2

Three uniform random variables $X = [2.9,3.1]$, $Y = [2.7,3.1]$, $Z = [2.9,3.3]$. What is the expected value of the maximum of these three variables? $E(\max(X,Y,Z))$.

I have tried to split the problem into three parts P$(X \, \text{is the max})\cdot X$, $P(Y \, \text{is the max})\cdot Y$ and $P(Z \, \text{is the max})\cdot Z$ but I have not been able to figure out the correct implementation of this logic.

Did
  • 279,727
  • What are $\mathbb P_X,\ \mathbb P_Z$ and $\mathbb P_Z$ ? –  Jun 11 '15 at 12:44
  • Welcome to math.SE: since you are new, I wanted to let you know a few things about the site. In order to get the best possible answers, it is helpful if you say in what context you encountered the problem, and what your thoughts on it are; this will prevent people from telling you things you already know, and help them give their answers at the right level. – Clement C. Jun 11 '15 at 12:46
  • Thanks! I have just edited it, including more specifics. I am still trying to figure out how to exactly format integrals and such so I did not include that. – Eric Liu Jun 11 '15 at 12:58
  • Very hazily, I would start by reducing the problem to the case where all 3 have same range (e.g., if $Y \in [2.7, 2.9]$ (which happens with some probability you know) then you only have to care about $\max(X,Z)$). After that, I would proceed by applying the same sort of approach as in this question (discrete setting, but that should not be a big deal). This is most likely neither the only nor the best approach, but that's the first that comes to mind. – Clement C. Jun 11 '15 at 13:01

3 Answers3

2

(Rather stunningly, this was downvoted. Too much mathematical precision, perhaps? :-) Happy reading!)

First observation: The random variables $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ are independent and uniform on $[2.9,3.1]$, $[2.7,3.1]$ and $[2.9,3.3]$ respectively hence $$X=2.9+0.2U,\qquad Y=2.9+0.2R,\qquad Z=2.9+0.2S,$$ where $U$, $R$ and $S$ are independent and uniform on $(0,1)$, $(-1,1)$ and $(0,2)$ respectively.

Consequence: $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=2.9+0.2\cdot E(\max(U,R,S))$.

Second observation: In turn, $$R=V-A,\qquad S=W+B,$$ where $V$ and $W$ are uniform on $(0,1)$, $A$ and $B$ are Bernoulli random variables uniform on $\{0,1\}$, and all the random variables are again independent.

Consequence: $E(\max(U,R,S))=E(T)$ with $T=\max(U,V-A,W+B)$.

Third observation: If $B=1$, then $T=W+1$. If $B=0$ and $A=1$, then $T=\max(U,W)$. If $B=0$ and $A=0$, then $T=\max(U,V,W)$.

Consequence: $E(T)=\frac12E(W+1)+\frac14E(\max(U,W))+\frac14E(\max(U,V,W))$.

Fourth observation: For every positive integer $n$, if $(U_1,\ldots,U_n)$ are i.i.d. uniform on $(0,1)$, then $M_n=\max(U_1,\ldots,U_n)$ has expectation $$E(M_n)=\int_0^1(1-P(M_n\leqslant x))dx=\int_0^1(1-x^n)dx=\frac{n}{n+1}.$$ Consequence: $E(W)=\frac12$, $E(\max(U,W))=\frac23$, $E(\max(U,V,W))=\frac34$.

Conclusion: $$E(\max(X,Y,Z))=2.9+0.2\left(\tfrac12\left(\tfrac12+1\right)+\tfrac14\left(\tfrac23\right)+\tfrac14\left(\tfrac34\right)\right).$$

Did
  • 279,727
1

Yes, assuming that $X,Y,Z$ are mutually independent, then by the law of iterated expectation:

$$\begin{align}\mathsf E(\max(X,Y,Z)) & = \mathsf E(X\mid X>Y, X>Z)\mathsf P(X>Y, X>Z) \\ & +\mathsf E(Y\mid Y>X, Y>Z)\mathsf P(Y>X, Y>Z) \\ & +\mathsf E(Z\mid Z>X, Z>Y)\mathsf P(Z>X, Z>Y)\end{align}$$

