Distribution of no. of siblings of a random child if the no. of children of a family is Poisson distributed











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Consider a large population of families, and suppose that the number of children in the different families are independent Poisson random variables with mean $lambda$. Show that the number of siblings of a randomly chosen child is also Poisson distributed with mean $lambda$.



My approach:



For any random child, if it has $k$ siblings, it implies that its parent had $k+1$ children. Hence, if $S =$ no. of siblings and if $C =$ no. of children
enter image description here



I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



I'm not sure where I'm going wrong and how to proceed.



EDIT:
Found an answer in one of the solution manuals. Basically,



The probability of choosing a child that has $j$ siblings is the fraction of total children that have $j$ siblings.



Now, if $Z$ is the total number of families, hence the total no. of children would be $lambda Z$. Also, if $P(j+1)$ is the probability that a family has $j+1$ children, then the no. of families with $j+1$ children is $Z cdot P(j+1)$. Also, each of this family has $(j+1)$ children, each of whom have $j$ siblings. Hence, there are in total



enter image description here



children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.



enter image description here



Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
    – N. F. Taussig
    Nov 22 at 10:50















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Consider a large population of families, and suppose that the number of children in the different families are independent Poisson random variables with mean $lambda$. Show that the number of siblings of a randomly chosen child is also Poisson distributed with mean $lambda$.



My approach:



For any random child, if it has $k$ siblings, it implies that its parent had $k+1$ children. Hence, if $S =$ no. of siblings and if $C =$ no. of children
enter image description here



I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



I'm not sure where I'm going wrong and how to proceed.



EDIT:
Found an answer in one of the solution manuals. Basically,



The probability of choosing a child that has $j$ siblings is the fraction of total children that have $j$ siblings.



Now, if $Z$ is the total number of families, hence the total no. of children would be $lambda Z$. Also, if $P(j+1)$ is the probability that a family has $j+1$ children, then the no. of families with $j+1$ children is $Z cdot P(j+1)$. Also, each of this family has $(j+1)$ children, each of whom have $j$ siblings. Hence, there are in total



enter image description here



children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.



enter image description here



Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
    – N. F. Taussig
    Nov 22 at 10:50













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





Consider a large population of families, and suppose that the number of children in the different families are independent Poisson random variables with mean $lambda$. Show that the number of siblings of a randomly chosen child is also Poisson distributed with mean $lambda$.



My approach:



For any random child, if it has $k$ siblings, it implies that its parent had $k+1$ children. Hence, if $S =$ no. of siblings and if $C =$ no. of children
enter image description here



I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



I'm not sure where I'm going wrong and how to proceed.



EDIT:
Found an answer in one of the solution manuals. Basically,



The probability of choosing a child that has $j$ siblings is the fraction of total children that have $j$ siblings.



Now, if $Z$ is the total number of families, hence the total no. of children would be $lambda Z$. Also, if $P(j+1)$ is the probability that a family has $j+1$ children, then the no. of families with $j+1$ children is $Z cdot P(j+1)$. Also, each of this family has $(j+1)$ children, each of whom have $j$ siblings. Hence, there are in total



enter image description here



children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.



enter image description here



Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.










share|cite|improve this question















Consider a large population of families, and suppose that the number of children in the different families are independent Poisson random variables with mean $lambda$. Show that the number of siblings of a randomly chosen child is also Poisson distributed with mean $lambda$.



My approach:



For any random child, if it has $k$ siblings, it implies that its parent had $k+1$ children. Hence, if $S =$ no. of siblings and if $C =$ no. of children
enter image description here



I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



I'm not sure where I'm going wrong and how to proceed.



EDIT:
Found an answer in one of the solution manuals. Basically,



The probability of choosing a child that has $j$ siblings is the fraction of total children that have $j$ siblings.



Now, if $Z$ is the total number of families, hence the total no. of children would be $lambda Z$. Also, if $P(j+1)$ is the probability that a family has $j+1$ children, then the no. of families with $j+1$ children is $Z cdot P(j+1)$. Also, each of this family has $(j+1)$ children, each of whom have $j$ siblings. Hence, there are in total



enter image description here



children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.



enter image description here



Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.







probability probability-distributions poisson-distribution






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 at 10:49









N. F. Taussig

43.1k93254




43.1k93254










asked Nov 22 at 7:45









qwerty_uiop

562




562








  • 1




    Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
    – N. F. Taussig
    Nov 22 at 10:50














  • 1




    Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
    – N. F. Taussig
    Nov 22 at 10:50








1




1




Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
– N. F. Taussig
Nov 22 at 10:50




Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
– N. F. Taussig
Nov 22 at 10:50










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













As you say, the problem is in the first step



The likelihood that a randomly chosen family has $m=k+1$ children is proportional to $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$



but the likelihood that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children is proportional to $m e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$ since there are more children in larger families than in smaller famalies, and in particular you cannot choose a child from families with $0$ children



so the likelihood that a randomly chosen child has $k=m-1$ siblings is proportional to $(k+1) e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} = e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!}$, which is not what you have as you have $(k+1)!$ in the denominator



