Major issue to handle this proof

  • MHB
  • Thread starter nicekiller231
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Major Proof
In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of studying the occurrence of an event A, which is assumed to occur with a probability of p(t)=e^{-bt}*|\sin(at)|. The speaker suggests dividing time into small steps and counting the number of times A occurs for t∈[0,∞]. They also mention that the limit of p(t) as t approaches infinity is 0. The problem is to study the number of occurrences of A in relation to the parameters a and b. It is noted that for lower values of b, A occurs more often, but the relationship between A and a is not clear. The speaker suggests a proof showing that for higher values of a, A occurs more frequently. They also provide
  • #1
nicekiller231
2
0
Good morning.

My problem is as follow:

I have an event assuming A. The probability that A occurs at time t is: \(\displaystyle p(t)= e^{-bt}*|\sin(at)|\). Where a,b are positive parameters.

We divide the time in small step times let's say \delta t= 0.125, Then, we count how many time A occur for $t \in [0, \infty]$. Good to notice that $$\lim_{{t}\to{\infty}}p(t)=0$$

So my problem is to study the number of occurrence of A in the variation of the parameter a and b.
Which I can prove mathematically that for a lower value of b, A occurs more often and for the bigger value of a, A occurs more frequently.

I hope I was clear.
If anyone has any suggestion or idea about how could we do that.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
As far as b is concerned, noting that [tex]e^{-bt}[/tex], for fixed t, is a decreasing function of b (for example, the derivative with respect to b, [tex]-te^{-bt}[/tex], is negative) is sufficient. As for a, I don't believe it is necessarily true that "for the bigger value of a, A occurs more frequently."
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy said:
As far as b is concerned, noting that [tex]e^{-bt}[/tex], for fixed t, is a decreasing function of b (for example, the derivative with respect to b, [tex]-te^{-bt}[/tex], is negative) is sufficient. As for a, I don't believe it is necessarily true that "for the bigger value of a, A occurs more frequently."

actually, It is the case for higher values of $a$ A occur more often. However, it is obvious for the parameter b.
But in my case I looking for a proof to that.

This is my way but I not sure if it is the right way to do it
$A(t)$ is $p(t)$, $b$ is $ \beta$ and a is $\omega $
we estimate $\phi(\omega , \beta)$, which is the primitive of a function $A(t)$ representing the individual's attraction to a rumor from the initial time (of hearing the rumor) until the loss of interest by that individual.
We prove that $\phi(\omega,\beta)$ is proportional to $\omega$ and inversely proportional to $\beta$.
\begin{align}
\phi(\omega,\beta)&=\int_0^\infty A(t) dt \\
&=\int_0^\infty A_{int} e^{-\beta t} |\sin(\omega t)| dt\qquad\mbox{for}\quad\beta >0
\label{equ:eq1}
\end{align}

Knowing that
\begin{equation*}
|\sin (\omega t)|=
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\sin (\omega t),\quad t \in [2k \pi/\omega,(2k+1)\pi/\omega]\\
-\sin (\omega t),\quad t \in [(2k+1)\pi/\omega, 2k\pi/\omega] \\

\end{array}
\right.
\quad \mbox{for } \omega \neq 0
\label{equ:eq2}
\end{equation*}
Knowing the expression of $|\sin(\omega t)|$, we obtain for $ \beta > 0$ and $\omega \neq 0$
\begin{align}
\phi(\omega,\beta)&= A_{int} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \int_{k \pi/\omega}^{(k+1)\pi/\omega} (-1)^k e^{-\beta t} \sin(\omega t) dt \\
& =A_{int} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\omega e^\frac{-\beta k \pi}{\omega}}{\beta^2+\omega^2}(1+e^\frac{-\beta \pi}{\omega}) \\
& =\frac{A_{int}\omega \left( 1+e^\frac{-\beta \pi}{\omega}\right) }{(\beta^2+\omega^2)(1-e^\frac{-\beta \pi}{\omega})}
\end{align}
Then we study $ \frac{\partial \phi(\omega,\beta) }{\partial \omega}$ and $ \frac{\partial \phi(\omega,\beta) }{\partial \beta}$ to highlight the influence of $\omega $ and $\beta$:
\begin{align}
\label{equ:eq8}
\phi_{\omega} &= - \frac{A_{int}\left(\left(\omega^3-\beta^2\omega\right)\mathrm{e}^\frac{2{\pi}\beta}{\omega}+\left(-2{\pi}\beta \omega^2-2{\pi}\beta^3\right)\mathrm{e}^\frac{{\pi}\beta}{\omega}-\omega^3+\beta^2\omega\right)}{\omega\left(\omega^2+\beta^2\right)^2\left(\mathrm{e}^\frac{{\pi}\beta}{w}-1\right)^2}\\
\label{equ:eq9}
\phi_{\beta} &= -\frac{2A_{int}\left(\omega\beta\mathrm{e}^\frac{2{\pi}\beta}{\omega}+\left({\pi}\beta^2+{\pi}\omega^2\right)\mathrm{e}^\frac{{\pi}\beta}{\omega}-\omega \beta\right)}{\left(\beta^2+\omega^2\right)^2\left(\mathrm{e}^\frac{{\pi}\beta}{\omega}-1\right)^2}
\end{align}The study of $ \frac{\partial \phi(\omega,\beta) }{\partial \omega}$ and $ \frac{\partial \phi(\omega,\beta) }{\partial \beta}$ shows that: First,
$\phi_\omega$ is positive for $\omega >0$ and $ \beta >0 $, from which we can conclude that $\phi(\omega,\beta)$ is proportional to $\omega$ in this interval.
Second, $\phi_\beta$ is a negative for $\beta > 0 $ and $ \omega >0$, from which we can conclude that $\phi(\omega,\beta)$ is inversely proportional to $\beta$ in the same interval.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Major issue to handle this proof

What is the major issue in handling this proof?

The major issue in handling a proof is ensuring that all steps and reasoning are logically sound and accurate. Any errors or gaps in the proof can invalidate the entire argument.

What is the first step in handling a proof?

The first step in handling a proof is to fully understand the problem or question being asked. This involves identifying key terms and concepts and breaking down the problem into smaller, more manageable parts.

How can I check the validity of a proof?

To check the validity of a proof, one can use the rules of logic and mathematical principles to evaluate each step and ensure that the reasoning is sound. It can also be helpful to approach the problem from different perspectives or to try to disprove the argument.

What are some common mistakes to avoid in handling a proof?

Some common mistakes to avoid in handling a proof include jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence, making incorrect assumptions, and using faulty logic. It is also important to carefully check calculations and notation for accuracy.

How can I improve my skills in handling proofs?

To improve skills in handling proofs, it is important to practice regularly and seek feedback from peers or mentors. It can also be helpful to read and study proofs from various fields of mathematics to gain a better understanding of different techniques and approaches.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
610
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
861
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top