Monday, 15 February 2016

probability distributions - Can the sum of two independent r.v.'s with convex support be uniformly distributed?





Is it possible to prove that the sum of two independent r.v.'s X and Y with convex support cannot be uniformly distributed on an interval [a,b], with a<b?




(Let us rule out the trivial case where X is degenerate and Y is uniform.) Note that X and Y need not be identically distributed.



I have a strong intuition supporting a negative answer because commutativity gets X+Y to "pile up" away from the tails, but I cannot find a way to pin this down to an impossibility proof.



Related questions on Math.SE:




1) Can the sum of two independent identical random variables be uniform? and Can the sum of two i.i.d. random variables be uniformly distributed? answer negatively under the additional assumption that X and Y are identically distributed.



2) in Can sum of two random variables be uniformly distributed @GEdgar answers positively under the assumption that the two independent r.v.'s X and Y have non-convex support.


Answer



Your intuition is correct : the answer is negative. Here is a proof.



Suppose, by contradiction, that X and Y are independent, non-degenerate variables with convex support, say [c,d] and [e,f], and X+Y is uniform on [c+e,d+f]. Replacing (X,Y) with (Xc,Ye), we may assume without loss that c=e=0. Interchanging X and Y if necessary, we may further assume that df. If $d

At this point, we then have X,Y independent with support exactly equal to [0,1], and X+Y distributed uniformly on [0,2]. Now, define the following events :




X1={X[0,13]},X2={X(13,23]},X3={X(23,1]},Y1={Y[0,13]},Y2={Y(13,23]},Y3={Y(23,1]},



Pk=i+j=kXi×Yj,Ql=lk=2Pk,L(x)={X+Yx}



We then have the inclusions :



L(l13)QlL(l3)



Putting ql=P(Ql), we deduce



l16qll6



Next, put xk=P(Xk),yk=P(Yk),pk=P(Pk). It follows from

(1) that the following number is nonnegative :



s=(1x1)(q216)+x1(23q4)+x1x2y2



Clearly q2=x1y1. And using x3=1(x1+x2) and y3=1(y1+y2), we find that



q4=x1y1+x2y1+x1y2+x1y3+x2y2+x3y1=x1+y1+x2y2x1y1



Reinjecting this back into (2), we obtain



s=(x112)(13x1)



It follows that x1[13,12]. Using natural symmetries of the problem, it follows that x3,y1 and y3 are also in [13,12].




Next, consider



t1=(x1x3x22)(56q5)+x3x2(23q4)+x23(q313)t2=(x1x3x22)(q216)+x1x2(q313)+x21(23q4)t=t1+t2



Note that since x1x319x22, the numbers t1,t2 and t are all nonnegative. Simplifying t as we did for s, we obtain :



t=x24(1+x2)(13x2)3(x3x1)24(49x2)



In (5) above we have a nonnegative LHS and a nonpositive RHS. Note also that x2>0 because the support of X is [0,1]. This forces x2=13 and

(x3x1)2=0, so that x1=x2=x3=13, and similarly y1=y2=y3=13. But then q2=19 contradicts (1). This finishes the proof.



UPDATE: Since (5) was questioned in the comments, I append a computer verification of it.



                  GP/PARI CALCULATOR Version 2.7.4 (released)
i386 running darwin (x86-64/GMP-6.0.0 kernel) 64-bit version
compiled: Sep 27 2015, Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.57) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)
threading engine: single
(readline v6.3 enabled, extended help enabled)


Copyright (C) 2000-2015 The PARI Group

PARI/GP is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and comes
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER.

Type ? for help, \q to quit.
Type ?12 for how to get moral (and possibly technical) support.

parisize = 8000000, primelimit = 500000
? x3=1-(x1+x2)

%1 = -x1 + (-x2 + 1)
? y3=1-(y1+y2)
%2 = -y1 + (-y2 + 1)
?
? x(k)=if((1<=k)&&(k<=3),eval(Str("x",k)),0)
%3 = (k)->if((1<=k)&&(k<=3),eval(Str("x",k)),0)
? y(k)=if((1<=k)&&(k<=3),eval(Str("y",k)),0)
%4 = (k)->if((1<=k)&&(k<=3),eval(Str("y",k)),0)
?
? p(k)=sum(j=1,k,x(j)*y(k-j))

%5 = (k)->sum(j=1,k,x(j)*y(k-j))
?
? q(l)=sum(k=2,l,p(k))
%6 = (l)->sum(k=2,l,p(k))
?
? s_term=(1-x1)*(q(2)-(1/6))+x1*((2/3)-q(4))+x1*x2*y2
%7 = -x1^2 + 5/6*x1 - 1/6
?
? check1=s_term-(x1-(1/3))*((1/2)-x1)
%8 = 0

?
? t1_term=(x1*x3-(x2^2))*((5/6)-q(5))+x3*x2*((2/3)-q(4))+(x3^2)*(q(3)-(1/3))
%9 = x1^3 + (3*x2 - 13/6)*x1^2 + (3*x2^2 - 25/6*x2 + 3/2)*x1 + (x2^3 - 11/6*x2^2 + 4/3*x2 - 1/3)
? t2_term=(x1*x3-(x2^2))*(q(2)-(1/6))+x1*x2*(q(3)-(1/3))+(x1^2)*((2/3)-q(4))
%10 = -x1^3 + 5/6*x1^2 + (-1/6*x2 - 1/6)*x1 + 1/6*x2^2
? t_term=t1_term+t2_term
%11 = (3*x2 - 4/3)*x1^2 + (3*x2^2 - 13/3*x2 + 4/3)*x1 + (x2^3 - 5/3*x2^2 + 4/3*x2 - 1/3)
?
? easy_part=(x2/4)*(x2+1)*((1/3)-x2)
%12 = -1/4*x2^3 - 1/6*x2^2 + 1/12*x2

? hard_part=(3/4)*((x3-x1)^2)*((4/9)-x2)
%13 = (-3*x2 + 4/3)*x1^2 + (-3*x2^2 + 13/3*x2 - 4/3)*x1 + (-3/4*x2^3 + 11/6*x2^2 - 17/12*x2 + 1/3)
?
? check2=(t_term+(easy_part+hard_part))
%14 = 0

No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...