Sheldon H. Stein

Cleveland State University

Journal of Statistics Education Volume 13, Number 3 (2005), ww2.amstat.org/publications/jse/v13n3/stein.html

Copyright © 2005 by Sheldon H. Stein, all rights reserved. This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the authors and advance notification of the editor.

**Key Words:**Covariance; Joint probability distribution; Means; Variances.

Let X and Y be two jointly distributed random variables. ThenTHEOREM 1. E(X + Y) = E(X) + E(Y)

THEOREM 2. var (X + Y) = var(X) + var(Y) + 2 cov(X,Y)

THEOREM 3. If X and Y are statistically independent, then E(XY) = E(X) E(Y)

where E(·) represents expected value, var(·) is variance, and cov(·) is the covariance.

In mathematical statistics, one relies on these theorems to derive estimators and to examine their properties. But textbooks and courses differ with regard to the extent to which they cover these theorems and their proofs. The best coverage is found in texts like Hogg and Tannis (2001) and Mendenhall, Scheaffer, and Wackerly (1997). But texts written for “Statistics 101” courses or for students who are not majors in mathematics or statistics, like Becker (1995), Newbold (1991), and Mansfield (1994) tend to have sparser coverage. Also, in some fields, like finance and econometrics, the subject matter relies rather heavily on these theorems and their proofs. But other fields seem to take a more casual approach to the mathematical foundations of statistical theory. Thus, in a statement put out by the European Union-India Cross Cultural Innovation Network, snowwhite.it.brighton.ac.uk/research/euindia/knowledgebase/indiapg/curriculum.htm we find the following statement:

“The traditional phobia for statistics among biology students arises out of the association of mathematics and statistics. That, however, is required only for the proofs of the formulae and not of their use. The availability of large amounts of data and good computational tools is what is required to make sense of statistics.”

But something is lost when the student does not understand the proofs of these theorems. For example, some of my students have argued with me in class, when the textbook was not immediately available, that Theorems 1 and 2 do require that X and Y be statistically independent and that Theorem 3 is always true. So without understanding the proofs, can one really understand their content and the statistical concepts that they support?

But even students who must master the content of these theorems are often uncomfortable with their formal proofs. The proofs of these three theorems make use of double summation notation in the case of discrete random variables. I suspect that a large part of the problem that students have with the proofs is a result of the fact many of them suffer from what might be termed "double summation notation anxiety." I have found that by simplifying the standard proofs, the theorems and their proofs become more accessible. While the simplifications involve some loss of generality, I believe on the basis of my personal experience that the tradeoff is well worth it.

Consider two random variables X and Y distributed as in Table 1:

X\Y | y_{1} | y_{2} |
... | y_{n} | P(X) |

x_{1} | p(x_{1},y_{1}) |
p(x_{1},y_{2}) |
... | p(x_{1},y_{n}) |
P(x_{1}) |

x_{2} | p(x_{2},y_{1}) |
p(x_{2},y_{2}) |
... | p(x_{2},y_{n}) |
P(x_{2}) |

. . . | . . . |
. . . |
... | . . . |
. . . |

x_{m} | p(x_{m},y_{1}) |
p(x_{m},y_{2}) |
... | p(x_{m},y_{n}) |
P(x_{m}) |

P(Y) | P(y_{1}) |
P(y_{2}) |
... | P(y_{n}) |
1 |

where p(x_{i},y_{j}) is the joint probability that X = x_{i} and
Y = y_{j}. Also, let P(x_{i}) be the simple probability that
X = x_{i} and let P(y_{j}) be the simple probability that Y = y_{j}.
P(x_{i})
and P(y_{j}) are also called marginal probabilities because they appear on the margins of the table.
Note that the simple probability that X assumes the value x_{i}, is

since when i assumes the value 1, j assumes a value between 1 and n. Similarly

The sum of all of the joint probabilities p(x_{i},y_{j}) is of course equal to unity,
as is the sum of all of the marginal probabilities of X and the sum of all of the marginal probabilities of Y.

Let us consider the standard proof of Theorem 1:

because and . The proofs of Theorems 2 and 3 follow a similar format (See Kmenta (1997).)

My experience has been that most students do not feel comfortable with these proofs. And in many textbooks, the proof is presented without a joint probability table which compounds the difficulty for students. In either case, many students will memorize Theorems 1, 2, and 3 and learn their proofs if necessary.

X\Y | y_{1} | y_{2} |
P(X) |

x_{1} | p(x_{1},y_{1}) |
p(x_{1},y_{2}) |
P(x_{1}) |

x_{2} | p(x_{2},y_{1}) |
p(x_{2},y_{2}) |
P(x_{2}) |

P(Y) | P(y_{1}) |
P(y_{2}) |
1 |

The definition of an expected value of a random variable like X is, as we know

In terms of the table above, the simple probabilities are of course equal to the sums of the relevant joint probabilities:

P(X_{2}) = [p(x_{2},y_{1}) +
p(x_{2},y_{2})].

