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.

Sorry if this question is so basic, it hurts. I feel like not understanding this topic well enough is holding me back. If any of this language is wrong in some fundamental way, please correct me! Moving on..

Say I make a probabilistic statement about a random variable $X$ drawn from some unknown continuous distribution:

$$Pr(X > t) < t$$

Assume that statement holds for all $t > 0$.

Now let's say I draw a sample $Y$ from the distribution of $X$, but I don't tell you what $Y$ is. Is there any real difference between reasoning about $Y$ and reasoning about $X$? Is $Y$ a random variable? Does $X = Y$? Does the following implicitly hold?

$$Pr(Y > t) < t$$

Now let's say we do know the value of $Y$, e.g. $Y = 2$. Would probabilistic statements about random variable $Y$ still apply? Or would they go out the window with knowing the variable? Specifically, would the following hold?

$$Pr(2 > t) < t$$

share|improve this question
    
when you wrote the letter t twice in your first equation, was that intentional? for example: Pr(x > 5) < 5 if t = 5? –  frogeyedpeas Jul 17 '13 at 2:56
    
Yes, that was intentional. –  Sebastian Goodman Jul 17 '13 at 2:57
    
Yes it does imply that, but that conclusion is not really important to the questions I asked. –  Sebastian Goodman Jul 17 '13 at 14:33

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Okay so if we select X randomly from a set Q such that any randomly selected X from Q generally follows the statistical rule:

Probability(X > t) < t

Then your question is: if we select some Y randomly from the set Q does Y also obey the same law?

Yes, because selecting an X and selecting a Y is the same thing if both of them are randomly selected and have no difference in how they are selected.

Now if you did know the value of Y ahead of time would it change things? Most certainly!

The way the formula works is as follows:

you have the statement Probability(X > t) < t

You first give it a value of t (Ex: t = 1/2)

And then you get some useful expression:

Probability(X > 1/2) < 1/2

If you now define the value of X...

Probability(X$_{defined}$ > 1/2) < 1/2

The statement above is meaningless since you can just compare the two values and get a definite yes or no whether X is greater than or less than t.

On the other hand let us say t is undefined and x is defined:

Probability(X$_{defined}$ > t) < t

You have a new probability law all together which concerns a new variable t and takes a constant value X

So I guess it depends on how you interpret the formula you gave to be honest.

share|improve this answer
    
hopefully this makes sense! please let me know if it doesn't :) –  frogeyedpeas Jul 17 '13 at 3:04
    
if your going to downvote please at least explain why... even if it is a one word clue –  frogeyedpeas Jul 17 '13 at 3:52
    
Yes, your answer does make sense! Thank you! BTW, I was assuming that $t$ was just a number, but didn't mention that in my question. When you say that $Pr(X_{defined} > .5) < .5$ is meaningless, is it nonsense or is it just not useful? Also, I'd still like to know if it's semantically correct to say $X = Y$ if they are random variables drawn from the same distribution? –  Sebastian Goodman Jul 17 '13 at 4:41
    
that particular expression is not useful since we already know what $x_{defined}$ is and rather than having probabilistic data we can do a single comparison to figure for sure if indeed it is greater than or less than .5 –  frogeyedpeas Jul 20 '13 at 1:57
    
As far as X = Y, that really depends. If your doing a problem involving X and Y are two separate variables (though they "behave" similarly" then you need to keep the separate –  frogeyedpeas Jul 20 '13 at 1:58

First, the continuous distribution that you have defined is strange. $Pr(X>t)<t$ for $t>0$ means that the random variable is always $0$ or less. There is no problem with this but it is unusual and not particularly helpful for the question that you have asked. It is equivalent to $Pr(X>0)=0$.

You speak of taking a "sample $Y$" from $X$. If $X$ is a random variable then $Y$ is $X$. If $X$ is a collection of iid random variables $\{X_1,\dots,X_n\}$ then what is true of the "family" is true of $Y$.

If you know that $Y=2$, then $Y$ is not a random variable except in the trivial sense that $Pr(Y=2)=1$ and $Pr(Y\ne2)=0$.

If $Y$ is $X$ then the same is true of $X$, as Julius Caesar said "Alea iacta est" - "The die is cast" - once a random event has occurred it is no longer described by a random variable. Like a quantum wave function, it collapses when observed.

If $Y$ is an instance of $X$ then there are some very limited observations that you can make about $X$, pretty much confined to $Y=2$ is in the domain of $X$, i.e. it is an outcome with a non-zero probability but you have no knowledge of the value of that probability, it could be $1$ it could be $0.5$ or $10^{-4567}$ right down to $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\epsilon$.

As you gather more observations, so that $Y$ is now a random variable that consists of a sample of $X$ then there is a very real difference between reasoning about $Y$ and reasoning about $X$. I refer you to the Central Limit Theorem. Without reexplaining what the Wikipedia article says, the distribution of $Y$ will be related to but very different from $X$. For example, if the prerequisites of the Classical CLT are satisfied, $Y$ will be normally distributed irrespective of the distribution of $X$.

share|improve this answer
    
You are right that the statement I gave is strange and a more compact way of saying it is that $Pr(X > 0) = 0$. I didn't want anyone to get distracted by that, though. My questions have to do with the nature of random variables and not with that probabilistic statement. –  Sebastian Goodman Jul 17 '13 at 14:32
    
Also, I thought the CLT was a convergence result having to do with sampling statistics like the sample mean over $iid$ random variables following a normal distribution as the sample size goes to $\infty$. How does this relate to $X$ and $Y$? –  Sebastian Goodman Jul 17 '13 at 14:35
    
I believe that I was confused by your referring to $Y$ as a "sample". I will edit my answer. –  Dale M Jul 18 '13 at 2:01

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.