Probability X1 ≥ X2












4












$begingroup$


Suppose X1 and X2 are independent Geometric p random variables. What is the
probability that X1 ≥ X2?



I am confused about this question because we aren't told anything about X1 and X2 other than they are Geometric. Wouldn't this be 50% because X1 and X2 can be anything in the range?



EDIT: New attempt
$P(X1 ≥ X2) = P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2)$



$P(X1 = X2)$ = $sum_{x}$ $(1-p)^{x-1}p(1-p)^{x-1}p$ = $frac{p}{2-p}$



$P(X1 > X2)$ = $P(X1 < X2)$ and $P(X1 < X2) + P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2) = 1$



Therefore, $P(X1 > X2)$ = $frac{1-P(X1 = X2)}{2}$ = $frac{1-p}{2-p}$
Adding $P(X1 = X2)=frac{p}{2-p}$ to that , I get $P(X1 ≥ X2)$ = $frac{1}{2-p}$



Is this correct?






random-variable geometric-distribution







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please add the 'self-study' tag.
    $endgroup$
    – StubbornAtom
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – usεr11852
    7 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$


Suppose X1 and X2 are independent Geometric p random variables. What is the
probability that X1 ≥ X2?



I am confused about this question because we aren't told anything about X1 and X2 other than they are Geometric. Wouldn't this be 50% because X1 and X2 can be anything in the range?



EDIT: New attempt
$P(X1 ≥ X2) = P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2)$



$P(X1 = X2)$ = $sum_{x}$ $(1-p)^{x-1}p(1-p)^{x-1}p$ = $frac{p}{2-p}$



$P(X1 > X2)$ = $P(X1 < X2)$ and $P(X1 < X2) + P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2) = 1$



Therefore, $P(X1 > X2)$ = $frac{1-P(X1 = X2)}{2}$ = $frac{1-p}{2-p}$
Adding $P(X1 = X2)=frac{p}{2-p}$ to that , I get $P(X1 ≥ X2)$ = $frac{1}{2-p}$



Is this correct?






random-variable geometric-distribution







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please add the 'self-study' tag.
    $endgroup$
    – StubbornAtom
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – usεr11852
    7 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


Suppose X1 and X2 are independent Geometric p random variables. What is the
probability that X1 ≥ X2?



I am confused about this question because we aren't told anything about X1 and X2 other than they are Geometric. Wouldn't this be 50% because X1 and X2 can be anything in the range?



EDIT: New attempt
$P(X1 ≥ X2) = P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2)$



$P(X1 = X2)$ = $sum_{x}$ $(1-p)^{x-1}p(1-p)^{x-1}p$ = $frac{p}{2-p}$



$P(X1 > X2)$ = $P(X1 < X2)$ and $P(X1 < X2) + P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2) = 1$



Therefore, $P(X1 > X2)$ = $frac{1-P(X1 = X2)}{2}$ = $frac{1-p}{2-p}$
Adding $P(X1 = X2)=frac{p}{2-p}$ to that , I get $P(X1 ≥ X2)$ = $frac{1}{2-p}$



Is this correct?






random-variable geometric-distribution







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Suppose X1 and X2 are independent Geometric p random variables. What is the
probability that X1 ≥ X2?



I am confused about this question because we aren't told anything about X1 and X2 other than they are Geometric. Wouldn't this be 50% because X1 and X2 can be anything in the range?



EDIT: New attempt
$P(X1 ≥ X2) = P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2)$



$P(X1 = X2)$ = $sum_{x}$ $(1-p)^{x-1}p(1-p)^{x-1}p$ = $frac{p}{2-p}$



$P(X1 > X2)$ = $P(X1 < X2)$ and $P(X1 < X2) + P(X1 > X2) + P(X1 = X2) = 1$



Therefore, $P(X1 > X2)$ = $frac{1-P(X1 = X2)}{2}$ = $frac{1-p}{2-p}$
Adding $P(X1 = X2)=frac{p}{2-p}$ to that , I get $P(X1 ≥ X2)$ = $frac{1}{2-p}$



Is this correct?






random-variable geometric-distribution




random-variable geometric-distribution






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago







Sra

















asked 7 hours ago









SraSra

584




584








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please add the 'self-study' tag.
    $endgroup$
    – StubbornAtom
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – usεr11852
    7 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please add the 'self-study' tag.
    $endgroup$
    – StubbornAtom
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – usεr11852
    7 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Please add the 'self-study' tag.
$endgroup$
– StubbornAtom
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Please add the 'self-study' tag.
$endgroup$
– StubbornAtom
7 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
$endgroup$
– usεr11852
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Actually because X1 and X2 are discrete variables the equality makes things a bit less obvious.
$endgroup$
– usεr11852
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

It can't be $50%$ because $P(X_1=X_2)>0$



One approach:



Consider the three events $P(X_1>X_2), P(X_2>X_1)$ and $P(X_1=X_2)$, which partition the sample space.



