1
$\begingroup$

I have to prove $\sup|P_{n}(k)-\pi_{\lambda}(k)| \leq \frac{\lambda^2}{n}$ where $P_{n}(k)$ is distribution of Binomial RV with parameters $(n, \frac{\lambda}{n})$ and $\pi_{\lambda}(k)$ is Poisson with parameter $\lambda$.

I've shown that if $\xi=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\xi_j$, where $\xi_j \sim \text{Ber} \left(\frac{\lambda}{n}\right)$ and $\eta=\sum_{j=1}^{n} \eta_j$, where $\eta_j \sim \text{Poi} \left(\frac{\lambda}{n}\right)$, then $\xi$ has probability distribution $P_{n}(k)$ and $\eta \ \pi_{\lambda}(k)$.

Any suggestions will be massively appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There isn't any "then" after your "if", so it's not clear to me what you are saying you have shown. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 4 '11 at 5:42
2
$\begingroup$

See pages 20-21 of the book Stochastic processes and models, by David Stirzaker, here.

Adapting the linked solution to your case and notation: Using your notation, choose a joint distribution $f(x,y)$ for $\xi_j$ and $\eta_j$ as follows: $$ f(0,0) = 1 - \lambda /n, $$ $$ f(1,0) = e^{ - \lambda /n} - 1 + \lambda /n, $$ $$ f(1,y) = \frac{{(\lambda /n)^y e^{ - \lambda /n} }}{{y!}}, \;\; y \geq 1, $$ $$ f(0,y) = 0,\;\; y \geq 1. $$ Note that $f(\cdot,\cdot)$ indeed determines a joint distribution, as $$ f(0,0) + f(1,0) + \sum\limits_{y = 1}^\infty {f(1,y)} + f(0,y) = 1. $$ Further note that $\xi_j$ and $\eta_j$ are not independent with this joint distribution. It holds $$ {\rm P}(\xi _j \ne \eta _j ) = f(1,0) + {\rm P}(\eta _j \ge 2) = \lambda /n - (\lambda /n)e^{ - \lambda /n} \le (\lambda /n)^2 . $$ Next, using your notation, $$ |{\rm P}(\xi = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k)| \le {\rm P}(\xi \ne \eta ) \le {\rm P}(\xi _j \ne \eta _j ,\;{\rm for}\;{\rm some}\; j) $$ (the second inequality is trivial; the first is derived in the edit below). Thus, $$ |{\rm P}(\xi = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k)| \leq \sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {{\rm P}(\xi _j \ne \eta _j )} \leq \frac{{\lambda ^2 }}{n}, $$ and so $$ |P_n (k) - \pi _\lambda (k)| \le \frac{{\lambda ^2 }}{n}. $$

EDIT: Derivation of the inequality $$ |{\rm P}(\xi = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k)| \le {\rm P}(\xi \ne \eta ) . $$ From $$ {\rm P}(\xi = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k) = {\rm P}(\xi = k,\eta \ne k) + {\rm P}(\xi = k,\eta = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k), $$ it follows that $$ {\rm P}(\xi = k) - {\rm P}(\eta = k) \leq {\rm P}(\xi = k,\eta \ne k) \leq {\rm P}(\xi \neq \eta). $$ Analogously, ${\rm P}(\eta = k) - {\rm P}(\xi = k) \leq {\rm P}(\xi \neq \eta)$; hence the result.

Also, in view of the proof (above the edit), it is worth noting that $$ {\rm P}(\xi _j \ne \eta _j ,\;{\rm for}\;{\rm some}\; j) = {\rm P}(\xi_1 \neq \eta_1 \vee \cdots \vee \xi_n \neq \eta_n) \leq \sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {{\rm P}(\xi _j \ne \eta _j )} . $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Further note that the joint distribution $f(\cdot,\cdot)$ yields the correct marginal distributions for $\xi_j$ and $\eta_j$. $\endgroup$ – Shai Covo Jul 4 '11 at 10:48
  • $\begingroup$ I can see that $\frac{\lambda}{n} -\frac{\lambda}{n}e^{-\frac{\lambda}{n}} \leq \frac{\lambda}{n}$, but why is it less than $\Big(\frac{\lambda}{n}\Big)^2$? $\endgroup$ – sigma.z.1980 Jul 4 '11 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ @sigma.z.1980: Let $x=\lambda / n \,( > 0)$, so you want to show $x - xe^{-x} \leq x^2$, or (after dividing by $x$) $1 - e^{-x} \leq x$. The last inequality can be easily proved by comparing the derivatives of $1 - e^{-x}$ and $x$, which are $e^{-x}$ and $1$, respectively. $\endgroup$ – Shai Covo Jul 4 '11 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ OK yes of course, it's just Taylor series expansion of $e^{-x}$ till the 2nd term. I regret I didn't see this before. $\endgroup$ – sigma.z.1980 Jul 5 '11 at 0:24
  • $\begingroup$ @sigma: Note, however, that from $e^{-x} = 1 - x + x^2/2! - x^3/3! + \cdots$ it is not clear that $e^{-x} \geq 1 - x$ (though it is true). $\endgroup$ – Shai Covo Jul 5 '11 at 0:35

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.