5
$\begingroup$

I was going through the proof of the Chebyshev Inequality here .

And I seem to be facing some trouble in the approximation stage. I can't seem to follow how $\epsilon$ has been approximated to $(t-\mu)$.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

It is an inequality. The text in that document breaks up the flow slightly.

It should read like this:

$\int_{-\infty}^{\mu-\epsilon}(t-\mu)^2f_X(t)dt+\int_{\mu+\epsilon}^{\infty}(t-\mu)^2f_X(t)dt \ge \int_{-\infty}^{\mu-\epsilon}\epsilon^2f_X(t)dt+\int_{\mu+\epsilon}^{\infty}\epsilon^2f_X(t)dt$.

They did not replace $(t-\mu)^2$ with $\epsilon^2$. Rather, they exploited the inequality $(t-\mu)^2 \ge \epsilon^2$ to achieve the inequality I typed above.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Four of us gave you the same correct explanation within a few minutes of each other so we all worked on this at the same time. So @Inquest why did you choose to give the check mark to Ed? Technically Peter was first, I was second and Ed was last. Is it that you found his explanation a little clearer? $\endgroup$ – Michael R. Chernick Jul 17 '12 at 21:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelChernick, For one, it was a correct explanation. Secondly, I appreciated the fact that it was no terse and I was pleased to find an explanation which didn't make me feel dumb and clarified that there was a break in the flow of the document. (Also, for some reason, I saw this one first). $\endgroup$ – Inquest Jul 17 '12 at 21:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think there are some timestamp discrepancies. On my end, it shows my response at 32 minutes ago, @MichaelChernick's at 30 minutes ago, Peter's at 25 minutes ago and oen's at 31 minutes ago. I have also voted up all other answers, since they give the same explanation in slightly different ways, using different notation, which I think has educational value for someone learning the material. $\endgroup$ – Emily Jul 17 '12 at 21:19
6
$\begingroup$

Over the two semi infinite intervals of integration we have 1) in the first region t<μ-ϵ and 2)in the second region t>μ+ϵ. Both regions were cleverly chosen so the ϵ$^2$<(t-μ)$^2$. So the inequality is maintained with ϵ$^2$ replacing (t-μ)$^2$ and the rest should be easy for you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Inquest. I think to be fair you need to give each of us an upvote. The checkmark is of course at your discretion. $\endgroup$ – Michael R. Chernick Jul 17 '12 at 21:12
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Although I am not bound by your opinions and see no reason why your solicitation should be fair, I did upvote all answers (including yours) when I came to understand them. $\endgroup$ – Inquest Jul 17 '12 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Inquest Sure i understand and i appreciate that and what the ther respondents are doing. I am going to make sure that I upvote all the others as well. I think that is fair. We all came upon our answers independently. $\endgroup$ – Michael R. Chernick Jul 17 '12 at 22:37
5
$\begingroup$

Notice that for $t\in (-\infty,\mu-\epsilon]\cup[\mu+\epsilon,\infty)$ that $(t-\mu)^2 \ge \epsilon^2$.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

$\epsilon$ is not being approximated by $t - \mu$. What is happening is that for $t$ outside the interval $(\mu - \epsilon, \mu + \epsilon)$, $\epsilon^2 \leq (t - \mu)^2$ and hence the two integrals can be underestimated.

The reasoning "since $t \leq \mu - \epsilon \Rightarrow \epsilon \leq | t - \mu | \Rightarrow \epsilon^2 \leq (t - \mu)^2$" on the page you refer to, applies to the rewriting of the left integral, c.q., $t$ on the left of the interval $(\mu - \epsilon, \mu + \epsilon)$. A similar reasoning applies to the right integral, c.q., the right of that interval.

$\endgroup$

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.