Placing random variables in order

In summary: If you remove the factor n and divide by n! to avoid double counting, you get the same result.I agree with you. This is a good example of how the notation can obscure what is actually happening.
  • #1
infk
21
0
Hello
Let's say we have some continuous i.i.d random variables [itex]X_1, \ldots X_n[/itex] from a known distribution with some parameter [itex]\theta[/itex]
We then place them in ascending order [itex]X_{(1)}, \ldots X_{(n)}[/itex] such that [itex]X_{(i)}, < X_{(i+1)}[/itex].

We call this operation [itex]T(\mathbf{X})[/itex] where [itex]\mathbf{X}[/itex] is our vector [itex]X_1, \ldots X_n[/itex].

Now let's say we are interested in finding out whether [itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X| T(\mathbf{X}) = t)[/itex] where t and x are both vectors (and outcomes), depends on [itex]\theta[/itex].

By definition of conditional probability, we have:
[itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X| T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = \frac{P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t)}{P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)}[/itex]

Trying to find these 2 probabilities:
[itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)[/itex], this is the probability that my ascending ordering [itex]X_{(1)}, \ldots X_{(n)}[/itex] is a certain vector. This probability should simply be
[itex]\prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)[/itex], since we already know that they are ordered.

[itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t)[/itex], this is the probability that my random vector [itex]\mathbf{X}[/itex] attains a certain (vector)value while the ordering attains a certain (vector)value. But this should also be equal to [itex]\prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)[/itex].

So
[itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X| T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = \frac{P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t)}{P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)} = 1[/itex]. If this is correct, what does it mean that the probability is 1? Is it wrong? why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I agree with [itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = P(\mathbf{X} = X) = \prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)[/itex]

However, the probability for a specific ordering, [itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)[/itex], is different, as you have multiple ways (multiple X) to get the same P(X) - assuming the probability that two Xi are the same is 0, you have exactly n! ways.
Therefore, [itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)=\frac{1}{n!}P(\mathbf{X} = X)[/itex].

This is easy to see with an example:

##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = (1,2)) = P(\mathbf{X} = (1,2)) + P(\mathbf{X} = (2,1))##

##P(\mathbf{X} = X| T(\mathbf{X}) = t)## is equivalent to "one specific permutation out of n! was chosen" - assuming ##T(X)=t##, of course, otherwise it is 0.
 
  • #3
Are the random variables discrete or continuous?

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/OrderStatistics.html claims that the pdf should be ##n! \prod_i f_X(x_i)## for continuous variables ##x##, which seems to agree with what mfb has said.

In case the OP is not already aware, such a problem is one of order statistics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
mfb said:
I agree with [itex]P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = P(\mathbf{X} = X) = \prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)[/itex]

However, the probability for a specific ordering, [itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)[/itex], is different, as you have multiple ways (multiple X) to get the same P(X) - assuming the probability that two Xi are the same is 0, you have exactly n! ways.
Therefore, [itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)=\frac{1}{n!}P(\mathbf{X} = X)[/itex].

This is easy to see with an example:

##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = (1,2)) = P(\mathbf{X} = (1,2)) + P(\mathbf{X} = (2,1))##

##P(\mathbf{X} = X| T(\mathbf{X}) = t)## is equivalent to "one specific permutation out of n! was chosen" - assuming ##T(X)=t##, of course, otherwise it is 0.

I see what you mean.
But since ##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = (1,2)) = P(\mathbf{X} = (1,2)) + P(\mathbf{X} = (2,1)) = 2*P(\mathbf{X} = (1,2))##, shouldn't it rather be:
[itex]P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)= n!P(\mathbf{X} = X)[/itex]?

This way, the probability ##P(\mathbf{X} = X|T(\mathbf{x}) = t)## is equal to ##\frac{1}{n!}## which seems very intuitive: Given that the order ##T## has taken a certain value ##t = X_{(1)},\ldots X_{(n)}## this corresponds to (as pointed out by mfb) excactly ##n!## outcomes of ##\mathbf{X} = X_1 \ldots X_n## such that the probability of ##\mathbf{X}## attaining one of them is excactly ##\frac{1}{n!}##
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Oh, wrong side of the equation. Of course, otherwise your conditional probability would be n! (>1...) instead of 1/n! (correct).
 
  • #6
Same question but we pick another ##T##: ##T = (\text{min}(\mathbf{X}),\text{max}(\mathbf{X}))##. In this case we should get the same probability ##P(T(X)=t)## as before, namely ##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)= n!P(\mathbf{X} = X)##, for consider the case: ##P(T = 1,X_2,3)## this is the sum of the probabilites of ##\mathbf{X}## attaining all possible permutations of ##(1,X_2,3)##, which equals ##3!P(\mathbf{X} = (1,X_2,3) )##.

For ##P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t)## , I believe the same reason applies, since ##T## just takes the largest and smallest value of ##\mathbf{X}##. Hence ##P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = P(\mathbf{X} = X) = \prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)##

We therefore get the same result as before. I don't know about the intuition behind this, (look at my interpretation of the previous result), Shouldn't the values of ##\mathbf{X}## that are between the smallest and largest have more "liberty" of attaining their outcomes since we, in this case, only impose the restriction that they are between ##\text{min}(\mathbf{X})## and ##\text{max}(\mathbf{X})##?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
##P(\mathbf{X} = X, T(\mathbf{X}) = t) = P(\mathbf{X} = X) = \prod^{n}_{i=1}f(x_i)##
I agree.

##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)= n!P(\mathbf{X} = X)##
Why?

A constructive approach: Pick the index with the lowest value (n choices), and the index with the highest value (n-1 choices), require that all other variables are between those values:
##P(T(\mathbf{X}) = t)= n(n-1)f(t_1)f(t_2)\left(\int_{t_1}^{t_2}f(x)\right)^{n-2}##
 

FAQ: Placing random variables in order

1. What is the purpose of placing random variables in order?

Placing random variables in order allows us to better understand and analyze a set of data. It helps us identify patterns, trends, and relationships between variables, making it easier to draw conclusions and make predictions.

2. How do you determine the order of random variables?

The order of random variables is typically determined by arranging them in ascending or descending numerical or alphabetical order. This can be done manually or using statistical software.

3. Can random variables be placed in any order?

No, random variables must be placed in a logical and consistent order. This means that the order should make sense in the context of the data and the variables being studied.

4. What is the difference between placing random variables in ascending and descending order?

Placing random variables in ascending order means arranging them from smallest to largest, while descending order means arranging them from largest to smallest. The choice of order may depend on the research question and the data being analyzed.

5. Is there a specific method for placing random variables in order?

There is no one specific method for placing random variables in order, as it may depend on the type of data and the research question. However, common methods include using tables, graphs, or statistical calculations to arrange the variables in a logical order.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
496
Replies
1
Views
259
Replies
1
Views
284
Replies
1
Views
945
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
725
Back
Top