Why does zero correlation not imply independence?












23














Although independence implies zero correlation, zero correlation does not necessarily imply independence.



While I understand the concept, I can't imagine a real world situation with zero correlation that did not also have independence.



Can someone please give me an example so I can better understand this phenomenon?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
    – Charles
    Jul 15 '13 at 19:19
















23














Although independence implies zero correlation, zero correlation does not necessarily imply independence.



While I understand the concept, I can't imagine a real world situation with zero correlation that did not also have independence.



Can someone please give me an example so I can better understand this phenomenon?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
    – Charles
    Jul 15 '13 at 19:19














23












23








23


21





Although independence implies zero correlation, zero correlation does not necessarily imply independence.



While I understand the concept, I can't imagine a real world situation with zero correlation that did not also have independence.



Can someone please give me an example so I can better understand this phenomenon?










share|cite|improve this question















Although independence implies zero correlation, zero correlation does not necessarily imply independence.



While I understand the concept, I can't imagine a real world situation with zero correlation that did not also have independence.



Can someone please give me an example so I can better understand this phenomenon?







statistics independence






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 29 '18 at 23:03









nbro

2,40153171




2,40153171










asked Jul 15 '13 at 18:58









user86403

116113




116113








  • 1




    mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
    – Charles
    Jul 15 '13 at 19:19














  • 1




    mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
    – Charles
    Jul 15 '13 at 19:19








1




1




mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
– Charles
Jul 15 '13 at 19:19




mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64808.html
– Charles
Jul 15 '13 at 19:19










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















21














Consider the following betting game.



Flip a fair coin to determine the amount of your bet: if heads, you bet $1, if tails you bet $2. Then flip again: if heads, you win the amount of your bet, if tails, you lose it. (For example, if you flip heads and then tails, you lose $1; if you flip tails and then heads you win $2.) Let $X$ be the amount you bet, and let $Y$ be your net winnings (negative if you lost).



$X$ and $Y$ have zero correlation. You can compute this explicitly, but it's basically the fact that you are playing a fair game no matter how much you bet. But they are not independent; indeed, if you know $Y$, then you know $X$ (if $Y = -2$, for instance, then $X$ has to be 2.) Explicitly, the probability that $Y=-2$ is $1/4$, and the probability that $X=2$ is $1/2$, but the probability that both occur is $1/4$, not $1/8$. (Indeed, in this game, there is no event with probability $1/8$.)






share|cite|improve this answer































    8














    Zero correlation will indicate no linear dependency, however won't capture non-linearity. Typical example is uniform random variable $x,$ and $x^2$ over [-1,1] with zero mean. Correlation is zero but clearly not independent.






    share|cite|improve this answer































      3














      Let $X$ be any random variable. Let $P{I = 1} = P{I = -1} = 1/2$, with $I$ independent of $X$. Let $Y = IX$. (Thus, $Y = pm X$, each with probability $1/2$, independent of the value of $X$.) Then $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated but not independent. We could replace $I$ by any zero-mean random variable independent of $X$. [Could someone please tell me how to insert that first equation correctly?]






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
        – Nate Eldredge
        Jul 15 '13 at 19:38






      • 1




        Incidentally, my example is of this form.
        – Nate Eldredge
        Jul 15 '13 at 19:39










      • Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
        – Did
        Dec 29 '16 at 8:35



















      2














      Consider these two physical variables:




      • A random velocity $V$ of a vehicle along a straight road between towns A and B (towards B, velocity is positive, whereas towards A velocity is negative); and

      • Kinetic energy $K = frac{1}{2}mV^2$ of the vehicle where $m$ is the mass of the vehicle.


