LFD Book Forum Problem 1.9
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

#1
09-29-2015, 01:14 AM
 kongweihan Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 1
Problem 1.9

I'm working through this problem and stuck on (b).

Since , we get

We also know

Both terms in the desired inequality is bigger than the common term, so I don't know how these two inequalities can lead to the desired conclusion, what did I miss?

Also, in (c), why do we want to minimize with respect to s and use that in (d)?
#2
03-21-2016, 07:29 AM
 MaciekLeks Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Katowice, Upper Silesia, Poland Posts: 17
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kongweihan I'm working through this problem and stuck on (b). Since , we get We also know Both terms in the desired inequality is bigger than the common term, so I don't know how these two inequalities can lead to the desired conclusion, what did I miss? Also, in (c), why do we want to minimize with respect to s and use that in (d)?

How do you know that ? I think that is a problem in your proof that you assumed that the joint probability works with Problem 1.9(b) inequality.

To proof (b) I went this way:

1. I used Markov Inequality

2. Problem 1.9(a) gave me this: , hence

Using this the rest of the proof is quite nice to carry out.
#3
05-12-2016, 02:18 AM
 waleed Junior Member Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 4
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MaciekLeks How do you know that ? I think that is a problem in your proof that you assumed that the joint probability works with Problem 1.9(b) inequality. To proof (b) I went this way: 1. I used Markov Inequality 2. Problem 1.9(a) gave me this: , hence Using this the rest of the proof is quite nice to carry out.
I don't think the condition right
#4
09-17-2016, 10:43 AM
 svend Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 2
Re: Problem 1.9

Here's my take on Problem 1.9, part(b), which is following the same lines as the description of MaciekLeks above.

We have:

Since is monotonically increasing in t.

Also, is non negative for all t, implying Markov inequality holds:

The last line being true since [math]x_n[\math] are independent.

From there it directly follows that

#5
03-03-2017, 07:53 AM
 k_sze Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 4
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kongweihan Also, in (c), why do we want to minimize with respect to s and use that in (d)?
I also have trouble understanding (c).

Actually I don't even know how to tackle it. I think I'll need a lot of hand-holding through this one because my math got really rusty since I left school (I'm 34).
#6
03-03-2017, 08:25 AM
 k_sze Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 4
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by k_sze I also have trouble understanding (c). Actually I don't even know how to tackle it. I think I'll need a lot of hand-holding through this one because my math got really rusty since I left school (I'm 34).
Will I need to summon notions such as "moment generating function" for part (c) of this problem?
#7
03-06-2017, 03:38 AM
 Sebasti Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 2
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by k_sze Actually I don't even know how to tackle it. I think I'll need a lot of hand-holding through this one because my math got really rusty since I left school
So I'm not the only one. Gee, thanks
#8
03-15-2017, 06:11 AM
 k_sze Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 4
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by k_sze Will I need to summon notions such as "moment generating function" for part (c) of this problem?
So I did end up using moment generating function. And I think the answer to (c) is , using calculus.

But now I'm stuck at (d).

Directly substituting is probably wrong? Because can be simplified to the point where no logarithm appears (unless I made a really big mistake).
#9
03-16-2017, 09:36 AM
 k_sze Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 4
Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by k_sze So I did end up using moment generating function. And I think the answer to (c) is , using calculus. But now I'm stuck at (d). Directly substituting is probably wrong? Because can be simplified to the point where no logarithm appears (unless I made a really big mistake).
*sigh*

I did end up getting by substituting for , but only after simplifying all the way down, until there is no more or , otherwise I get two powers of 2 with no obvious way to combine them.

So now the remaining hurdle is to prove that .

Yay

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home General     General Discussion of Machine Learning     Free Additional Material         Dynamic e-Chapters         Dynamic e-Appendices Course Discussions     Online LFD course         General comments on the course         Homework 1         Homework 2         Homework 3         Homework 4         Homework 5         Homework 6         Homework 7         Homework 8         The Final         Create New Homework Problems Book Feedback - Learning From Data     General comments on the book     Chapter 1 - The Learning Problem     Chapter 2 - Training versus Testing     Chapter 3 - The Linear Model     Chapter 4 - Overfitting     Chapter 5 - Three Learning Principles     e-Chapter 6 - Similarity Based Methods     e-Chapter 7 - Neural Networks     e-Chapter 8 - Support Vector Machines     e-Chapter 9 - Learning Aides     Appendix and Notation     e-Appendices

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 AM.