Hence, it follows that

In other words, we multiply each joint probability by its X value and then sum. Many students have an easier time with this mode of presentation than the equivalent one expressed using double summation notation.

To determine E(X + Y), students are told that for each of the four interior cells of the joint probability distribution, we

- add the values of X and Y corresponding to that cell;
- multiply that sum by the corresponding joint probability; and
- sum these products across all elements of the table.

The expected value of X + Y is just a weighted average of the four possible values of x_{i} +
y_{j} with the joint probabilities serving as the weights.

By expanding the above expression and collecting terms, we obtain

Because

P(x_{1})= [p(x_{1},y_{1})+
p(x_{1},y_{2})],

P(x_{2})= [p(x_{2},y_{1})+
p(x_{2},y_{2})],

P(y_{1})= [p(x_{1},y_{1})+
p(x_{2},y_{1})],

P(y_{2})= [p(x_{1},y_{2})+
p(x_{2},y_{2})],

we can write

This proof is straightforward, intuitive, and does not require the use of double or even single summation signs. If one wants to make the proof a little more general, one can allow for a third value of one of the random variables. Once the student understands the simple proof above, it is, hopefully, a simple step forward to the more general proof.

Now applying (a+b)^{2} = a^{2} + 2ab + b^{2}, and collecting terms:

+ 2{[(x

Again, since

P(x_{1})= [p(x_{1},y_{1})+
p(x_{1},y_{2})],

P(x_{2})= [p(x_{2},y_{1})+
p(x_{2},y_{2})],

P(y_{1})= [p(x_{1},y_{1})+
p(x_{2},y_{1})],

P(y_{2})= [p(x_{1},y_{2})+
p(x_{2},y_{2})],

the expression above becomes var(X) + var (Y) + 2 cov(X,Y) where the expression in the third set of braces is, by definition, the covariance of X and Y.

At this point, the assumption of statistical independence of X and Y is utilized. If X and Y are statistically independent, then

p(x_{i},y_{j}) = P(x_{i})P(y_{j}).

Hence

Factoring out the x_{1}P(x_{1}) expression that is common to the first two terms and
the x_{2}P(x_{2}) expression common to the third and fourth terms, we have

Factoring out the common term, [y_{1}P(y_{1}) + y_{2}P(y_{2})].

This proof is much simpler than the general proof that is found in statistics textbooks. As the student sees the role of the assumption of statistical independence in the proof of Theorem 3 and the lack of such a role in the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2, the students’ understanding of these three theorems is complete.

Outcome | Probability | X | Y | X + Y |
---|---|---|---|---|

HH | 0.25 | 2 | 0 | 2 |

HT | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 2 |

TH | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 2 |

TT | 0.25 | 0 | 2 | 2 |

Clearly, X and Y have the same distribution, as seen in Table 4.

X (also Y) | Probability |
---|---|

0 | 0.25 |

1 | 0.50 |

2 | 0.25 |

In Table 5, the joint probability distribution of X and Y is presented:

X\Y | 0 | 1 | 2 | P(X) |
---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.25 |

1 | 0 | 0.50 | 0 | 0.50 |

2 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 |

P(Y) | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 1 |

We can now illustrate Theorems 1, 2, and 3 by using either the simple or joint
probabilities of X and Y. The expected value of X (and also of Y) is (0)(0.25) + (1)(0.50) + (2)(0.25), or 1.0. The
variance of X (and also of Y) is (0-1)^{2}(0.25) + (1-1)^{2}(0.50) + (2-1)^{2}(0.25) or 0.5.
Notice that the simple probability distributions from Table 4 are the same as the
marginal probability distributions of
Table 5. In Table 3, we see that the expected
value of X + Y is obviously 2 and the variance of X + Y is obviously 0 because the number of heads plus the number of tails
in each possible outcome is always 2. This is consistent with Theorem 1 since E(X)
and E(Y) are both 1. The covariance of X and Y [i.e. [(2-1)(0-1)(0.25) + (1-1)(1-1)(0.50) + (0-1)(2-1)(0.25))] is -0.5.
Hence, Theorem 2, which says that the variance of X + Y is equal to the variance
of X plus the variance of Y plus two times the covariance of X and Y, which add up to zero, is consistent with
X + Y being 2 for all possible outcomes.

Note also that Theorems 1 and 2 find support in this example even though random variables X and Y are not statistically independent (since the joint probabilities are not equal to the product of their corresponding marginal probabilities). But Theorem 3 does not hold as E(XY) is equal to 0.5, which is not equal to the product of E(X) and E(Y), which is 1.

