+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Conditional normal implying independence

  1. #1
    TS Contributor
    Points: 7,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69

    Location
    Copenhagen , Denmark
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 123 Times in 116 Posts

    Conditional normal implying independence




    So reading a book someone comment that e \lvert x \sim N(0,1) hence e is independent of x. Why is this the case?


    Trying to prove this to myself I note that the density of the normal distribution is fully specified ones variance and mean is specified and does not depend on x hence I can reason:

    f(e) = \int f(e,x) dx = \int f(e\lvert x) f(x) dx = f(e\lvert x) \int  f(x) dx =  f(e\lvert x)

    is that the way to go?

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 22,410, Level: 93
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 940

    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 565 Times in 537 Posts

    Re: Conditional normal implying independence


    In the second last equality you cannot simply pull the conditional pdf out of the integral in general, because it is possibly dependent on the integrating variable. The step is valid only when it is independent of the integrating variable, or in other words the random variables are actually independent. So overall the proof itself is ok because the condition given guaranteed this. You just need to note that the given condition is hold for all possible values of x inside its support.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to BGM For This Useful Post:

    JesperHP (01-06-2015)

+ Reply to Thread

           




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats