MHB Uniform [0,1] Squared Probability Calculation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barioth
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the density of the squared value of a uniform [0,1] random variable, U. The initial query involves whether to use the probability expression P(U^2<a) as P(U<a^{1/2}) or P(-a^{1/2}<U<a^{1/2}). The conclusion reached is that both expressions yield the same result since U is constrained to the interval [0,1], making the negative range irrelevant. The participant confirms their understanding and notes that their teacher acknowledged their correct reasoning on the exam. This exchange highlights the importance of clarity in probability calculations involving transformations of random variables.
Barioth
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!

Here is my question:

Let's say U a continuous random variable, U is a uniform [0,1]

We're looking for $$U^2$$ Density.

I go with

$$P(U^2<a)=P(U<a^{1/2})$$

Altough my teacher say I must go with

$$P(U^2<a)=P(-a^{1/2}<U<a^{1/2})$$

If we've U in [0,1] I don't see why we would want to look at value that are under 0?

Thanks for reading

Edit: Thinking about it, it is actualy the same since we can break it as

$$P(U^2<a)=P(-a^{1/2}<U<a^{1/2}) =P(-a^{1/2}<U<0)+P(0<=U<a^{1/2}) $$
$$= 0 + P(0<U<a^{1/2})= P(U<a^{1/2})$$

Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. You are right. ;)
 
Thanks, it was in my exam last week, the teacher gave me my point back, a great teacher :)
 
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...
Back
Top