2
$\begingroup$

From my understanding $F(x) = P(X \le x)$ and $p(x) = {\mathrm d \over \mathrm dx} F(x)$
We denote $F(x-) := \lim_{y \uparrow x} F(y).$

The claim is that $$p(x) = F(x) - F(x-) = P(X \le x) - P(X \lt x),\space~~ \forall \space x \in \mathbb R. $$

Can I get some help understanding why this statement is true? Maybe sketch of a proof? It seems similar to : $$p(x) = {\mathrm d \over \mathrm dx} F(x) = \lim_{y \uparrow x} {F(y) - F(x) \over x-a};$$ however I do not manage to see how this is developed.

This is interesting given the set of continuous points $C_F$ on the cumulative density function is given by $C_f = \{ x \in \mathbb R | F(x-) = F(x+)\}$ for $F(x+)$ defined similarly as $F(x-)$
$= \{ x \in \mathbb R | F(x-) = F(x)\} = \{ x \in \mathbb R | p(x) = 0 \}.$
I do not understand the intuition here. Say we have $U[0,1]$ so $p(x) = 1 \neq 0$ and $F(x) = x$ so is continuous on $[0,1].$

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I think in your claim, "$p(x)$" was intended to denote $P(X = x)$, rather than the density.

If $F(x) - F(x-) > 0$ at some point $x$, then $X$ does not have a density, so the claim would not make sense if "$p(x)$" denoted density. Otherwise $F(x) - F(x-) = 0$ for all $x$, in which case the claim also does not make sense if "$p(x)$" denoted the density.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ would this mean that $p(x) = P(X = x)$ would be a probability mass function, so $X$ is discrete? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 13:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rannoudanames Right, if $p$ denoted the probability mass function, then the claim holds by definition. $\endgroup$
    – angryavian
    Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 19:19

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.