Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Variance of the recursive union of events
Replies:
4
Last Post:
Feb 16, 2013 1:18 PM



Paul
Posts:
517
Registered:
2/23/10


Re: Variance of the recursive union of events
Posted:
Feb 16, 2013 12:06 AM


On Feb 15, 10:50 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: >Paul wrote: >>Paul wrote: >>> >>> Using a simplification of the notation in the paper, >>> consider variance of the recursive relationship: >>> >>> 0) c(n) = u(n) + c(n1)  c(n1) u(n) >>> >>> for n=1,2,... and c(0)=0. All c(n) and u(n) values represent >>> probabilities i.e. lie with [0,1]. Furthermore, in the above >>> expression (0), u(n) and c(n1) are independent. >> >> Actually, consider: >> >> U(n) = event to which probability u(n) is assigned >> C(n1) = event to which probability c(n1) is assigned >> C(n) = union[ U(n) , C(n1) ] >> >> It is the *events* U(n) and C(n1) that are independent, not >> the probabilities u(n) and c(n1). >> >>> In evaluating the variance of (0), the indices are rather >>> meaningless, as we are completely focused on the right hand >>> side of the equation. I only include them in case a reader >>> has access to the paper. The variance of (0) is presented as: >>> >>> 1) var c(n) = var u(n) + var C(n1) + var[ c(n1) u(n) ] >>>  2 cov[ u(n) , c(n1) ] >>>  2 cov[ c(n1) , c(n1) u(n) ] >>> >>> According to the above wikipedia page, however, it should be: >>> >>> 2) var c(n) = var u(n) + var C(n1) + var[ c(n1) u(n) ] >>>  2 cov[ u(n) , c(n1) ] >>>  2 cov[ u(n) , c(n1) u(n) ] >>>  2 cov[ c(n1) , c(n1) u(n) ] >>> >>> Since u(n) and c(n1) are independent, their covariance >>> disappears, so (2) becomes: >>> >>> 3) var c(n) = var u(n) + var C(n1) + var[ c(n1) u(n) ] >>>  2 cov[ u(n) , c(n1) u(n) ] >>>  2 cov[ c(n1) , c(n1) u(n) ] >>> >>> This still differs from (1). It is plausible that (1) is a >>> typo,though not all that likely. > > Actually, it's very likely. > > I think you should _assume_ it's a typo, correct it, and see if > the corrected version is consistent with the rest of the paper.
The problem is that this is only a driveby perusal of the paper, since it is plumbing far deeper than I can rationalize for the results that I'll be using (which occur in a paper that is 2 citations removed from this one). I'd love to be able to take the time and become familiar with the weird and wonderful PDFs and to program the Monte Carlo simulation that follows the above steps, but it's just not in the cards right now. I was hoping that key derivation steps would make sense, and I could mentally give it the green label of "Yup, seems quite reasonable, onward ho". Even that's going to take some time considering the new territory (for me) that it wanders into, so I was hoping to get a confirmation on the above logic thus far.



