14
$\begingroup$

Can the Dirac delta function (or distribution) be a probability density function of a random variable. To my knowledge, it seem to satisfy the conditions. To my interpretation getting a positive real number as the outcome is 1 and that for a negative real number is zero. I wonder what could be the expected value. My question is, whether it is a valid probability density function of a random variable.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If so, what would you expect the CDF to look like? $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Jul 28 '11 at 4:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M. : a unit step function. $\endgroup$ – Rajesh Dachiraju Jul 28 '11 at 4:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Rajesh: The Dirac delta defines a perfectly good probability measure. However, it is not a function! $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jul 28 '11 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Rajesh: As implied in my answer, yes, of course. Modern probability theory allows for distributions which do not have well-defined density functions. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jul 28 '11 at 5:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RajeshD: On the contrary, what you describe means that $X$ is perfectly non-random. $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Oct 14 '11 at 7:30
10
$\begingroup$

As explained in Gortaur's answer a delta function cannot be the probability density function of a real random variable.

Nevertheless sums of delta functions can be viewed as the "missing link" between discrete and continuous random variables / probability distributions, in the following way:

If $X$ is a discrete random variable taking values $x_k\in{\mathbb R}$ $\ (k\in I$, $\ I$ a countable index set) with probabilities $p_k$ then one can replace the probability space $I$ with the probability space ${\mathbb R}$, provided with the probability measure $$\mu\ :=\ \sum_{k\in I} p_k \ \delta_{x_k}\ ,$$ where $\delta_x$ denotes a unit point mass at the point $x$. In this way $X$ now has become a real random variable. If $f:\ {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ is a reasonable function then the expectation $E\bigl(f(X)\bigr)$ may be written as an integral: $$E\bigl(f(X)\bigr)\ =\ \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(x)\ d\mu(x)\ .$$

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Gortaur's answer does not exist. Could you update the answer with the relevant content in the original answer? $\endgroup$ – Jorge Leitão Feb 18 '16 at 10:47
8
$\begingroup$

Wikipedia article on PDF implies that $\delta(x)$ can be used as a generalized PDF. The corresponding CDF would be the Heaviside (unit step) function as already mentioned. Expected value is 0; I would not really call that variable "random".

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Expected value is 0; I would not really call that variable "random"." - that's what I was sort of getting at in the comments; I guess I was too oblique... :D $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Jul 28 '11 at 14:40
6
$\begingroup$

As far as I know, pdf of a random variable $X$ w.r.t Lebesgue measure $\mu$ is defined $\mu$-a.e. as a solution of $$ \mathsf P\{X\in A\} = \int\limits_Af(x)\mu(dx) $$ for all $A\in\mathcal B(\mathbb R)$ where the last integral is Lebesgue integral. For sure you can talk about an integration using $\delta$ function, but usually I mention that people distinguish distributions with densities only when talking about absolute continuous distributions. The distribution of $X\equiv0$ is not absolute continuous since $\mathsf P\{X\in \{0\} \} = 1$ while $\mu(\{0\}) = 0$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Can the Dirac delta function (or distribution) be a probability density function of a random variable. To my knowledge, it seem to satisfy the conditions.

That depends on your definition. If you insist that you use the Lesbegue measure as a reference measure, then the delta function is not a Radon-Nikodym density with respect to this reference measure. But if you choose a different reference measure like the counting measure, which assigns to every set the number of its elements, then the delta function is a density (it is the characteristic function of the set {0}).

To my interpretation getting a positive real number as the outcome is 1 and that for a negative real number is zero.

No, the probability to get the number zero is 1, the probability to get anything else is zero.

I wonder what could be the expected value.

Since this random variable is 0 with probability 1, the expected value is 0.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How could one convince himself that the probability of getting the number 0 is 1. $\endgroup$ – Rajesh Dachiraju Jul 28 '11 at 9:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int_{a-\epsilon}^{a+\epsilon} \delta(x) dx$ is $1$ if $a=0$, and $0$ if $a\neq 0$. $\endgroup$ – Chris Taylor Jul 28 '11 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That proves that the probability of getting the number 0 is 1, and the probability of getting any other number is 0. Which is what you asked. $\endgroup$ – Chris Taylor Jul 28 '11 at 23:16
2
$\begingroup$

I was thinking about linear transformation of a zero mean gaussian random variable X. Defining random variable Y=aX, one can easily shows that the probability density function of Y is: $$ p_Y(y)=\frac{1}{|a|}.p_X(y/a)$$ It can be showed that as "a" tends to zero, the $$ p_Y(y)\to\delta (y)$$ Therefore, in my opinion, Dirac delta function can be used to describe the PDF of such a random variable.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent answer. Thanks for the answer $\endgroup$ – Rajesh Dachiraju Mar 27 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ a tends to zero or infty? You may want a to go to zero in your answer. $\endgroup$ – Rajesh Dachiraju Mar 27 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right. tend to zero. $\endgroup$ – Parsa Parvanehro Mar 27 at 19:33

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.