      Let's say velocity takes values between $-50$ and $+50$ miles an hour with equal probability, average velocity $0$. When velocity is $-50$ kinetic energy is $1250m$ and when velocity is $+50$ kinetic energy is also $1250m$. Because the mean velocity is zero and all velocities are equally likely, the correlation is simply proportional to the sum of the products of velocity and kinetic energy (an integral rather than a sum, in fact, because velocity is continuous). The product $KV$ when $V=-50$ is $-62500m$, and the product $KV$ when $V=50$ is $62500m$, and these terms cancel each other out in the sum. And because negative velocities occur just as much as positive velocities, the sum is composed of equal and opposite pairs, which cancel out, and the correlation is zero.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        2














        I will give a geometric example involving random points in the plane. These come up in real life all the time if there is a mechanism by which points are distributed. (For example, it could be the location of a house or something)



        Choose a random point $(X,Y)$ in the plane chosen uniformly from the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (by this I mean, the probability of $(X,Y)$ being contained in an arc of the circle is proportional to the length of the arc...you could also choose $theta$ uniformly distributed in $[0,2pi)$ and put $X=cos(theta), Y=sin (theta)$)



        Now, the random variables $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated. Indeed, for any given value of $X=x$ there are always exactly two possible values of $Y$ that fit, namely $+sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $-sqrt{1-x^2}$. These are equally likely so both have probability $frac{1}{2}$. Hence $E(XY|X=x) = frac{1}{2}xsqrt{1-x^2}+frac{1}{2}x (-sqrt{1-x^2})=0$. From here, you should be able to see that they are uncorrelated.



        However these are not independenet! There are many ways to see why. Here is one "certificate" that shows they are not independent. (Although this doesn't really clear up the intuition of why they arent independent, you will have to think about that one).
        Notice $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=0$ since $X^2+Y^2=1$ always. However, each probability $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ and $P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ are non-zero, so it is impossible that $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$






        share|cite|improve this answer




















          protected by J. M. is not a mathematician Dec 29 '16 at 8:42



          Thank you for your interest in this question.
          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          21














          Consider the following betting game.



          Flip a fair coin to determine the amount of your bet: if heads, you bet $1, if tails you bet $2. Then flip again: if heads, you win the amount of your bet, if tails, you lose it. (For example, if you flip heads and then tails, you lose $1; if you flip tails and then heads you win $2.) Let $X$ be the amount you bet, and let $Y$ be your net winnings (negative if you lost).



          $X$ and $Y$ have zero correlation. You can compute this explicitly, but it's basically the fact that you are playing a fair game no matter how much you bet. But they are not independent; indeed, if you know $Y$, then you know $X$ (if $Y = -2$, for instance, then $X$ has to be 2.) Explicitly, the probability that $Y=-2$ is $1/4$, and the probability that $X=2$ is $1/2$, but the probability that both occur is $1/4$, not $1/8$. (Indeed, in this game, there is no event with probability $1/8$.)






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            21














            Consider the following betting game.



            Flip a fair coin to determine the amount of your bet: if heads, you bet $1, if tails you bet $2. Then flip again: if heads, you win the amount of your bet, if tails, you lose it. (For example, if you flip heads and then tails, you lose $1; if you flip tails and then heads you win $2.) Let $X$ be the amount you bet, and let $Y$ be your net winnings (negative if you lost).



            $X$ and $Y$ have zero correlation. You can compute this explicitly, but it's basically the fact that you are playing a fair game no matter how much you bet. But they are not independent; indeed, if you know $Y$, then you know $X$ (if $Y = -2$, for instance, then $X$ has to be 2.) Explicitly, the probability that $Y=-2$ is $1/4$, and the probability that $X=2$ is $1/2$, but the probability that both occur is $1/4$, not $1/8$. (Indeed, in this game, there is no event with probability $1/8$.)






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              21












              21








              21






              Consider the following betting game.



              Flip a fair coin to determine the amount of your bet: if heads, you bet $1, if tails you bet $2. Then flip again: if heads, you win the amount of your bet, if tails, you lose it. (For example, if you flip heads and then tails, you lose $1; if you flip tails and then heads you win $2.) Let $X$ be the amount you bet, and let $Y$ be your net winnings (negative if you lost).



              $X$ and $Y$ have zero correlation. You can compute this explicitly, but it's basically the fact that you are playing a fair game no matter how much you bet. But they are not independent; indeed, if you know $Y$, then you know $X$ (if $Y = -2$, for instance, then $X$ has to be 2.) Explicitly, the probability that $Y=-2$ is $1/4$, and the probability that $X=2$ is $1/2$, but the probability that both occur is $1/4$, not $1/8$. (Indeed, in this game, there is no event with probability $1/8$.)






              share|cite|improve this answer














              Consider the following betting game.