This is not the exact probability unless $lambda=1$, as taking the sum $sumlimits_{k=0}^infty e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!} = lambda not=1$, so we need to divide the expression by $lambda$ to give the probability that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children as $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k}}{k!}$, as expected






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If I have three boxes with no apples, two boxes with one apple, and a box with two apples, then the probability that a randomly selected apple comes from the later box is: the count for all apples in boxes containing two apples divided by the total count for apples. (Note: not just the count for apples per box of...) $$dfrac{2cdot 1}{0cdot 3+1cdot 2+2cdot1}=dfrac{2cdottfrac 16}{0cdot tfrac 36+1cdot tfrac 26+2cdottfrac 16}$$





    Likewise the probability that a random child has $j$ siblings (ie from a family with $j+1$ children) is: $$dfrac{(j+1)~mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(S)}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$



    Or $mathsf E(Scdotmathbf 1_{(S=j+1)})/mathsf E(S)$ And that is ...$$dfrac{(j+1)cdotdfrac{lambda^{j+1}je^{-lambda}}{(j+1)!}}{lambda}=dfrac{lambda^je^{-lambda}}{j!}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$






    Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.




    You tried to evaluate $dfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}$ and as a reality check $sum_{j=0}^inftydfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}=dfrac{1-e^{-lambda}}{lambda+e^{-lambda}-1}$.



    You did not account for the size of the families , and you needlessly eliminated 0 size families.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008857%2fdistribution-of-no-of-siblings-of-a-random-child-if-the-no-of-children-of-a-fa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote













      As you say, the problem is in the first step



      The likelihood that a randomly chosen family has $m=k+1$ children is proportional to $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$



      but the likelihood that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children is proportional to $m e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$ since there are more children in larger families than in smaller famalies, and in particular you cannot choose a child from families with $0$ children



      so the likelihood that a randomly chosen child has $k=m-1$ siblings is proportional to $(k+1) e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} = e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!}$, which is not what you have as you have $(k+1)!$ in the denominator



      This is not the exact probability unless $lambda=1$, as taking the sum $sumlimits_{k=0}^infty e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!} = lambda not=1$, so we need to divide the expression by $lambda$ to give the probability that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children as $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k}}{k!}$, as expected






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        As you say, the problem is in the first step



        The likelihood that a randomly chosen family has $m=k+1$ children is proportional to $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$



        but the likelihood that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children is proportional to $m e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$ since there are more children in larger families than in smaller famalies, and in particular you cannot choose a child from families with $0$ children



        so the likelihood that a randomly chosen child has $k=m-1$ siblings is proportional to $(k+1) e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} = e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!}$, which is not what you have as you have $(k+1)!$ in the denominator



        This is not the exact probability unless $lambda=1$, as taking the sum $sumlimits_{k=0}^infty e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!} = lambda not=1$, so we need to divide the expression by $lambda$ to give the probability that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children as $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k}}{k!}$, as expected






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          As you say, the problem is in the first step



          The likelihood that a randomly chosen family has $m=k+1$ children is proportional to $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$



          but the likelihood that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children is proportional to $m e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$ since there are more children in larger families than in smaller famalies, and in particular you cannot choose a child from families with $0$ children



          so the likelihood that a randomly chosen child has $k=m-1$ siblings is proportional to $(k+1) e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} = e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!}$, which is not what you have as you have $(k+1)!$ in the denominator



          This is not the exact probability unless $lambda=1$, as taking the sum $sumlimits_{k=0}^infty e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!} = lambda not=1$, so we need to divide the expression by $lambda$ to give the probability that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children as $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k}}{k!}$, as expected






          share|cite|improve this answer












          As you say, the problem is in the first step



          The likelihood that a randomly chosen family has $m=k+1$ children is proportional to $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$



          but the likelihood that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children is proportional to $m e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^m}{m!}$ since there are more children in larger families than in smaller famalies, and in particular you cannot choose a child from families with $0$ children



          so the likelihood that a randomly chosen child has $k=m-1$ siblings is proportional to $(k+1) e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} = e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!}$, which is not what you have as you have $(k+1)!$ in the denominator



          This is not the exact probability unless $lambda=1$, as taking the sum $sumlimits_{k=0}^infty e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k+1}}{k!} = lambda not=1$, so we need to divide the expression by $lambda$ to give the probability that a randomly chosen child is in a family with $m$ children as $e^{-lambda} frac{lambda^{k}}{k!}$, as expected







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 22 at 22:08









          Henry

          97.7k475157




          97.7k475157






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              If I have three boxes with no apples, two boxes with one apple, and a box with two apples, then the probability that a randomly selected apple comes from the later box is: the count for all apples in boxes containing two apples divided by the total count for apples. (Note: not just the count for apples per box of...) $$dfrac{2cdot 1}{0cdot 3+1cdot 2+2cdot1}=dfrac{2cdottfrac 16}{0cdot tfrac 36+1cdot tfrac 26+2cdottfrac 16}$$





              Likewise the probability that a random child has $j$ siblings (ie from a family with $j+1$ children) is: $$dfrac{(j+1)~mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(S)}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$



              Or $mathsf E(Scdotmathbf 1_{(S=j+1)})/mathsf E(S)$ And that is ...$$dfrac{(j+1)cdotdfrac{lambda^{j+1}je^{-lambda}}{(j+1)!}}{lambda}=dfrac{lambda^je^{-lambda}}{j!}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$






              Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.




