Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm working on the following problem I got in a hw but I'm stuck. It just asks to find the distribution function of a random variable $X$ on a discrete probability spaces that takes values in $[A,B]$ and for which $Var(X) = \left(\frac{B-A}{2}\right)^{2}.$

I got that this equality gives the expected values $E(X) = \frac{A+B}{2}$ and $E(X^{2}) = \frac{A^{2}+B^{2}}{2}$, but I can't see why this gives a unique distribution (as the statement of the problem suggests).

I also found the distribution function $p(x) = 0$ for $x \in (A,B)$ and $p(A)=\frac{1}{2}$, $p(B)=\frac{1}{2}$ that works for example, but I don't see how this is the only one. Can anyone shed some light please?

Thanks a lot!

share|improve this question
    
If the question asks to find the distribution function of A random variable that blablabla, it's probably because there is not only one. To be quite honest I would be surprised if there was only one. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 5:32
    
yes, I figured, but how could you characterize all of them knowing only the expectation and the variance? (I suppose this is what the question asks) –  Dquik Oct 7 '12 at 5:46
    
maybe we can do it in this nice case when the variance has maximal value (we know that $Var(X) \leq \left(\frac{B-A}{2} \right)^{2}$ in general... –  Dquik Oct 7 '12 at 5:47
    
I don't think you have any idea how ugly random variables can be. Knowing expectation and variance is very little. Now that I think about it maybe there's something to do... but I'm not very optimistic. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 5:52
1  
@PatrickDaSilva In principle you are right that random variables may be ugly, as you call them, but here, there is indeed a unique maximizing distribution, which is the discrete one you found in your answer. –  Did Oct 7 '12 at 7:25
show 11 more comments

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Let $m=\frac12(A+B)$ and $h=\frac12(B-A)$. The OP indicates in a comment how to prove that any random variable $X$ with values in $[A,B]$ and such that $\mathrm{Var}(X)=h^2$ is such that $\mathbb E(X)=m$ and $\mathbb E((X-m)^2)=h^2$.

Starting from this point, note that $|X(\omega)-m|\leqslant h$ for every $\omega$ since $A\leqslant X(\omega)\leqslant B$, hence $(X-m)^2\leqslant h^2$ everywhere. Together with the equality $\mathbb E((X-m)^2)=h^2$, this proves that $(X-m)^2=h^2$ almost surely, that is, $X\in\{A,B\}$ almost surely. Now, use once again the fact that $\mathbb E(X)=m$ to deduce that $\mathbb P(X=A)=\mathbb P(X=B)=\frac12$.

Edit: Let us recall why $Y\geqslant0$ almost everywhere and $\mathbb E(Y)=0$ imply that $Y=0$ almost everywhere.

Fix $\varepsilon\gt0$, then $Y\geqslant0$ almost everywhere hence $Y\geqslant\varepsilon\mathbf 1_{Y\geqslant\varepsilon}$ almost everywhere. This implies that $0=\mathbb E(Y)\geqslant\varepsilon\,\mathbb P(Y\geqslant\varepsilon)$, that is, $\mathbb P(Y\geqslant\varepsilon)=0$. Now, $[Y\ne0]=[Y\gt0]$ is the countable union over every positive integer $n$ of the events $[Y\geqslant1/n]$ hence $\mathbb P(Y\ne0)=0$. QED.

share|improve this answer
    
Am I wrong saying this is a "non-scaled" version of my proof? It feels like it. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 8:08
    
@PatrickDaSilva The idea is similar but the realizations of this idea seem different, even once one omits this scaling/unscaling thing, which is minor. Note for example that the method in my post nowhere assumes that the distribution has a density or is discrete or anything similar. Note also that you assume that the distribution has a density, only to reach the conclusion that it has not... :-) However, as I said, yes, in the end the idea is similar. –  Did Oct 7 '12 at 8:14
    
Good, we agree =) I felt a little sketchy I admit. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 8:16
1  
If you ask me, I see no problem with sketchy solutions (as long as one recognizes them as such), nor with so-called stupid questions (which in my book simply do not exist...). –  Did Oct 7 '12 at 8:22
    
I meant "trivial question" then. ;) –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 16:40
add comment

If we simplify the problem and scale things appropriately, you're essentially looking for a distribution function $f(x)$ such that $$ \int_{-1}^{1} f(x) \, dx = 1, \quad \int_{-1}^1 x f(x) \, dx = 0, \quad \int_{-1}^1 x^2 f(x) \, dx = 1. $$ Let us look only at the first two integrals first, so that we only look at variables $X$ whose $f$ satisfy $$ \int_{-1}^1 f(x) \, dx = 1, \quad \int_{-1}^1 x^2 f(x) \, dx = 1. $$ This implies that $$ \int_{-1}^1 (1 - x^2) f(x) \, dx = 0. $$ Notice that $1-x^2$ is positive and $f$ is a positive measure on $[-1,1]$ for which $\int_{-1}^1 f = 1$. Consider $\varepsilon > 0$ and $A_{\varepsilon} = [-1+\varepsilon, 1 - \varepsilon]$. Assume that $\int_{A_{\varepsilon}} f(x) \, dx > 0$. Therefore $$ 0 = \int_{-1}^1 (1-x^2)f(x) \, dx \ge \int_{A_{\varepsilon}} (1-x^2) f(x) \, dx \ge \int_{A_\varepsilon} (1-(1-\varepsilon)^2) f(x) \, dx > 0 $$ because the last integral is a constant times the integral over $A_{\varepsilon}$ of $f$. This contradiction shows that $\int_{A_{\varepsilon}} f(x) \, dx = 0$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$.

Since probability measures are continuous, we can let $\varepsilon \to 0$ and know that $p(]-1,1[) = 0$. This means $p( \{-1,1\} ) = 1$ by taking complements. Since the expectation has to be $0$, the variable has to be symmetric, i.e. $p(-1) = p(1) = \frac 12$.

Hope that helps,

share|improve this answer
    
This answer is probably better off being a comment, but at least it makes me a little bit more optimistic that your random variable might be unique. I could "argue that all the weights have to be on the endpoints" using measure theory a little better but I didn't know if you knew measure theory. It wouldn't be that hard. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 6:15
    
I forgot to say that the probability space is discrete, sorry –  Dquik Oct 7 '12 at 6:17
    
anyway, please elaborate more, I'm not sure I understood the argument anyway (you can use measure theory) –  Dquik Oct 7 '12 at 6:17
    
@Dquik : Probability space is discrete? That changes a lot! –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 6:34
    
@Dquik : I actually didn't need to assume the space was discrete! There literally is only one variable with such properties. I just needed to go through my assumptions a little bit more in detail. The whole proof is up there. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. –  Patrick Da Silva Oct 7 '12 at 6:44
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.