Let us now consider Table 6 in which the random variables R and S are defined in a different way. Random variable R is defined purely on the basis of the toss of the first coin and random variable S is defined purely on the basis of the second coin toss. If the outcome of the first coin toss is heads, we assign random variable R the value 1 while if the first coin toss is a tails, we assign R the value 0 without regard to the outcome of the second toss. Similarly, random variable S is defined solely on the basis of the toss of the second coin, without regard to the outcome of the first coin toss. If the outcome of the second coin toss is heads, we assign random variable S the value 1 while if the second coin toss is a tails, we assign S the value 0. Hence, random variables R and S are statistically independent.

Outcome | Probability | R | S | R + S |
---|---|---|---|---|

HH | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 2 |

HT | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 1 |

TH | 0.25 | 0 | 1 | 1 |

TT | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Note in Table 7 that R and S have the same distribution.

R (also S) | Probability |
---|---|

0 | 0.50 |

1 | 0.50 |

The expected value of R is 0.5 and the expected value of S is also 0.5; the variance of R is 0.25 and the variance of S is also 0.25.

From Table 6 we also derive Table 8 which shows the distribution of the random variable R + S :

R + S | Probability |
---|---|

0 | 0.25 |

1 | 0.50 |

2 | 0.25 |

The expected value of R + S is clearly 1 and its variance is 0.5. From Table 6, we also derive Table 9 which presents the joint probability distribution table of random variables R and S. The covariance of R and S is zero, which is a consequence of the fact that R and S are statistically independent. We know this because each joint probability is equal to the product of the corresponding marginal probabilities. Since the expected values of R and S are each 0.5 and since the variances of R and S are each 0.25 with the covariance of R and S being zero, these results are consistent with Theorems 1 and 2.

R\S | 0 | 1 | P(R) |
---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 |

1 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 |

P(S) | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1 |

Theorem 3 requires that E(RS) be equal to E(R)E(S) since R and S are statistically independent. Given our values of E(R) and E(S), E(RS) should be equal to 0.25. In Table 9, it is obvious that this is the case.

Finally, we construct an example where random variables are defined in a coin flipping experiment where the covariance between the two random variables are positive. Consider Table 10 below. The generation of random variable X was presented in Table 3. Random variable W is defined by assigning a value of 2 if both coins turn up heads, -2 if both coins turn up tails, and zero if one coin turns up heads and the other turns up tails.

Outcome | Probability | X | W | X + W |
---|---|---|---|---|

HH | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | 4 |

HT | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 1 |

TH | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 1 |

TT | 0.25 | 0 | -2 | -2 |

The probability distribution for X was shown in Table 4 with a mean of 1 and a variance of 0.5 while the probability distribution for W is shown in Table 11. Its mean is equal to 0

W | Probability |
---|---|

-2 | 0.25 |

0 | 0.50 |

2 | 0.25 |

and its variance is 2. The distribution of X + W is shown in Table 12:

X + W | Probability |
---|---|

-2 | 0.25 |

1 | 0.50 |

4 | 0.25 |

X + W has an expected value of 1 and a variance of 4.5. The joint probability distribution of X and W is found in Table 13:

X\W | -2 | 0 | 2 | P(X) |
---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 |

1 | 0 | 0.50 | 0 | 0.50 |

2 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.25 |

P(W) | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 1 |

The covariance of X and W in this example turns out to be 1.0. The expected value of X + W, which is 1, is equal to the sum of the expected value of X, which is 1 and the expected value of W, which is zero. The variance of X + W, which is 4.5 is equal to the variance of X, which is 0.5 plus the variance of W, which is 2, plus two times the covariance of X and W, or 2. But because X and W are not statistically independent, which we can see by comparing the joint probabilities with the products of the concomitant marginal probabilities, Theorem 3 need not apply, and it does not. E(X)E(W) is equal to zero but cursory examination of Table 13 reveals that E(XW) is equal to 1.

Hogg, R. and Tanis, E (2001), *Probability and Statistics*, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kmenta, J. (1997), *Elements of Econometrics*, 2^{nd} Ed., New York: Macmillan.

Mansfield, E. (1994), *Statistics for Business and Economics: Methodology and Applications*, New York: Norton.

Mendenhall, W., Scheaffer, R., and D. Wackerly (1997), *Mathematical Statistics with Applications*, Boston: Duxbury
Press.

Mirer, T. (1995). *Economic Statistics and Econometrics*, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Newbold, P. (1991), *Statistics for Business and Economics*, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sheldon H. Stein

Department of Economics

Cleveland State University

Cleveland, OH

U.S.A.
*S.Stein@csuohio.edu*

Volume 13 (2005) | Archive | Index | Data Archive | Information Service | Editorial Board | Guidelines for Authors | Guidelines for Data Contributors | Home Page | Contact JSE | ASA Publications