Check my proof on showing two Bernoulli RV's are independent

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the independence of two Bernoulli random variables, X and Y, by showing that P(X=1, Y=1) equals P(X=1)P(Y=1). The proof establishes that independence is equivalent to having a covariance of zero, which is derived from the relationship between joint and marginal probabilities. The author references a source for support and questions the necessity of summing marginal pmfs for establishing independence. Clarification is sought on whether this additional step is essential for a complete proof. The inquiry highlights the nuances in understanding independence in the context of probability theory.
Runty_Grunty
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I've got a pretty good answer to this one already, yet I'd like to see how solid it is. I'll list the question first in quotes.
Show that two Bernoulli random variables X and Y are independent if and only if P(X=1,Y=1)=P(X=1)P(Y=1).

Here's my work below. I credit http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1685v4.pdf" for the answer.

X and Y are independent if and only if P(X=i,Y=j)=P(X=i)P(Y=j) where i,j=0,1.
Two Bernoulli random variables are independent if and only if they are uncorrelated, and thus have a covariance of zero.
Corr(X,Y)=0\Leftrightarrow Cov(X,Y)=0

Let p(x) be the pmf of X, and let p(y) be the pmf of Y.
If X and Y are independent then by definition
Cov(X,Y)=p(xy)-p(x)p(y)=P(X=i,Y=j)-P(X=i)P(Y=j)=0,
as P(X=i,Y=j)=P(X=i)P(Y=j) for i,j=0,1.
If on the other hand we have that Cov(X,Y)=0, then
p(xy)-p(x)p(y)=0\Rightarrow p(xy)=p(x)p(y).
Therefore, X and Y are independent.

This should properly answer the question, though I've been told by another source that summing up the marginal pmfs is also necessary to show independence. I don't know whether or not that's really necessary, though, and could use a second opinion.

Is there anything about my proof that could use improvement?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Note:

\begin{align*}<br /> cov(X,Y) &amp; = E(XY) - E(X)E(Y) \\<br /> &amp;= \left(0 \cdot 0 \cdot p(0,0) + 0 \cdot 1 \cdot p(0,1) + 1 \cdot 0 \cdot p(1,0) + 1 \cdot 1 \cdot p(1,1)\right) - \left(0 p_x(0) + 1 p_x(1)\right) \left(0 \cdot p_y(0) + 1 \cdot p_y(1)\right) \\<br /> &amp;= p(1,1) - p_x(1)p_y(1) \tag{A}<br /> \end{align*}<br />

I think this relates to the "summing" comment. Also, nothing in the above calculation is based on an assumption of independence or dependence. From (A) you can say:

If X, Y are independent, then ...

and then

If cov(X,Y) = 0 it must be true that ... so ...
 
statdad said:
Note:

\begin{align*}<br /> cov(X,Y) &amp; = E(XY) - E(X)E(Y) \\<br /> &amp;= \left(0 \cdot 0 \cdot p(0,0) + 0 \cdot 1 \cdot p(0,1) + 1 \cdot 0 \cdot p(1,0) + 1 \cdot 1 \cdot p(1,1)\right) - \left(0 p_x(0) + 1 p_x(1)\right) \left(0 \cdot p_y(0) + 1 \cdot p_y(1)\right) \\<br /> &amp;= p(1,1) - p_x(1)p_y(1) \tag{A}<br /> \end{align*}<br />

I think this relates to the "summing" comment. Also, nothing in the above calculation is based on an assumption of independence or dependence. From (A) you can say:

If X, Y are independent, then ...

and then

If cov(X,Y) = 0 it must be true that ... so ...

Thanks, I was wondering what was meant by that "summing" part.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top