There's an obvious connection between the first two. Write an expression for the third and simplify. Hence solve the question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Sra
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b♦
    2 hours ago





















3












$begingroup$

Your answer, following Glen's suggestion, is correct. Another, less elegant, way is just to condition:



begin{align}
Pr{X_1geq X_2} &= sum_{k=0}^infty Pr{X_1geq X_2mid X_2=k} Pr{X_2=k} \ &= sum_{k=0}^infty sum_{ell=k}^infty Pr{X_1=ell}Pr{X_2=k}.
end{align}



This will give you the same $1/(2-p)$, after handling the two geometric series. Glen's way is better.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
    $endgroup$
    – probabilityislogic
    2 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f394042%2fprobability-x1-%25e2%2589%25a5-x2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

It can't be $50%$ because $P(X_1=X_2)>0$



One approach:



Consider the three events $P(X_1>X_2), P(X_2>X_1)$ and $P(X_1=X_2)$, which partition the sample space.



There's an obvious connection between the first two. Write an expression for the third and simplify. Hence solve the question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Sra
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b♦
    2 hours ago


















6












$begingroup$

It can't be $50%$ because $P(X_1=X_2)>0$



One approach:



Consider the three events $P(X_1>X_2), P(X_2>X_1)$ and $P(X_1=X_2)$, which partition the sample space.



There's an obvious connection between the first two. Write an expression for the third and simplify. Hence solve the question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Sra
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b♦
    2 hours ago
















6












6








6





$begingroup$

It can't be $50%$ because $P(X_1=X_2)>0$



One approach:



Consider the three events $P(X_1>X_2), P(X_2>X_1)$ and $P(X_1=X_2)$, which partition the sample space.



There's an obvious connection between the first two. Write an expression for the third and simplify. Hence solve the question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



It can't be $50%$ because $P(X_1=X_2)>0$



One approach:



Consider the three events $P(X_1>X_2), P(X_2>X_1)$ and $P(X_1=X_2)$, which partition the sample space.



There's an obvious connection between the first two. Write an expression for the third and simplify. Hence solve the question.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









Glen_b♦Glen_b

212k22406754




212k22406754












  • $begingroup$
    I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Sra
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b♦
    2 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Sra
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b♦
    2 hours ago


















$begingroup$
I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
$endgroup$
– Sra
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
I edited, my post with my new answer. Could you take a look and see if it's correct?
$endgroup$
– Sra
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
$endgroup$
– Glen_b♦
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
Yes, your answers look correct. An alternative method (using a similar idea) would be to note that $P(X_1geq X_2)=frac12 + frac12 P(X_1=X_2)$ (again, exploiting the symmetry/exchangeability of $X_1$ and $X_2$).
$endgroup$
– Glen_b♦
2 hours ago















3












$begingroup$

Your answer, following Glen's suggestion, is correct. Another, less elegant, way is just to condition:



begin{align}
Pr{X_1geq X_2} &= sum_{k=0}^infty Pr{X_1geq X_2mid X_2=k} Pr{X_2=k} \ &= sum_{k=0}^infty sum_{ell=k}^infty Pr{X_1=ell}Pr{X_2=k}.
end{align}



This will give you the same $1/(2-p)$, after handling the two geometric series. Glen's way is better.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
    $endgroup$
    – probabilityislogic
    2 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$

Your answer, following Glen's suggestion, is correct. Another, less elegant, way is just to condition:



begin{align}
Pr{X_1geq X_2} &= sum_{k=0}^infty Pr{X_1geq X_2mid X_2=k} Pr{X_2=k} \ &= sum_{k=0}^infty sum_{ell=k}^infty Pr{X_1=ell}Pr{X_2=k}.
end{align}



This will give you the same $1/(2-p)$, after handling the two geometric series. Glen's way is better.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
    $endgroup$
    – probabilityislogic
    2 hours ago
















3












3








3





$begingroup$

Your answer, following Glen's suggestion, is correct. Another, less elegant, way is just to condition:



begin{align}
Pr{X_1geq X_2} &= sum_{k=0}^infty Pr{X_1geq X_2mid X_2=k} Pr{X_2=k} \ &= sum_{k=0}^infty sum_{ell=k}^infty Pr{X_1=ell}Pr{X_2=k}.
end{align}



This will give you the same $1/(2-p)$, after handling the two geometric series. Glen's way is better.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Your answer, following Glen's suggestion, is correct. Another, less elegant, way is just to condition:



begin{align}
Pr{X_1geq X_2} &= sum_{k=0}^infty Pr{X_1geq X_2mid X_2=k} Pr{X_2=k} \ &= sum_{k=0}^infty sum_{ell=k}^infty Pr{X_1=ell}Pr{X_2=k}.
end{align}



This will give you the same $1/(2-p)$, after handling the two geometric series. Glen's way is better.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









Paulo C. Marques F.Paulo C. Marques F.

16.9k35397




16.9k35397












  • $begingroup$
    note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
    $endgroup$
    – probabilityislogic
    2 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
    $endgroup$
    – probabilityislogic
    2 hours ago


















$begingroup$
note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
$endgroup$
– probabilityislogic
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
note - your way is better for applying to new problems I think. Because it is based on first principles. The trick/intuiton from glen_b's answer usually comes after the problem has been solved your way
$endgroup$
– probabilityislogic
2 hours ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f394042%2fprobability-x1-%25e2%2589%25a5-x2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Image
1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C
Read more

Vallis Paradisi

Image
Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para
Read more

Tabula Rosettana

Image
Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a
Read more