0
$\begingroup$

In the geometric distribution section of the Head First statistics book, it is said that the $P\{X>r\}$ is $q^r$ because for the success to occur after $r$ trials it means that the first $r$ trials must have ended in failure. And, according to the book, we don't need $p$ in this formula because we do not want to know which trial was successful, only that we needed more than $r$ trials. However, I do not really understand this concept. Shouldn't the probability rather be $q^rp + q^r+p$ and so on until infinity. Could anyone please help explain this?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Let us remember how geometric distribution works. Let $X$ is geometric distr. with parameter $p$.

Then, we calculate:

$$Pr(X\le r)=\sum_{k=1}^rpq^{k-1}. $$

Now we are looking for opposite probability (remember that $1=p+q$), so: $$Pr(X>r)=1-\sum_{k=1}^rpq^{k-1} =1-\sum_{k=1}^r((1-q)q^{k-1}). $$

$$Pr(X>r)=1-\sum_{k=1}^r(q^{k-1}-q^k) =1-(1-q^r)=q^r. $$

Where in the last equality survives only first and last member of the sum. Hence the answer $q^r$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. I understand the derivation now! $\endgroup$ – QPTR Sep 26 '15 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ I also tried doing it the other way round that is the sum of q^r and q^r+1 and so on and it gives the same answer! $\endgroup$ – QPTR Sep 26 '15 at 11:40
1
$\begingroup$

The book does not cheat you. In order to know that $X>r$, you only need to ensure that $r$ first trials are unsuccessful. These $r$ consecutive failures have probability $q^r$, which is the answer to your question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer, I understand the mathematical proof now but intuitively the only thing that confuses me is that when we consider the success occurring in either r+1 or r+2 or r+3 or r+4 trials (which is what is implied by P{X>r} in my mind) what we usually do is add up the probabilities for each of those, since the probability of it being > r can occur in any of those and not necessarily the r+1th trial which is what q^r would suggest. $\endgroup$ – QPTR Sep 26 '15 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ @QPTR, if you always think about what you "usually do", you'll never learn anything new. So I recommend to try hard getting used to new ideas and approaches. $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Sep 26 '15 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ well, true, but I do want to learn, which is why I was curious about the intuition behind this new way. $\endgroup$ – QPTR Sep 27 '15 at 2:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.