              You tried to evaluate $dfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}$ and as a reality check $sum_{j=0}^inftydfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}=dfrac{1-e^{-lambda}}{lambda+e^{-lambda}-1}$.



              You did not account for the size of the families , and you needlessly eliminated 0 size families.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                If I have three boxes with no apples, two boxes with one apple, and a box with two apples, then the probability that a randomly selected apple comes from the later box is: the count for all apples in boxes containing two apples divided by the total count for apples. (Note: not just the count for apples per box of...) $$dfrac{2cdot 1}{0cdot 3+1cdot 2+2cdot1}=dfrac{2cdottfrac 16}{0cdot tfrac 36+1cdot tfrac 26+2cdottfrac 16}$$





                Likewise the probability that a random child has $j$ siblings (ie from a family with $j+1$ children) is: $$dfrac{(j+1)~mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(S)}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$



                Or $mathsf E(Scdotmathbf 1_{(S=j+1)})/mathsf E(S)$ And that is ...$$dfrac{(j+1)cdotdfrac{lambda^{j+1}je^{-lambda}}{(j+1)!}}{lambda}=dfrac{lambda^je^{-lambda}}{j!}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$






                Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.




                You tried to evaluate $dfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}$ and as a reality check $sum_{j=0}^inftydfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}=dfrac{1-e^{-lambda}}{lambda+e^{-lambda}-1}$.



                You did not account for the size of the families , and you needlessly eliminated 0 size families.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  If I have three boxes with no apples, two boxes with one apple, and a box with two apples, then the probability that a randomly selected apple comes from the later box is: the count for all apples in boxes containing two apples divided by the total count for apples. (Note: not just the count for apples per box of...) $$dfrac{2cdot 1}{0cdot 3+1cdot 2+2cdot1}=dfrac{2cdottfrac 16}{0cdot tfrac 36+1cdot tfrac 26+2cdottfrac 16}$$





                  Likewise the probability that a random child has $j$ siblings (ie from a family with $j+1$ children) is: $$dfrac{(j+1)~mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(S)}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$



                  Or $mathsf E(Scdotmathbf 1_{(S=j+1)})/mathsf E(S)$ And that is ...$$dfrac{(j+1)cdotdfrac{lambda^{j+1}je^{-lambda}}{(j+1)!}}{lambda}=dfrac{lambda^je^{-lambda}}{j!}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$






                  Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.




                  You tried to evaluate $dfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}$ and as a reality check $sum_{j=0}^inftydfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}=dfrac{1-e^{-lambda}}{lambda+e^{-lambda}-1}$.



                  You did not account for the size of the families , and you needlessly eliminated 0 size families.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  If I have three boxes with no apples, two boxes with one apple, and a box with two apples, then the probability that a randomly selected apple comes from the later box is: the count for all apples in boxes containing two apples divided by the total count for apples. (Note: not just the count for apples per box of...) $$dfrac{2cdot 1}{0cdot 3+1cdot 2+2cdot1}=dfrac{2cdottfrac 16}{0cdot tfrac 36+1cdot tfrac 26+2cdottfrac 16}$$





                  Likewise the probability that a random child has $j$ siblings (ie from a family with $j+1$ children) is: $$dfrac{(j+1)~mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(S)}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$



                  Or $mathsf E(Scdotmathbf 1_{(S=j+1)})/mathsf E(S)$ And that is ...$$dfrac{(j+1)cdotdfrac{lambda^{j+1}je^{-lambda}}{(j+1)!}}{lambda}=dfrac{lambda^je^{-lambda}}{j!}qquadBig[jin{0,1,2,ldots}Big]$$






                  Clearly my answer is wrong in the first step itself. However I'm not able to articulate why the initial step is incorrect.




                  You tried to evaluate $dfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}$ and as a reality check $sum_{j=0}^inftydfrac{mathsf P(S=j+1)}{mathsf E(Smid S>0)}=dfrac{1-e^{-lambda}}{lambda+e^{-lambda}-1}$.



                  You did not account for the size of the families , and you needlessly eliminated 0 size families.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 23 at 0:18









                  Graham Kemp

                  84.6k43378




                  84.6k43378






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008857%2fdistribution-of-no-of-siblings-of-a-random-child-if-the-no-of-children-of-a-fa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

                      When does type information flow backwards in C++?

                      Grease: Live!