Sign up ×
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 recently learned that two independent random variables $X$ and $Y$ must have a covariance of 0. That means that the correlation between them is also 0.

However, apparently, the converse is not true. 2 random variables $X$ and $Y$ can have a correlation of 0, yet still be dependent. I don't understand why this is. Doesn't a correlation of 0 imply that the random variables do not affect each other?

share|cite|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Correlation is a measure of linear dependence, so it kind of gives you an indication of how the two variables are related linearly. It doesn't capture however more complicated behaviour.

Therefore if you have $X$ and $X^2$ with $X \sim N(0,1)$, then

$$\operatorname{Cov}(X, X^2) = E(X^3) - E(X)E(X^2) = 0$$

but the two random variables are clearly dependent.

share|cite|improve this answer
It's one of the reasons why when you're working with statistical data, you should always study data plots. Claims that there's no statistical relationship when there's an obvious "smile" on a scatter plot can be very misleading. –  johnny Dec 2 '12 at 20:32
I am not sure whether you can see this or not, however, how can we guarantee $E(X^3) = 0$ i.e., 3rd moment of $X$ –  kurtkim Sep 11 at 1:21

No, it doesn't imply that. Correlation is just a one-dimensional measure, whereas dependence can take many forms. For instance, the indicator variable of the event that a normally distributed random variable is within one standard deviation of the mean is uncorrelated with the random variable itself, but is clearly not independent of it.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.