What Common Mistakes Occur When Calculating Moment Generating Functions (MGFs)?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nacho-man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moments Mystery
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around common mistakes encountered when calculating moment generating functions (MGFs) in probability theory. Participants explore the definition of MGFs, their implications for moments of random variables, and issues related to the convergence of integrals involved in their calculation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the calculation of the MGF and reports obtaining an invalid answer, questioning the convergence of the integral involved.
  • Another participant reiterates the definition of the MGF and provides a formula for calculating it, but questions the convergence of the integral used in the calculation.
  • A third participant challenges the convergence of the integral and provides a specific condition under which the integral converges, noting that it is relevant for practical applications.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the MGF for finding moments of a random variable, including mean and variance, but do not reach a consensus on the calculations presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the integral calculations or the conditions for convergence. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the approaches taken and the interpretation of the MGF.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the calculations, particularly concerning the convergence of integrals and the conditions under which the MGF is defined.

nacho-man
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Please refer to the attached image.The concept of MGF still plagues me.

I got an invalid answer when i tried this.

What i did was:

$ \int e^{tx}f_{X}(x)dx $
= $ \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{tx}(p \lambda e^{-\lambda x} + (1-p)\mu e^{-x\mu})dx$

I was a bit wary at this point, because it reminded me of the bernoulli with the p and (1-p) but i could not find any relation for this.

i separated the two integrals, and ended up with
$ p \lambda \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{tx-x\lambda}dx + ... $ which i knew was immediately wrong because that integral does not converge.
What did i do wrong.

What does the MGF even tell us. First, second, nth moment, what does this mean to me?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    8.7 KB · Views: 109
Physics news on Phys.org
nacho said:
Please refer to the attached image.The concept of MGF still plagues me.

I got an invalid answer when i tried this.

What i did was:

$ \int e^{tx}f_{X}(x)dx $
= $ \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{tx}(p \lambda e^{-\lambda x} + (1-p)\mu e^{-x\mu})dx$

I was a bit wary at this point, because it reminded me of the bernoulli with the p and (1-p) but i could not find any relation for this.

i separated the two integrals, and ended up with
$ p \lambda \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{tx-x\lambda}dx + ... $ which i knew was immediately wrong because that integral does not converge.
What did i do wrong.

What does the MGF even tell us. First, second, nth moment, what does this mean to me?

By definition is...

$\displaystyle M(t) = E \{ e^{t\ X} \} = \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} f(x)\ e^{t\ x}\ dx = \int_{0}^{\infty} \{p\ \lambda\ e^{- \lambda\ x} + (1-p)\ \mu\ e^{- \mu\ x}\ \}\ e^{t\ x}\ d x = \frac{p}{1 - \frac{t}{\lambda}} + \frac{1-p}{1-\frac{t}{\mu}}\ (1)$

The knowledge of M(t) permit us to find mean and variance of X with the formula...

$\displaystyle E \{X^{n}\} = M^{(n)} (0)\ (2)$

... so that is...

$\displaystyle E \{X\} = \frac{p}{\lambda} + \frac{1-p}{\mu}\ (2)$

$\displaystyle E \{X^{2}\} = \frac{2\ p}{\lambda^{2}} + \frac{2\ (1-p)}{\mu^{2}}\ (3)$

$\displaystyle \sigma^{2} = E \{X^{2} \} - E^{2} \{ X \} = \frac{2\ p - p^{2}}{\lambda^{2}} + \frac{2\ (1-p) - (1-p)^{2}}{\mu^{2}} - 2\ \frac{p\ (1-p)}{\lambda\ \mu}\ (4)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
By definition is...

$\displaystyle M(t) = E \{ e^{t\ X} \} = \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} f(x)\ e^{t\ x}\ dx = \int_{0}^{\infty} \{p\ \lambda\ e^{- \lambda\ x} + (1-p)\ \mu\ e^{- \mu\ x}\ \}\ e^{t\ x}\ d x = \frac{p}{1 - \frac{t}{\lambda}} + \frac{1-p}{1-\frac{t}{\mu}}\ (1)$

$\chi$ $\sigma$
I don't see how this integral converges, how did you get that answer
 
nacho said:
I don't see how this integral converges, how did you get that answer

Is...

$\displaystyle \lambda\ \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{- (\lambda-t)\ x}\ d x = \frac{\lambda}{t - \lambda} |e^{- (\lambda-t)\ x}|_{0}^{\infty} = \frac{1}{1-\frac{t}{\lambda}}\ (1)$

... and [of course...] the integral in (1) converges if $\displaystyle t< \lambda$. That is not a disavantage because from the pratical point of view what matters in the behaviour of M(t) in t=0...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K