds for the even when you don't have a pdf. If you want F(x), let b=x and see if a going to -\infty makes sense.
 
So, basically

F(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-itx}}{-it}\phi(it)\,dt

which is the IFT of ##\frac{\phi(it)}{-it}##?
 
You must use the expression as I described, since you don't know off hand what the expression (F(x)-F(a)) will look like as a tends to -∞. Also you wrote φ(it) where it should be φ(t).

∞9t
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K