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.

The probability that $X \in (-1, 3)$ equals $0$ ;

Expectation: $\mathbb{E} X=0$

How to find minimal variance?

I suppose that the answer is 3. Is that right? And how to prove it?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

We should use Markov's inequality.Note that $$P(-2<(X-1)<2)=0$$ Consequently, $$P((X-1)^2<4)=0$$ Next, Markov inequality for $Y=(X-1)^2$: $$P(Y \geq 4) \leq E(Y)/4 = E(X^2-2X+1)/4 = (E(X^2)+1)/4$$ Because $E(X) = 0$. Then, $D(X)=E(X^2)$. So, $$E(X^2)\geq P(Y \geq 4)-1=3$$

share|improve this answer

Hint: the smallest variance will occur when the entire probability mass is at $−1$ and $3$ and distributed so that the mean is $0$.

share|improve this answer
Why not? if expactation 0, then P(x=-1)=3/4 and P(x=3)=1/4; E(X^2)=1*3/4+9*1/4=3 –  Xxx Dec 4 '12 at 17:20
@Xxx You are correct. I used $(-1,2)$ instead of $(-1,3)$. I will edit my answer. Thanks. –  Dilip Sarwate Dec 4 '12 at 18:14

Let $X$ be a random variable such that $\mathbb{E}X=0$, $\mathbb{P}[X \in (-1,3)]=0$. You want to solve

$$\mathbb{E}((X-\mathbb{E}X)^2)=\mathbb{E}(X^2) = \int_{[X \leq -1]} X^2 \, d\mathbb{P}+ \int_{[X \geq 3]} X^2 \, d\mathbb{P} \to \min$$

One can easily see that the minimum is attained for $X \sim p_1 \cdot \delta_{-1}+p_2 \cdot \delta_{3}$. From the condition $\mathbb{E}X=0$ and $p_1+p_2=1$ you obtain $p_1$, $p_2$.

share|improve this answer

$\newcommand{\var}{\operatorname{var}}\newcommand{\E}{\mathbb E}$

Let $$X=\begin{cases} 3 & \text{with probability }1/4, \\ -1 & \text{with probability }3/4. \end{cases}$$ This puts the values that $X$ can assume as close to $0$ as they can get without violating the constraints you've set. We get $\E(X)=0$ and $\var(X) = 3$.

Later edit: Suppose $Y$ is some other r.v. satisfying the constraints. Then $$ \E(Y) = \E(Y\mid Y\ge3)\Pr(Y\ge3)+\E(Y\mid Y\le-1)\Pr(Y\le-1)=0, $$ and \begin{align} \var(Y) & = \E(\var(Y\mid 1_{Y\ge3}))+\var(E(Y\mid 1_{Y\ge3})) \\[12pt] & = \overbrace{\var(Y\mid Y\ge3)\Pr(Y\ge3)+\var(Y\mid Y\le-1)\Pr(Y\le-1)}^\text{unexplained component of the variance} \\[4pt] &{}\quad {}+ \overbrace{\underbrace{(\E(Y\mid Y\ge3)-\E(Y\mid Y\le-1))^2}_\text{square}\ \underbrace{\Pr(Y\ge3)\Pr(Y\le-1)}_\text{product}}^\text{explained component of the variance}. \end{align} The "unexplained" component of the variance will be $0$ precisely in the case ofthe r.v. $X$ defined above.

The "product" is of the form $p(1-p)$ and gets bigger as $p$ gets closer to $1/2$ and smaller as $p$ gets closer to either endpoint. The "square" is minimized subect to the required constraints by the variable $X$ defined above. So our only hope of making $\var(Y)$ smaller than $3=\var(X)$ must lie in making the "product" small. That requires making $p$ closer to $1$ or to $0$.

Probably I'll continue this further later . . . . . . .

share|improve this answer
and now we need to show that other variance will be bigger, don't we? –  Xxx Dec 4 '12 at 17:30
Yes.... Maybe I'll expand this further. If one takes this $X$ and writes $Y=X+\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon$ is always nonnegative when $X=3$ and and nonpositive when $X=-1$, then it's easy to show that $\operatorname{var}(Y)\ge\operatorname{var}(X)$, and if the distribution of $\varepsilon$ is suitably chosen, then $\mathbb E(Y)=0$. But then there's the question of altering the weights $1/4$ and $3/4$ and compensating to keep the expectation of $Y$ equal to $0$ by altering the distribution of $\varepsilon$. –  Michael Hardy Dec 4 '12 at 18:22

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.