Now $$\begin{align} \mathsf E(X\mid X>Y, X>Z)\mathsf P(X>Y, X>Z) & = \int_{2.9}^{3.1} \frac{x}{3.1-2.9}\int_{2.7}^{x}\frac{1}{3.1-2.7}\operatorname d y\int_{2.9}^{x} \frac{1}{3.3-2.9}\operatorname d z\operatorname d x \\[1ex] & = \frac{125}{4}\int_{2.9}^{3.1} x(x-2.7)(x-2.9)\operatorname d x \\[1ex] & = \frac{19}{30} \end{align}$$

Can you do the rest? (Be wary of the lower interval for $Y$ and upper interval for $Z$.)

Graham Kemp
  • 129,094
1

Here’s another solution, basically the same as already given, but perhaps easier to follow, and at least more colorful.

enter image description here

The ranges over which $\color{blue}X$, $\color{brown}Y$, and $\color{green}Z$ are uniformly distributed are shown above. Partition what can happen into the following three disjoint cases.

Case 1 ($p=\frac{1}{2}$): $\color{green}{Z\ge3.1}$.

In this case, $E(\max(\color{blue}X,\color{brown}Y,\color{green}Z))=E(\color{green}Z)=3.2=\frac{16}{5}$.

Case 2 ($p=\frac{1}{4}$): $\color{green}{Z\le3.1}$ and $\color{brown}{Y\le2.9}$.

Here, $E(\max(\color{blue}X,\color{brown}Y,\color{green}Z))=E(\max(\color{blue}X,\color{green}Z))$, which equals* $2.9+0.2\cdot\frac{2}{3}=\frac{91}{30}$, because in this case, $\color{blue}X$ and $\color{green}{Z}$ are uniform on $[2.9,3.1]$.

Case 3 ($p=\frac{1}{4}$): $\color{green}{Z\le3.1}$ and $\color{brown}{Y\ge2.9}$.

Here, $\color{blue}X$, $Y$, and $\color{green}Z$ are all uniform on $[2.9,3.1]$, so* $E(\max(\color{blue}X,\color{orange}{Y},\color{green}{Z}))=2.9+0.2\cdot\frac{3}{4}=\frac{61}{20}$.

Therefore $E(\max(\color{blue}X,\color{brown}{Y},\color{green}Z))=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{16}{5}+\frac{1}{4}\cdot\frac{91}{30}+\frac{1}{4}\cdot\frac{61}{20}=\frac{749}{240}$

*The expected value of the maximum of $k$ uniform random variables on $[0,1]$ is $\frac{k}{k+1}$: This is because the $k$ values divide $[0,1]$ into $k+1$ intervals, and the expected length of each (and in particular, the rightmost one) is $\frac{1}{k+1}$.

