Trace distance between two probability distributions - prove

Emil_M
Messages
45
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Let ##\{p_x\}## and ##\{q_x\}## be two probability distributions over the same index set ##\{x\}={1,2,...,N}##. Then, the trace distance between them is given by ##D(p_x,q_x):=\frac{1}{2} \sum_x |p_x-q_x|##.

Prove that ##D(p_x,q,_x)=max_S |p(S)-q(S)|=max_S | \sum_{x \in S} p_x - \sum_{x \in S} q_x|##, where the maximization is over all subsets ##S## of the index set ##\{x\}##.

Homework Equations


See above

The Attempt at a Solution


<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \frac{1}{2} \sum_x |p_x-q_x| &amp;\geq | \sum_{x \in S} p_x - \sum_{x \in S} q_x|\\<br /> &amp;= |\sum_{x \in S} p_x-q_x|<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Then, I have tried playing around with the triangle inequality, but that didn't go anywhere...

Thanks for you help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The key piece of information here is that all the probabilities will sum to 1.
If p(1) - q(1) = z, then the sum of q(2) to q(N) minus the sum of p(2) to p(N) will also be z.
 
Emil_M said:

Homework Statement


Let ##\{p_x\}## and ##\{q_x\}## be two probability distributions over the same index set ##\{x\}={1,2,...,N}##. Then, the trace distance between them is given by ##D(p_x,q_x):=\frac{1}{2} \sum_x |p_x-q_x|##.

Prove that ##D(p_x,q,_x)=max_S |p(S)-q(S)|=max_S | \sum_{x \in S} p_x - \sum_{x \in S} q_x|##, where the maximization is over all subsets ##S## of the index set ##\{x\}##.

Homework Equations


See above

The Attempt at a Solution


<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \frac{1}{2} \sum_x |p_x-q_x| &amp;\geq | \sum_{x \in S} p_x - \sum_{x \in S} q_x|\\<br /> &amp;= |\sum_{x \in S} p_x-q_x|<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Then, I have tried playing around with the triangle inequality, but that didn't go anywhere...

Thanks for you help!

If you let ##p_x - q_x = r_x##, the ##r_x## sum to zero. We can re-write ##D(p_x,q_x)## as ##(1/2) \sum_x |r_x| ## and ##p(S) - q(S) = \sum_{x \in S} r_x##.

We can write
\sum_{x \in S} r_x = \underbrace{\sum_{x \in S, r_x &gt; 0} r_x }_ {\geq 0} +<br /> \underbrace{\sum_{x \in S, r_x &lt; 0} r_x }_ {\leq 0}
Think about what properties ##S## must have in order that the absolute value of the above sum be maximal, say at the subset ##S = S_0##.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your help! I get it now
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top