Functions of Random Variables
A new random variable Y can be defined by applying a real Borel measurable function to the outcomes of a real-valued random variable X. The cumulative distribution function of is
If function g is invertible, i.e. g−1 exists, and increasing, then the previous relation can be extended to obtain
and, again with the same hypotheses of invertibility of g, assuming also differentiability, we can find the relation between the probability density functions by differentiating both sides with respect to y, in order to obtain
- .
If there is no invertibility of g but each y admits at most a countable number of roots (i.e. a finite, or countably infinite, number of xi such that y = g(xi)) then the previous relation between the probability density functions can be generalized with
where xi = gi-1(y). The formulas for densities do not demand g to be increasing.
In the measure-theoretic, axiomatic approach to probability, if we have a random variable on and a Borel measurable function, then will also be a random variable on, since the composition of measurable functions is also measurable. (However, this is not true if is Lebesgue measurable.) The same procedure that allowed one to go from a probability space to can be used to obtain the distribution of .
Read more about this topic: Random Variable
Famous quotes containing the words functions of, functions, random and/or variables:
“The mind is a finer body, and resumes its functions of feeding, digesting, absorbing, excluding, and generating, in a new and ethereal element. Here, in the brain, is all the process of alimentation repeated, in the acquiring, comparing, digesting, and assimilating of experience. Here again is the mystery of generation repeated.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Let us stop being afraid. Of our own thoughts, our own minds. Of madness, our own or others’. Stop being afraid of the mind itself, its astonishing functions and fandangos, its complications and simplifications, the wonderful operation of its machinery—more wonderful because it is not machinery at all or predictable.”
—Kate Millett (b. 1934)
“We should stop looking to law to provide the final answer.... Law cannot save us from ourselves.... We have to go out and try to accomplish our goals and resolve disagreements by doing what we think is right. That energy and resourcefulness, not millions of legal cubicles, is what was great about America. Let judgment and personal conviction be important again.”
—Philip K. Howard, U.S. lawyer. The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America, pp. 186-87, Random House (1994)
“The variables of quantification, ‘something,’ ‘nothing,’ ‘everything,’ range over our whole ontology, whatever it may be; and we are convicted of a particular ontological presupposition if, and only if, the alleged presuppositum has to be reckoned among the entities over which our variables range in order to render one of our affirmations true.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)