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
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
I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing
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
children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.
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
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing
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
children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.
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
1
Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
– N. F. Taussig
Nov 22 at 10:50
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing
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
children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.
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
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
I'm not sure how to proceed after this. I tried evaluating the mean of S, by computing
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
children each having $j$ siblings. This divided by total number of children gives the fraction of children with $j$ siblings, i.e.
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
probability probability-distributions poisson-distribution
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered Nov 22 at 22:08
Henry
97.7k475157
97.7k475157
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Nov 23 at 0:18
Graham Kemp
84.6k43378
84.6k43378
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
Please read this tutorial on how to typeset mathematics on this site.
– N. F. Taussig
Nov 22 at 10:50