X and Y identically distributed implies E(X) = E(Y) and var(X) = var(Y)

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distributed
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
4 replies · 3K views
e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let [itex](S, \Sigma, P)[/itex] be a probability space. Let X and Y be two random variables on S that satisfy [itex]P \circ X^{-1} = P \circ Y^{-1}[/itex] (i.e. they are identically distributed) and such that E(X), E(Y), var(X) and var(Y) exist and are finite. Prove that E(X) = E(Y) and var(X) = var(Y).

The attempt at a solution
I can only think of proving this the long and tedious way: first when X and Y are simple, then for X and Y bounded, then for X and Y nonnegative, and then finally for X and Y integrable. Is there an easier way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you easily show X and Y have the same cdf? Then do you have a definition for E[X^n] in terms of the cdf of X?
 
Billy Bob said:
Can you easily show X and Y have the same cdf? Then do you have a definition for E[X^n] in terms of the cdf of X?
They do have the same CDF but I don't have a definition of E[Xn] in terms of the CDF of X. All I know is that

[tex] E[X^n] = \int_S X^n \, dP[/tex]

whenever the integral exists.
 
Do you have a theorem saying something like

[tex]\int f\, d(P\circ X^{-1})=\int (f\circ X)\, dP[/tex] ?

If so then you can use f(x)=x, f(x)=x^2, or even f(x)=x^n.

If you don't have such a theorem, you could prove it. I can't see how to avoid some of the "long" method. Maybe it is shorter than you thought. I don't think you have to approximate X and Y, just the two functions f(x)=x and f(x)=x^2. If you just want to do those two cases, use (or imagine using) a specific sequence of simple (step, in fact) functions.

Maybe you can get away with observing that for [tex]f= \chi_E[/tex] we have [tex]\chi_E\circ X=\chi_{X^{-1}(E)}[/tex], and then saying a magic phrase like "the result follows by linear combinations and limits." Probably not. I think it might be worth writing it out, just to verify my claim that X and Y don't need to be approximated.
 
Billy Bob said:
Do you have a theorem saying something like

[tex]\int f\, d(P\circ X^{-1})=\int (f\circ X)\, dP[/tex] ?

If so then you can use f(x)=x, f(x)=x^2, or even f(x)=x^n.

If you don't have such a theorem, you could prove it.

I don't know of such a theorem. I'll try to prove that though (seems interesting).