The CDF from the characteristic function

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
36 replies · 6K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Ooops! I forgot about that. My mistake. Thanks!

So, this is an indication that the derivation is correct, right? The only difference in my equations is that I use the formula ##\text{ci}(x)\pm j\,\text{si}(x) = \text{Ei}(\pm j\,x)##, where ##\text{Ei}(x) = -\int_{-x}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-t}}{t}\,dt = -E_1(-x)##. The question is: why the numerical integration doesn't evaluate as a CDF for the general case using MATLAB and Mathematica? Is it a precision issue in the software tools?
 
I don't know how MATLAB or Mathematica were set up. There may be some limitations to their applicability. Since I have never used them I can't help here. When I need complicated integrals I look up the table I previously mentioned.
 
mathman said:
I don't know how MATLAB or Mathematica were set up. There may be some limitations to their applicability. Since I have never used them I can't help here. When I need complicated integrals I look up the table I previously mentioned.

But theoretically, the derivation should be correct, right? Because I just raise the CF of a single X to the power K, and then solve for the CDF as we did for a single X.
 
The basic theory (invert the nth power of the char. function gives the cdf of the sum of n terms) is correct. But as we have seen with the case n=1, the calculation can be very tricky. The Gil-Pelaez theorem had to be used and getting the imaginary part can be messy.
 
Yes, but supposedly, the software tools take care of the imaginary part using their functions to extract the imaginary part. We don't have to concern ourselves with doing that manually.