2
$\begingroup$

Given two random variables $A$ and $B$, I know we can call them independent if their joint PDF is factorizable to a product of their marginal PDFs:

$f_{A,B}\left(A,B\right)=f_{A}\left(A\right)\cdot f_{B}\left(B\right)$

My problem: I have two sets of random variables, $\mathcal{S}_1=\left\{A,B \right\}$ and $\mathcal{S}_2=\left\{C,D \right\}$. I'd like to be able to show that the first set of random variables is independent of the second. I don't care about the relationship between $A$ and $B$, and the relationship between $C$ and $D$. Intuitively, I would understand "independence" here to mean that, given a single realization of all four random variables, the value of the realization for the first two will give me no additional help in predicting the value of the realization for the second two. Strictly speaking, it seems to me that this is equivalent to showing that the four-dimensional joint PDF factorizes to a product of the two two-dimensional PDFs:

$f_{A,B,C,D}\left(A,B,C,D\right)=f_{A,B}\left(A,B\right)\cdot f_{C,D}\left(C,D\right)$

Is my reasoning correct?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Yes, it is correct (modulo a few typographical mistakes) provided you get away from having the arguments of the PDFs be the same as the subscripts. The arguments are real variables; the subscripts are random variables and no, they don't even need to have the same letters in different cases (upper vs lower) or fonts. What you need to write for complete correctness is $$f_{A,B}\left(x,y\right)=f_{A}\left(x\right)\cdot f_{B}\left(y\right), \quad -\infty < x, y < \infty$$ and $$f_{A,B,C,D}\left(w,x,y,z\right) =f_{A,B}\left(w,x\right)\cdot f_{C,D}\left(y,z\right), \quad -\infty < w, x, y, z < \infty$$ where those comments following the equalities are very important. The joint density must be expressible as the product of the marginal densities at every point in $\mathcal R^2$ and $\mathcal R^4$ respectively.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Appreciate the typographical corrections. I always thought it was a bit verbose to repeat the random variables as function arguments given that they were already there as subscripts. $\endgroup$
    – sammy34
    Commented Aug 6, 2015 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As the late Robert Ash wrote in the preface of his Basic Probability Theory "$P\{X\leq x\}$ is written for the probability that the random variable $X$ assumes a value less than or equal to the number $x~\ldots~$ as the semester progressed, the capital $X$ tended to become smaller in the students' written work and the small $x$ larger $\ldots$" and I have observed this phenomenon far too many times myself. By the way, how would one read aloud $P\{X\leq x\}$ is a classroom setting? "the probability that big ecks is no larger than small ecks"? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 6, 2015 at 15:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.