              Flip a fair coin to determine the amount of your bet: if heads, you bet $1, if tails you bet $2. Then flip again: if heads, you win the amount of your bet, if tails, you lose it. (For example, if you flip heads and then tails, you lose $1; if you flip tails and then heads you win $2.) Let $X$ be the amount you bet, and let $Y$ be your net winnings (negative if you lost).



              $X$ and $Y$ have zero correlation. You can compute this explicitly, but it's basically the fact that you are playing a fair game no matter how much you bet. But they are not independent; indeed, if you know $Y$, then you know $X$ (if $Y = -2$, for instance, then $X$ has to be 2.) Explicitly, the probability that $Y=-2$ is $1/4$, and the probability that $X=2$ is $1/2$, but the probability that both occur is $1/4$, not $1/8$. (Indeed, in this game, there is no event with probability $1/8$.)







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Aug 15 '14 at 22:29

























              answered Jul 15 '13 at 19:26









              Nate Eldredge

              62.3k681169




              62.3k681169























                  8














                  Zero correlation will indicate no linear dependency, however won't capture non-linearity. Typical example is uniform random variable $x,$ and $x^2$ over [-1,1] with zero mean. Correlation is zero but clearly not independent.






                  share|cite|improve this answer




























                    8














                    Zero correlation will indicate no linear dependency, however won't capture non-linearity. Typical example is uniform random variable $x,$ and $x^2$ over [-1,1] with zero mean. Correlation is zero but clearly not independent.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                      8












                      8








                      8






                      Zero correlation will indicate no linear dependency, however won't capture non-linearity. Typical example is uniform random variable $x,$ and $x^2$ over [-1,1] with zero mean. Correlation is zero but clearly not independent.






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      Zero correlation will indicate no linear dependency, however won't capture non-linearity. Typical example is uniform random variable $x,$ and $x^2$ over [-1,1] with zero mean. Correlation is zero but clearly not independent.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Aug 8 '13 at 20:52

























                      answered Aug 8 '13 at 20:42









                      karakfa

                      1,973811




                      1,973811























                          3














                          Let $X$ be any random variable. Let $P{I = 1} = P{I = -1} = 1/2$, with $I$ independent of $X$. Let $Y = IX$. (Thus, $Y = pm X$, each with probability $1/2$, independent of the value of $X$.) Then $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated but not independent. We could replace $I$ by any zero-mean random variable independent of $X$. [Could someone please tell me how to insert that first equation correctly?]






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                          • For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:38






                          • 1




                            Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:39










                          • Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                            – Did
                            Dec 29 '16 at 8:35
















                          3














                          Let $X$ be any random variable. Let $P{I = 1} = P{I = -1} = 1/2$, with $I$ independent of $X$. Let $Y = IX$. (Thus, $Y = pm X$, each with probability $1/2$, independent of the value of $X$.) Then $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated but not independent. We could replace $I$ by any zero-mean random variable independent of $X$. [Could someone please tell me how to insert that first equation correctly?]






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                          • For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:38






                          • 1




                            Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:39










                          • Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                            – Did
                            Dec 29 '16 at 8:35














                          3












                          3








                          3






                          Let $X$ be any random variable. Let $P{I = 1} = P{I = -1} = 1/2$, with $I$ independent of $X$. Let $Y = IX$. (Thus, $Y = pm X$, each with probability $1/2$, independent of the value of $X$.) Then $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated but not independent. We could replace $I$ by any zero-mean random variable independent of $X$. [Could someone please tell me how to insert that first equation correctly?]






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          Let $X$ be any random variable. Let $P{I = 1} = P{I = -1} = 1/2$, with $I$ independent of $X$. Let $Y = IX$. (Thus, $Y = pm X$, each with probability $1/2$, independent of the value of $X$.) Then $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated but not independent. We could replace $I$ by any zero-mean random variable independent of $X$. [Could someone please tell me how to insert that first equation correctly?]







