MLE Related Proof
- From: "junoexpress" <mathimagical@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:49:30 -0700
Hi,
I am going through the proof in Criag & Hogg (6th edtn) that is the
fundamental result one needs to actually shows that the ML method
"works". There is a step on which I am stuck however, and I am
wondering if anyone can help explain it.
C& H suppose:
x1,...,xn a random sample whose distribution has some pdf f(x;theta)
whose true parameter value is theta = q0.
The regularity conditions are satisfied for the family of distributions
f(x,theta)
They want to prove that for every q ne q0:
Lim n->Inf Prob_q0[ L(q0;x1,..,xn) > L(q;x1,...,xn)] = 1
The step I am getting stuck on is where the use the law of large
numbers. C&H get the result:
1/n * Sum 1 to n { log [f(x1,...,xn;q)/f(x1,...,xn;q0)] } < 0
Then they say "Because the summands are i.i.d. with finite expectation
.... it follows from the law of large numbers that"
1/n * Sum 1 to n { log [f(x1,...,xn;q)/f(x1,...,xn;q0)] } converges
in prob to E_q0{log [f(x1,...,xn;q)/f(x1,...,xn;q0)]}
I am confused by what the random variables _are_. Are C&H talking about
the random variable
log [f(x1,...,xn;q)/f(x1,...,xn;q0)] ? How can they know that this
random variable has a finite mean (since its distribution is not
obvious)?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
JunoE
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MLE Related Proof
- From: J W
- Re: MLE Related Proof
- Prev by Date: Re: Error Testing
- Next by Date: Re: Error Testing
- Previous by thread: Please, help me to verify the relationship dj=Cxj, d bar = C x bar and Sd = CSC'
- Next by thread: Re: MLE Related Proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|