Steve Kass
  • 14,881
  • Are you asserting that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(Z)$ and that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(\max(X,Z))$ and that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=\frac{61}{20}$ and that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=\frac{749}{240}$? Sorry, I find this slightly difficult to swallow (but the colors are nice). – Did May 22 '16 at 00:38
  • I’m using the Law of Total Expectation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_expectation In the language of the Wikipedia article, it’s the “one special case” mentioned at the beginning, where the outcome space is partitioned into $n$ ($=3$) events that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The conditional expected values for these cases are easier to calculate separately. (For example, $Z$ is the only variable than can exceed $3.1$, so it makes sense to consider $Z\ge3.1$ separately, because in that case, $Z$ is the maximum.) – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 20:01
  • No special case can justify to assert that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(Z)=E(\max(X,Z))=\frac{61}{20}=\frac{749}{240}$. What prevents you to learn the basics of the subject, to reach acceptable formulations? – Did May 22 '16 at 20:24
  • Perhaps you cannot read my multiplication signs ($\cdot$) on your computer? I did not say all those things were equal. Restricting to Case 1, $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(Z)$, because if $Z\ge3.1$, $Z$ must be the maximum. Now, restricting to Case 2 (which is exclusive, so never occurs at the same time as Case 1), $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(\max(X,Z))=\frac{91}{30}$. And in Case 3, $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=\frac{61}{20}$. I thought it would be more readable to the original poster not to use the language of conditional probability, but that is what I’m doing, with my cases being the events that partition the event space. – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 20:34
  • Sorry but there is no case for $E(\max(X,Y,Z))$, which is a number, not a function, hence you are indeed asserting that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=E(Z)=E(\max(X,Y))=$ etc. If you mean otherwise, write otherwise. – Did May 22 '16 at 20:56
  • I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand your complaint. I am certainly not asserting what you claim I am. If the original poster has a question about my answer, I will do my best to explain. (If it helps any, I am for example saying that $E(\max(X,Y,Z)|Z\ge3.1)=E(Z)=3.2=\frac{16}{5}$.) – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 20:58
  • Funny, I just quoted verbatim what is written in your post -- but perhaps you are not asserting what is written in your post? – Did May 22 '16 at 21:00
  • I don’t know what to say. My post nowhere says that $\frac{61}{20}=\frac{749}{240}$, unless you remove the rest of the equation I wrote. You are claiming that if someone says $1+1=2$ than they have said that $1=2$ because you ignore the first part of the equation. The English word “Here” indicates “In the case mentioned immediately before.” Maybe you are having trouble with the English. – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 21:02
  • Hint: When somebody asserts that A=B and that A=C, they are in effect, nolens volens, in English or otherwise, asserting that B=C. What does "in this case" means when one is writing that $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=$ [something]? Either $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=$ [something], always, or $E(\max(X,Y,Z))\ne$ [something], always, there are no cases here. – Did May 22 '16 at 21:03
  • Hint: When someone says “When $X>0$, $X$ is positive,” and they also say “When $X<0$, $X$ is negative,” they are definitely not saying “$X$ is positive and $X$ is negative.” You simply do not realize that I am saying different things for different, mutually exclusive, situations. – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 21:07
  • Except that in your last comment $X$ is a function, hence one can have $X(\omega)>0$ for some $\omega$ and $X(\omega')<0$ for some $\omega'\ne\omega$. On the contrary, in your post, $E(\max(X,Y,Z))$ is a real number hence there are exactly three possible cases and they are mutually exclusive: either $E(\max(X,Y,Z))>0$, or $E(\max(X,Y,Z))=0$, or $E(\max(X,Y,Z))<0$. Hence the formulation of your post is absurd. – Did May 22 '16 at 21:10
  • Wow. Let me try again. Suppose $X$ is a random variable that is uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]$. The events $A_1:=X\ge0$ and $A_2:= X<0$ partition the event space. In case of the event $A_1$, that is, in the case $X\ge0$, $E(X)=\frac{1}{2}$. This can be written $E(X|A_1)=\frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the case of event $E_2$. Here, $X<0$, and $E(X)=\frac{-1}{2}$, which can be written $E(X|A_2)=\frac{-1}{2}$. I hope you do not think I have now said that $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{-1}{2}$. Sorry you don’t think I’ve been clear. – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 21:20
  • Where is any expression such as $E(X\mid A_1)$ appearing in your answer? At this point, my impression is that you realized a few comments ago that your answer is faulty and that you are now merely engaged in some sort of damage control operation. Imho, such reactions, while possibly banal in politics or business or whatever, do not belong to mathematics. Enough said, readers can reach their own opinion from the thread of comments. – Did May 22 '16 at 21:27
  • As I said in an earlier comment, “I thought it would be more readable to the original poster not to use the language of conditional probability, but that is what I’m doing, with my cases being the events that partition the event space.” You have made your point: you disagree with this sort of simplification of the explanation. I think it can be helpful to learners, and I will gladly help the original poster if he or she has any questions about my answer. – Steve Kass May 22 '16 at 21:32