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Jul 15 '13 at 19:37









                          Nate Eldredge

                          62.3k681169




                          62.3k681169










                          answered Jul 15 '13 at 19:32









                          Stephen Herschkorn

                          704312




                          704312












                          • For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:38






                          • 1




                            Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:39










                          • Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                            – Did
                            Dec 29 '16 at 8:35


















                          • For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:38






                          • 1




                            Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                            – Nate Eldredge
                            Jul 15 '13 at 19:39










                          • Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                            – Did
                            Dec 29 '16 at 8:35
















                          For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                          – Nate Eldredge
                          Jul 15 '13 at 19:38




                          For curly braces, type { and }. I edited them in for you. But I think most people write parentheses instead: $P(I = 1)$ etc.
                          – Nate Eldredge
                          Jul 15 '13 at 19:38




                          1




                          1




                          Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                          – Nate Eldredge
                          Jul 15 '13 at 19:39




                          Incidentally, my example is of this form.
                          – Nate Eldredge
                          Jul 15 '13 at 19:39












                          Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                          – Did
                          Dec 29 '16 at 8:35




                          Incidentally, if X is symmetric Bernoulli, then (X,Y) is independent (hence some more care should be brought to the idea).
                          – Did
                          Dec 29 '16 at 8:35











                          2














                          Consider these two physical variables:




                          • A random velocity $V$ of a vehicle along a straight road between towns A and B (towards B, velocity is positive, whereas towards A velocity is negative); and

                          • Kinetic energy $K = frac{1}{2}mV^2$ of the vehicle where $m$ is the mass of the vehicle.


                          Let's say velocity takes values between $-50$ and $+50$ miles an hour with equal probability, average velocity $0$. When velocity is $-50$ kinetic energy is $1250m$ and when velocity is $+50$ kinetic energy is also $1250m$. Because the mean velocity is zero and all velocities are equally likely, the correlation is simply proportional to the sum of the products of velocity and kinetic energy (an integral rather than a sum, in fact, because velocity is continuous). The product $KV$ when $V=-50$ is $-62500m$, and the product $KV$ when $V=50$ is $62500m$, and these terms cancel each other out in the sum. And because negative velocities occur just as much as positive velocities, the sum is composed of equal and opposite pairs, which cancel out, and the correlation is zero.






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            2














                            Consider these two physical variables:




                            • A random velocity $V$ of a vehicle along a straight road between towns A and B (towards B, velocity is positive, whereas towards A velocity is negative); and

                            • Kinetic energy $K = frac{1}{2}mV^2$ of the vehicle where $m$ is the mass of the vehicle.


                            Let's say velocity takes values between $-50$ and $+50$ miles an hour with equal probability, average velocity $0$. When velocity is $-50$ kinetic energy is $1250m$ and when velocity is $+50$ kinetic energy is also $1250m$. Because the mean velocity is zero and all velocities are equally likely, the correlation is simply proportional to the sum of the products of velocity and kinetic energy (an integral rather than a sum, in fact, because velocity is continuous). The product $KV$ when $V=-50$ is $-62500m$, and the product $KV$ when $V=50$ is $62500m$, and these terms cancel each other out in the sum. And because negative velocities occur just as much as positive velocities, the sum is composed of equal and opposite pairs, which cancel out, and the correlation is zero.






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              2












                              2








                              2






                              Consider these two physical variables:




                              • A random velocity $V$ of a vehicle along a straight road between towns A and B (towards B, velocity is positive, whereas towards A velocity is negative); and

                              • Kinetic energy $K = frac{1}{2}mV^2$ of the vehicle where $m$ is the mass of the vehicle.


                              Let's say velocity takes values between $-50$ and $+50$ miles an hour with equal probability, average velocity $0$. When velocity is $-50$ kinetic energy is $1250m$ and when velocity is $+50$ kinetic energy is also $1250m$. Because the mean velocity is zero and all velocities are equally likely, the correlation is simply proportional to the sum of the products of velocity and kinetic energy (an integral rather than a sum, in fact, because velocity is continuous). The product $KV$ when $V=-50$ is $-62500m$, and the product $KV$ when $V=50$ is $62500m$, and these terms cancel each other out in the sum. And because negative velocities occur just as much as positive velocities, the sum is composed of equal and opposite pairs, which cancel out, and the correlation is zero.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              Consider these two physical variables:




                              • A random velocity $V$ of a vehicle along a straight road between towns A and B (towards B, velocity is positive, whereas towards A velocity is negative); and

                              • Kinetic energy $K = frac{1}{2}mV^2$ of the vehicle where $m$ is the mass of the vehicle.


