Why is the Sum of Exponentially Distributed Variables Exponentially Distributed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter A-fil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Statistics
A-fil
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let X1, X2, … be independent exponentially distributed stochastic variables with parameter λ. For the sum Y = X1 + X2 + … + XN, where N is a geometrically distributed stochastic variable with parameter p, show that Y is exponentially distributed with parameter pλ.


Homework Equations


The expected value of exponentially distributed stochastic variables is 1/λ.
The expected value of geometrically distributed stochastic variables is 1/p.


The Attempt at a Solution


What I don’t understand is mainly why Y would be exponentially distributed. According to my notes, for N constant, Y would be Erlang(N,λ).

However, if we assume that the sum of exponentially distributed variables is exponentially distributed (how to prove this?), one should be able to calculate the expected value for this distribution as:
E(Y)=E(\sum_{i=1}^{N}X_{i})=E(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \underbrace{E(X_{i})}_{1/λ} ) =\frac{E(N)}{λ}=\frac{1}{pλ}
Implying that Y~Exp(pλ). Is this correct?

So, I would appreciate any comments or hints hints that I could get from anyone here. I got the problem in Japanese and my Japanese isn't perfect so if the problem seems incorrect, feel free to point that out.

My first time posting here so I hope that I'm not breaking any rules.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi A-fil! :smile:

Did you see convolutions? That's how to calculate the distribution of a sum...
 
A-fil said:

Homework Statement


Let X1, X2, … be independent exponentially distributed stochastic variables with parameter λ. For the sum Y = X1 + X2 + … + XN, where N is a geometrically distributed stochastic variable with parameter p, show that Y is exponentially distributed with parameter pλ.


Homework Equations


The expected value of exponentially distributed stochastic variables is 1/λ.
The expected value of geometrically distributed stochastic variables is 1/p.


The Attempt at a Solution


What I don’t understand is mainly why Y would be exponentially distributed. According to my notes, for N constant, Y would be Erlang(N,λ).

However, if we assume that the sum of exponentially distributed variables is exponentially distributed (how to prove this?), one should be able to calculate the expected value for this distribution as:
E(Y)=E(\sum_{i=1}^{N}X_{i})=E(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \underbrace{E(X_{i})}_{1/λ} ) =\frac{E(N)}{λ}=\frac{1}{pλ}
Implying that Y~Exp(pλ). Is this correct?

So, I would appreciate any comments or hints hints that I could get from anyone here. I got the problem in Japanese and my Japanese isn't perfect so if the problem seems incorrect, feel free to point that out.

My first time posting here so I hope that I'm not breaking any rules.

You are correct that for fixed N the sum is Erlang, so that P{Y in (y,y + dy)|N = n} = f_n(y)*dy, where f_n is the n-Erlang density. However, you want to get P{Y in (y,y+dy)}. Do you see it now?

RGV
 
Thanks both of you for your help! I think I got it, but just to make sure (and for others who might have gotten stuck on something similar) I'll write it down.

f(y)=P(Y \in (y,y+dy)) = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P(Y \in (y,y+dy)|N=i)P(N=i)

We know that
P(N=k)=(1-p)^{k-1}p

To calculate the conditional probability one can use convultion, thus yielding:
P(Y \in (y,y+dy)|N=k) = \frac{(\lambda y)^{k-1}}{(k-1)!}\lambda e^{-\lambda y}

This yields

f(y)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{(\lambda y)^{k-1}}{(k-1)!}\lambda e^{-\lambda y}*(1-p)^{k-1}p=p \lambda e^{-\lambda y} \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{(\lambda y - \lambda y p)^{i-1}}{(i-1)!}=p \lambda e^{-\lambda y} \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\lambda y - \lambda y p)^{i}}{i!}=p \lambda e^{-\lambda y} e^{\lambda y - \lambda y p}=p \lambda e^{-p \lambda y}

Thus, Y~exp(pλ)
Q.E.D.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top