5
$\begingroup$

Does one of these two assertions imply the other ?

(1) $X_1, X_2, ..., X_n$ are linearly independent random variables (i.e. $\lambda_1 X_1 + \lambda_2 X_2 + ... + \lambda_n X_n = 0$ => $\lambda_1 =\lambda_2=...=\lambda_n=0$)

and

(2) $X_1, X_2, ..., X_n$ are independent random variables (stochastically independent)

If not, is there some special cases for which one implication (1=>2 or 2=>1) is true (Gaussian law? etc.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Well I feel like (1) and (2) belong to different mathematical topics. (1) is for algebra (meaning X is a vector), where as (2) is for probability (meaning X is a stochastic variable). Therefore (1) and (2) wouldn't have to do anything with each other. $\endgroup$ – Bernd Jan 9 '14 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ To start with: if $X_i \in \mathbb{R}$ (real scalar) and $n>1$, then 1) is never true. I think you are confusing probabilistic concepts (eg orthogonality) with linear-algebra concepts. see eg stats.stackexchange.com/questions/12128/… $\endgroup$ – leonbloy Jan 9 '14 at 11:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No @leonbloy, I don't confuse anything, I know that linear independence (linear algebra) and stochastic independence (probability theory) are different concepts in different topics (linalg vs proba), but I wanted to know if, in some cases, there are links between them $\endgroup$ – Basj Jan 9 '14 at 13:15
2
$\begingroup$

Neither implies the other.

As a counterexample of $1 \Rightarrow 2$ take $X_1 = X,\ X_2 = X^2$ for some r.v. $X$, say $X\sim U(0,1)$. They are of course not stochastically independent, but should be linearly independent.

For $2 \Rightarrow 1$, just use a.s. constant $X_1, X_2$. The are stochastically independent, but not linearly independent.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are right (+1), but for 2)$\rightarrow$1) being a.s. constant is the only counterexample. The only thing needed to get 2)$\rightarrow$1) is the extra condition that $X_1$ or $X_2$ is not a.s. constant. $\endgroup$ – drhab Jan 9 '14 at 12:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you @drhab, do you claim that 2 => 1 is true as long as $X_1$ and $X_2$ are not a.s. constants ? Do you have a proof for that ? $\endgroup$ – Basj Jan 9 '14 at 13:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Basj: drhab's answer proves that for $n=2$ and I think this can easily be extended. $\endgroup$ – Jens Jan 9 '14 at 13:49
2
$\begingroup$

Let it be that $X$ and $Y$ are not linearly independent. Then some pair $\left(\lambda,\mu\right)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\backslash\left\{ \left(0,0\right)\right\} $ exists with $\lambda X+\mu Y=0$ leading to $Y=cX$ or $X=cY$ for some constant $c$. So independence is quite far away. If they are independent then they must be a.s. constant.

$\endgroup$

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.