2
$\begingroup$

Consider the step function $\Delta: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow [0,1]$ $$ \Delta(x;\lambda,\mu)\equiv \sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j\times 1\{\mu_j\leq x\} $$ where

  • $\lambda\equiv (\lambda_1,...,\lambda_J)$ is a parameter

  • $\mu\equiv (\mu_1,...,\mu_J)$ is a parameter

  • $J=3$

  • $\lambda_j\geq 0$ $\forall j$; $\sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j=1$

  • $\mu_j\in \mathbb{R}$ $\forall j$; $\mu_1<...<\mu_J$

  • $1\{\cdot\}$ is an indicator function taking value $1$ if the condition inside is satisfied and zero otherwise

Claim: If $\lambda_1\times \lambda_2\times \lambda_3\neq 0$ and $\frac{\mu_2-\mu_1}{\mu_3-\mu_2}\neq 1$, then $\Delta(\cdot; \lambda,\mu)$ cannot be such that $\Delta(x;\lambda,\mu)=1-\Delta(-x;\lambda,\mu)$.

Question: Could you help me to show this claim? Even just the intuition would be OK.

Also, is there a way to generalise this claim to any $J$?


Some thoughts: one way to show the claim is to prove that

"If $\Delta(x;\lambda,\mu)=1-\Delta(-x;\lambda,\mu)$ $\forall x$, then $\lambda_1\times \lambda_2\times \lambda_3= 0$ or $\frac{\mu_2-\mu_1}{\mu_3-\mu_2}= 1$."

I have tried to picture in my mind the cases in which we can have $\Delta(x;\lambda,\mu)=1-\Delta(-x;\lambda,\mu)$ $\forall x$ when $J=3$. Given that when $J=3$ we can have 4 steps at most, I ended up with 2 cases only:

1) $\lambda_j=\lambda_k=0$, $\lambda_h=1$, $\mu_h=0$

2) $\lambda_j=0$, $\lambda_k=\lambda_h=\frac{1}{2}$, $\mu_k=-\mu_h$

These two cases definitively satisfy $\lambda_1\times \lambda_2\times \lambda_3=0$. I can't picture a case implying $\frac{\mu_2-\mu_1}{\mu_3-\mu_2}= 1$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Hint: Since all $\lambda_j$ are nonzero and $\mu_3-\mu_2\neq \mu_2-\mu_1$ it should be easy to see that the function $$\Delta(x,\lambda,\mu)=\begin{cases}0,x<\mu_1\\\lambda_1,\mu_1\leq x<\mu_2\\ \lambda_1+\lambda_2,\mu_2\leq x<\mu_3\\ 1=\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\lambda_3,\mu_3\leq x \end{cases}$$ doesn´t fulfill $\Delta(\delta,\lambda,\mu)=1-\Delta(-\delta,\lambda,\mu)$ for all $\delta>0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but I can't go too far with that hint. I have added some thoughts to the question which I hope clarify where I got stuck. Also, I would like a generalisation of the statement for any $J$. $\endgroup$ – STF Feb 17 at 13:26

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.