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.

For random variable $X$ that follows some distribution, $f(x)$ is the probability density function of that distribution if and only if $$\mathbb{E}[\phi(X)] = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi(x) f(x)dx$$ for all functions $\phi$.

Context: My professor used this in lecture to demonstrate a way to find the distribution of $cX$ given random variable $X$ that follows a specific distribution.

  1. What is the name of this theorem?
  2. Have I missed any qualifications/caveats? I am in particular curious about whether "for all functions" is correct. My professor mentioned "positive, bounded, deterministic functions," but I am not sure what he meant by that.
  3. Where can I find a proof of this theorem?
share|improve this question
3  
I don't think this is a theorem; I think it's a definition of "probability density function." –  Qiaochu Yuan Nov 24 '12 at 4:01
    
Ah I see... just to clarify, is the following statement correct? If I show that the equation is true for one function phi, it is not enough to say that f(x) is the pdf of the distribution...? –  angryavian Nov 24 '12 at 4:23

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

A probability density function is usually defined in the following way:

Let $X$ be a random variable. Then $f$ is the probability density function of the distribution given by $X$ if and only if $f(x)\geq 0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $$ P(X\in A)=\int_A f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm d x), \quad A\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}). \tag{1} $$

However, $(1)$ is equivalent to both of the following

$$ P(a\leq X\leq b)=\int_a^bf(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx),\quad -\infty<a<b<\infty.\tag{2} $$

and

$$ \mathrm{E}[\varphi(X)]=\int_\mathbb{R}\varphi(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx),\tag{3} $$ for every measurable and integrable (with respect to the measure $f\lambda$) function $\varphi$.

It is clear that $(3) \Rightarrow (2)$ (take $\varphi=1_A$) and $(1)\Rightarrow (2)$ (take $A=[a,b]$). But on the other hand $(2)\Rightarrow (1)$ by the use of Dynkin's lemma and also $(1)\Rightarrow (3)$ by a standard argument that is often used in probability theory. The argument goes as follows:

a) The property $(3)$ holds for all indicator functions according to $(1)$.

b) If $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are two functions satisfying $(3)$, then $$ \begin{align*} \mathrm{E}[(\varphi+\psi)(X)]=\mathrm{E}[\varphi(X)]+\mathrm{E}[\psi(X)]&=\int_\mathbb{R}\varphi(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx)+\int_\mathbb{R}\psi(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx)\\ &=\int_\mathbb{R}(\varphi+\psi)(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx), \end{align*} $$ and so $\varphi+\psi$ satisfies $(3)$.

c) Suppose that $(\varphi_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is a sequence of non-negative, increasing functions satisfying $(3)$ such that $\varphi=\lim_{n\to\infty}\varphi_n$ exists pointwise. Then by applying the monotone convergence theorem (twice) we have $$ \mathrm{E}[\varphi(X)]=\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathrm{E}[\varphi_n(X)]=\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\mathbb{R}\varphi_n(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx)=\int_\mathbb{R}\varphi(x)f(x)\,\lambda(\mathrm dx). $$

Now the standard argument yields that $(3)$ holds for every measurable and integrable (with respect to the measure $f\lambda$) $\varphi$.

This also shows that $\varphi$ in $(3)$ could just as well have been chosen to be "positive and bounded".

share|improve this answer
1  
+1. But replace measurable and integrable in $(\ast\ast\ast)$ by measurable and integrable with respect to the measure $f\lambda$ or an equivalent formulation. –  Did Nov 24 '12 at 10:54
    
@did: Thanks. Edited accordingly. –  Stefan Hansen Nov 24 '12 at 11:00

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.