Value of t for Probability Generating Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and interpretations of the Probability Generating Function (PGF), particularly focusing on the value of t in the context of PGFs for different distributions, including uniform distribution. Participants explore the implications of specific values of t, such as t = 1 and t = 2, and the meanings associated with these values.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the meaning of ##G_X(2)## and whether it holds any significance.
  • There is a claim that ##G_X(1) = 1## is not strictly correct, with a reference to a limit condition where probabilities must sum to one.
  • Participants discuss that ##G_X(2)## represents the expectation value of 2x, though its meaningfulness is considered context-dependent.
  • Some participants suggest that the interpretation of whether ##G_X(2)## is meaningful may vary on a case-by-case basis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of ##G_X(1) = 1##, with some agreeing on the limit condition while others challenge its general applicability. The discussion on the meaning of ##G_X(2)## remains exploratory, with no consensus on its significance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific mathematical conditions and interpretations that may depend on the context of the distributions being analyzed. There are unresolved questions about the implications of certain values of t in PGFs.

songoku
Messages
2,509
Reaction score
393
TL;DR
Let PGF be

$$G_X (t) = E(t^x) = \Sigma P(X=x_i) t^{x_i}$$

and ##G_X (1) = 1##
My questions:

1) What about if t = 2? Is there a certain meaning to ##G_X (2)## ?

2) PGF for uniform distribution is ##G_X (t)=\frac{t(1-t^n)}{n(1-t)}## and for t = 1 ##G_X (1)## is undefined so ##G_X (1) =1## is not true for all cases?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GX(1) = 1 is not strictly correct. The condition is (to quote Wikipedia)
" G(1−) = 1, where G(1−) = limz→1G(z) from below, since the probabilities must sum to one. "
 
mjc123 said:
GX(1) = 1 is not strictly correct. The condition is (to quote Wikipedia)
" G(1−) = 1, where G(1−) = limz→1G(z) from below, since the probabilities must sum to one. "

What about ##G_X (2)## ? Is there a certain meaning to it?

Thanks
 
It is the expectation value of 2x. Whether that is particularly meaningful is another question.
 
mjc123 said:
It is the expectation value of 2x. Whether that is particularly meaningful is another question.
So whether it is meaningful or not depend on the context being considered so it will be more like case-by-case basis?

Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K