Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm curious if my solution to this problem is correct:

$X_1,X_2,...,X_n$ are each independently, uniformly distributed over (0,1). Let $M = max (X_1, X_2,...,X_n)$. Show that the distribution function of $M, F_M(.)$ is given by:

$F_M(a)=a^n, \quad 0 \le a \le 1$


The probability that $M=a$ is given by the probability that $n-1$ of the $n$ variables are less than $a$, and that the remaining variable is $a$:

$f_M(a) \ = \ \binom{n}{n-1} F(a)^{n-1} f(a) \ = \ n F(a)^{n-1}$

Given that $f(a)=1$ for a uniform RV. Now for $F_M(a)$, we have the derivative of this so the distribution function will be its integral:

$F_M(a)=\int_{0}^{a} f_M(x)dx \ = \ \int_{0}^{a} nF(x)^{n-1} dx $

Since $F(x)$ is uniform on $(0,1)$:

$= \ n \int_{0}^{a} x^{n-1} dx=n(n)^{-1} x^n = x^n$


Thoughts appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The probability that one of the values is exactly $a$ is $0$, so I think that the short argument below poses fewer difficulties. For minimum a similar argument will work. The idea you used can be adapted to computing other order statistics. I would be more comfortable using a limits argument based on the same insight.

The maximum of our $n$ random variables is $\le a$ if and only if they are all $\le a$. The probability of this is $a^n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 related:… – leonbloy Oct 17 '12 at 18:38

Actually, the prob that the max is less than $a$ is the same as the probability that all of them are less than $a$. Thus, $\mathrm{Pr}(X_{max}\leq a)=\mathrm{Pr}(X_{i}\leq a \forall i)$ = $\Pi_{i=1}^{n} \mathrm{Pr}(X_{i}\leq a)$ due to independence = $a^{n}$ due to the fact that they are all uniform (0,1)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Ken, I see. Given $n-1$ smaller than $a$ the $n$th must be $a$ to ensure it is the maximum. Think I started backwards, I wonder is the above wrong or just unnecessary? – conjectures Oct 17 '12 at 18:50
Most of your argument is okay, but you are making statements about continuous random variables which are not exactly right. The prob that the max $ = a$ is actually zero. That's why we work with statements like $X_{i} \leq a$ and so forth. – Ken Dunn Oct 17 '12 at 18:54

Thanks for your answers.

Just on the use of $f(x)$ for a continuous distribution. I am aware of the argument why this is zero, but is it not correct to use the definition of a uniform rv, i.e. that $f(x)=1, 0 \le x \le 1$?

share|cite|improve this answer
That is correct. – Ken Dunn Oct 17 '12 at 19:03

Your Answer


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.