Integral with respect to measures












1












$begingroup$


Suppose there are two non-negative random variables X and Y with their cumulative distribution functions $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Further, we know $F_X(t) leq F_Y(t)$ for all $t>0$. Then, for a non-negative function $phi(t)$, do we always have
$$int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_X(t) leq int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_Y(t)$$



For continuous case, I also tried to show density functions $f_X(t) leq f_Y(t)$, but do not know how. My feeling is this is not right. Since if PDFs cross once, one CDF is always greater or equal to the other one.



Finally, can we replace $F_X$ and $F_Y$ to any measures?



I saw the proof somewhere while I cannot remember which reference it is.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:41










  • $begingroup$
    Could you please give me an example?
    $endgroup$
    – gouwangzhangdong
    Jan 24 at 2:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:57


















1












$begingroup$


Suppose there are two non-negative random variables X and Y with their cumulative distribution functions $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Further, we know $F_X(t) leq F_Y(t)$ for all $t>0$. Then, for a non-negative function $phi(t)$, do we always have
$$int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_X(t) leq int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_Y(t)$$



For continuous case, I also tried to show density functions $f_X(t) leq f_Y(t)$, but do not know how. My feeling is this is not right. Since if PDFs cross once, one CDF is always greater or equal to the other one.



Finally, can we replace $F_X$ and $F_Y$ to any measures?



I saw the proof somewhere while I cannot remember which reference it is.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:41










  • $begingroup$
    Could you please give me an example?
    $endgroup$
    – gouwangzhangdong
    Jan 24 at 2:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:57
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


Suppose there are two non-negative random variables X and Y with their cumulative distribution functions $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Further, we know $F_X(t) leq F_Y(t)$ for all $t>0$. Then, for a non-negative function $phi(t)$, do we always have
$$int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_X(t) leq int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_Y(t)$$



For continuous case, I also tried to show density functions $f_X(t) leq f_Y(t)$, but do not know how. My feeling is this is not right. Since if PDFs cross once, one CDF is always greater or equal to the other one.



Finally, can we replace $F_X$ and $F_Y$ to any measures?



I saw the proof somewhere while I cannot remember which reference it is.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Suppose there are two non-negative random variables X and Y with their cumulative distribution functions $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Further, we know $F_X(t) leq F_Y(t)$ for all $t>0$. Then, for a non-negative function $phi(t)$, do we always have
$$int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_X(t) leq int_0^inftyphi(t)dF_Y(t)$$



For continuous case, I also tried to show density functions $f_X(t) leq f_Y(t)$, but do not know how. My feeling is this is not right. Since if PDFs cross once, one CDF is always greater or equal to the other one.



Finally, can we replace $F_X$ and $F_Y$ to any measures?



I saw the proof somewhere while I cannot remember which reference it is.







measure-theory lebesgue-integral






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 24 at 3:38







gouwangzhangdong

















asked Jan 24 at 2:32









gouwangzhangdonggouwangzhangdong

888




888












  • $begingroup$
    What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:41










  • $begingroup$
    Could you please give me an example?
    $endgroup$
    – gouwangzhangdong
    Jan 24 at 2:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:57




















  • $begingroup$
    What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:41










  • $begingroup$
    Could you please give me an example?
    $endgroup$
    – gouwangzhangdong
    Jan 24 at 2:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
    $endgroup$
    – lightxbulb
    Jan 24 at 2:57


















$begingroup$
What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
$endgroup$
– lightxbulb
Jan 24 at 2:41




$begingroup$
What if one increases faster in some interval and you sift that interval through the $phi$?
$endgroup$
– lightxbulb
Jan 24 at 2:41












$begingroup$
Could you please give me an example?
$endgroup$
– gouwangzhangdong
Jan 24 at 2:51




$begingroup$
Could you please give me an example?
$endgroup$
– gouwangzhangdong
Jan 24 at 2:51




2




2




$begingroup$
The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
$endgroup$
– lightxbulb
Jan 24 at 2:57






$begingroup$
The pdf is the derivative of the cdf, you've only provided a constraint such that the cdf of the first is smaller than that of the second. Now imagine that at point $a$ we have $F_Y(a) - F_X(a) = d$, and that at point $a+delta$ we have $F_Y(a+delta) = F_Y(a) + h$. Then in between $a$ and $a+delta$, $F_X$ is allowed to grow by $d+h$ which is more than $h$ as long as $d>0$, that means that the derivative is larger there, so all you need to do is set $phi$ to $0$ everywhere else, and your inequality won't hold anymore I believe. That is $F_X(a+delta)-F_X(a)>F_Y(a+delta)-F_Y(a)$.
$endgroup$
– lightxbulb
Jan 24 at 2:57












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Certainly false. Let $X=2$ and $Y=1$. Then the hypothesis is true and you are asking if $phi (2) leq phi (1)%=$ for any non-negative $phi $ which is obviously false. However the conclusion is true if $phi$ is non-negative and decreasing.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    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%2f3085366%2fintegral-with-respect-to-measures%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    Certainly false. Let $X=2$ and $Y=1$. Then the hypothesis is true and you are asking if $phi (2) leq phi (1)%=$ for any non-negative $phi $ which is obviously false. However the conclusion is true if $phi$ is non-negative and decreasing.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      Certainly false. Let $X=2$ and $Y=1$. Then the hypothesis is true and you are asking if $phi (2) leq phi (1)%=$ for any non-negative $phi $ which is obviously false. However the conclusion is true if $phi$ is non-negative and decreasing.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Certainly false. Let $X=2$ and $Y=1$. Then the hypothesis is true and you are asking if $phi (2) leq phi (1)%=$ for any non-negative $phi $ which is obviously false. However the conclusion is true if $phi$ is non-negative and decreasing.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Certainly false. Let $X=2$ and $Y=1$. Then the hypothesis is true and you are asking if $phi (2) leq phi (1)%=$ for any non-negative $phi $ which is obviously false. However the conclusion is true if $phi$ is non-negative and decreasing.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 24 at 6:37









        Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

        67.5k53067




        67.5k53067






























            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3085366%2fintegral-with-respect-to-measures%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

            Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

            Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

            A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$