0
$\begingroup$

I am working through a problem where I need to prove that $E\left[\hat{\theta}_{\ln}\right]\leq\theta-1$, where $\hat{\theta}_{\ln}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\ln(X_{i})$.

I start from $E\left[\ln\left(X_{i}\right)\right]\leq E\left[X_{i}\right]-1 .$

Would it be wrong simply to write

$E\left[\hat{\theta}_{\ln}\right] =E\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\ln(X_{i})\right] =\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}E\left[\ln(X_{i})\right] =E\left[\ln(X_{i})\right]$ and then use $E\left[X_{i}\right]=\theta $, which is previously assumed?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ About which of these steps are you uncertain? $\endgroup$ – whuber Oct 26 '15 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ The step where $E\left[\hat{\theta_{\ln}}\right]=E\left[\ln(X_{i})\right]$ $\endgroup$ – avriis Oct 26 '15 at 18:08
3
$\begingroup$

If your concern is the last step, then you might want to read a little bit more on the expectation operator. Its basic property is that it is a linear operator and so the expectation of the sum becomes the sum of the expectations. Assuming your variables constitute a random sample, i.e. they are iid, their means do not differ and so you are taking $n$ times the same mean. Thus the multiple $\frac{1}{n}$ cancels and you are left with $E\left[ \log(X) \right]$.

I believe the trickiest part of this exercise was to understand why $E\left[\log\left(X\right)\right]\leq E\left[X\right]-1$ but no problems there, right?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Yes, $E\left[\log\left(X\right)\right]\leq E\left[X\right]-1$ was indeed more tricky, but I figured that out. I just wasn't certain whether the usual properties of the expectation operator applied with a logarithmic function. $\endgroup$ – avriis Oct 27 '15 at 8:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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