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

Consider a process $X_t=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \mathbf{1}_{\{T_k\le t\}}$, and a new process $\hat{X_t}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} z_k \mathbf{1}_{\{T_k\le t\}}$, where $P\{z_k=0\}=p, P\{z_k=1\}=1-p$, and $\{z_k\}$ are iid , and $T_k=\sum_{i}^{k}\tau_j $ ,and $P(\tau_j\le t)=1-e^{-\lambda t}$. How can I show that $X_t$ and $\hat{X_t}$ are independent.

share|cite|improve this question
They are not. $ $ – Did Dec 12 '11 at 17:26
do you mind explaining why? I am not too sure, thanks – John K Dec 12 '11 at 17:29
Why do you think they are? What did you try to show they are? What would you try to show they are not? – Did Dec 12 '11 at 17:43
Is it possible you wanted $\sum_{k=1}^\infty (1-z_k)\mathbf{1}_{\{T_k\le t\}}$ to be your definition of $X_t$? – Michael Hardy Dec 12 '11 at 20:30
....if so, I think then you'd have independence. – Michael Hardy Dec 12 '11 at 20:31

$X_t=0 \implies \hat{X_t}=0$

That is because you are using the same sequence of random times.

share|cite|improve this answer
Perhaps you would consider expanding upon your answer? – mixedmath Dec 13 '11 at 4:33
What for? $ $ $ $ – Did Jan 12 '12 at 10:06

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.