1
$\begingroup$

If one normal distribution has a larger mean and a larger standard deviation, prove that the CDFs of the two distributions have a crossing point.

If the assertion is false, can you provide a counter-example?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What have you tried? $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 14:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For example trying to find precisely where a CDF crossing point would have to be if one is $\mathcal N(\mu_1,\sigma^2_1)$ and the other $\mathcal N(\mu_2,\sigma^2_2)$ $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 14:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Please add the self-study tag & read its wiki. Then tell us what you understand thus far, what you've tried & where you're stuck. We'll provide hints to help you get unstuck. Please make these changes as just posting your homework & hoping someone will do it for you is grounds for closing. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 14:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hint: You don't need to assume anything about the means. Examine the asymptotic behavior at the left and right sides. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 14:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... but the standard deviations do have to be different $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 14:24

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Let $X_1 \sim N(\mu_1,\sigma_1)$ and $X_2 \sim N(\mu_2,\sigma_2)$, where $\mu_1 < \mu_2$ and $\sigma_1 < \sigma_2$. Let $F_1(x)$ and $F_2(x)$ be the CDF of $X_1$ and $X_2$, respectively.

  1. Note that the mean and median of normal distributions are equal. Then $F_1(\mu_1) = 0.5$ and $F_2(\mu_2) = 0.5$, which implies that $F_1(\mu_2) > F_2(\mu_2)$, since $F_1$ is an increasing functions.

  2. Define $z_1 = \frac{x_0-\mu_1}{\sigma_1}$ and $z_2 = \frac{x_0-\mu_2}{\sigma_2}$ and take $x_0$ such $z_1 < z_2$. Solving $z_1 < z_2$ you will obtain $x_0 < \frac{\sigma_2\mu_1 - \sigma_1\mu_2}{\sigma_2+\sigma_1}$.

For any $x_0$ that satisfies the inequity above, $F_1(x_0) < F_2(x_0)$, by construction. Note also that $x_0 < \mu_2$.

Now, as $F_1$ and $F_2$ are continuous functions and

a) $F_1(x_0) < F_2(x_0)$

b) $F_1(\mu_2) > F_2(\mu_2)$.

where $x_0 < \mu_2$, then exist a $x \in (x_0,\mu_2)$ such $F_1(x) = F_2(x)$. Therefore $F_1$ and $F_2$ have a crossing point.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ +1 I like these ideas. Note, though, that (1) you shouldn't have to appeal to continuity and (2) you don't have to assume the means differ: the result still holds. Thus, the ideal answer would not rely on equality of means. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Oct 3, 2022 at 15:07
2
$\begingroup$

It can be fun and useful to identify the key idea behind a result like this. To do so, let's generalize the situation as much as possible so that incidental characteristics, peculiar to Normal distributions, are stripped away.

Let $F$ and $G$ be two distribution functions. To say that they have a "crossing point" means there are numbers $a \lt b$ for which $F(a) \le G(a)$ and $F(b) \ge G(b).$ What minimal assumptions are needed to assure this condition?

When $F$ and $G$ are absolutely continuous, they have density functions $f = F^\prime$ and $g = G^\prime.$ If there is a number $a$ for which $x\lt a$ implies $f(x)\le g(x),$ then clearly

$$F(a) = \int_{-\infty}^a f(x)\,\mathrm{d}x \le \int_{-\infty}^b g(x)\,\mathrm{d}x = G(a).$$

In the same way, if there is a number $b$ for which $x \gt b$ implies $f(x) \le g(x),$ we deduce $F(b)\ge G(b),$ whence there will be a crossing point.

To summarize:

When $F$ and $G$ have densities, and one of the densities eventually dominates (exceeds) the other for sufficiently large values of $|x|,$ then $F$ and $G$ have a crossing point.

Let's apply this simple observation to the question. In the case of two Normal distributions, $f$ and $g$ are never zero, allowing us to compare them by taking their logarithms. Letting the parameters of these distributions be $(\mu_F,\sigma_F)$ and $(\mu_G,\sigma_G)$ we are thereby motivated to compare $-\log(f(x))$ = $\log(\sigma_F) + (x-\mu_F)^2/(2\sigma_F^2)$ to its counterpart for $G.$

It's simplest to do the comparison by subtracting one log from the other (which, by the properties of logarithms, is equivalent to evaluating the ratio of the densities $g(x)/f(x)$):

$$\begin{aligned} \log(g(x)) - \log(f(x)) &= \log(\sigma_F) - \log(\sigma_G) + \frac{(x-\mu_F)^2}{2\sigma_F^2} - \frac{(x-\mu_G)^2}{2\sigma_G^2}\\ &= \left(\frac{1}{2\sigma_F^2} - \frac{1}{2\sigma_G^2}\right)x^2 + Bx + C \end{aligned}$$

where $B$ and $C$ are numbers determined by the parameters -- the details don't matter.

As we all well know, any polynomial in $x$ like this one eventually behaves like its leading term--all smaller terms are asymptotically negligible in comparison. That leading term is the coefficient of $x^2$ provided $\sigma_F \ne \sigma_G.$ In such cases, the difference of logs becomes either extremely negative as $x^2$ grows large or it becomes extremely positive, depending on whether $\sigma_F$ exceeds $\sigma_G$ or not, respectively. In either case this shows the log of one of the densities eventually dominates the log of the other for sufficiently large values of $|x|.$ The desired conclusion follows.

$\endgroup$

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.