                              Let's say velocity takes values between $-50$ and $+50$ miles an hour with equal probability, average velocity $0$. When velocity is $-50$ kinetic energy is $1250m$ and when velocity is $+50$ kinetic energy is also $1250m$. Because the mean velocity is zero and all velocities are equally likely, the correlation is simply proportional to the sum of the products of velocity and kinetic energy (an integral rather than a sum, in fact, because velocity is continuous). The product $KV$ when $V=-50$ is $-62500m$, and the product $KV$ when $V=50$ is $62500m$, and these terms cancel each other out in the sum. And because negative velocities occur just as much as positive velocities, the sum is composed of equal and opposite pairs, which cancel out, and the correlation is zero.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Jul 15 '13 at 19:46









                              TooTone

                              5,03511741




                              5,03511741























                                  2














                                  I will give a geometric example involving random points in the plane. These come up in real life all the time if there is a mechanism by which points are distributed. (For example, it could be the location of a house or something)



                                  Choose a random point $(X,Y)$ in the plane chosen uniformly from the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (by this I mean, the probability of $(X,Y)$ being contained in an arc of the circle is proportional to the length of the arc...you could also choose $theta$ uniformly distributed in $[0,2pi)$ and put $X=cos(theta), Y=sin (theta)$)



                                  Now, the random variables $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated. Indeed, for any given value of $X=x$ there are always exactly two possible values of $Y$ that fit, namely $+sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $-sqrt{1-x^2}$. These are equally likely so both have probability $frac{1}{2}$. Hence $E(XY|X=x) = frac{1}{2}xsqrt{1-x^2}+frac{1}{2}x (-sqrt{1-x^2})=0$. From here, you should be able to see that they are uncorrelated.



                                  However these are not independenet! There are many ways to see why. Here is one "certificate" that shows they are not independent. (Although this doesn't really clear up the intuition of why they arent independent, you will have to think about that one).
                                  Notice $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=0$ since $X^2+Y^2=1$ always. However, each probability $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ and $P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ are non-zero, so it is impossible that $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                                    2














                                    I will give a geometric example involving random points in the plane. These come up in real life all the time if there is a mechanism by which points are distributed. (For example, it could be the location of a house or something)



                                    Choose a random point $(X,Y)$ in the plane chosen uniformly from the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (by this I mean, the probability of $(X,Y)$ being contained in an arc of the circle is proportional to the length of the arc...you could also choose $theta$ uniformly distributed in $[0,2pi)$ and put $X=cos(theta), Y=sin (theta)$)



                                    Now, the random variables $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated. Indeed, for any given value of $X=x$ there are always exactly two possible values of $Y$ that fit, namely $+sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $-sqrt{1-x^2}$. These are equally likely so both have probability $frac{1}{2}$. Hence $E(XY|X=x) = frac{1}{2}xsqrt{1-x^2}+frac{1}{2}x (-sqrt{1-x^2})=0$. From here, you should be able to see that they are uncorrelated.



                                    However these are not independenet! There are many ways to see why. Here is one "certificate" that shows they are not independent. (Although this doesn't really clear up the intuition of why they arent independent, you will have to think about that one).
                                    Notice $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=0$ since $X^2+Y^2=1$ always. However, each probability $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ and $P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ are non-zero, so it is impossible that $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                                      2












                                      2








                                      2






                                      I will give a geometric example involving random points in the plane. These come up in real life all the time if there is a mechanism by which points are distributed. (For example, it could be the location of a house or something)



                                      Choose a random point $(X,Y)$ in the plane chosen uniformly from the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (by this I mean, the probability of $(X,Y)$ being contained in an arc of the circle is proportional to the length of the arc...you could also choose $theta$ uniformly distributed in $[0,2pi)$ and put $X=cos(theta), Y=sin (theta)$)



                                      Now, the random variables $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated. Indeed, for any given value of $X=x$ there are always exactly two possible values of $Y$ that fit, namely $+sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $-sqrt{1-x^2}$. These are equally likely so both have probability $frac{1}{2}$. Hence $E(XY|X=x) = frac{1}{2}xsqrt{1-x^2}+frac{1}{2}x (-sqrt{1-x^2})=0$. From here, you should be able to see that they are uncorrelated.



                                      However these are not independenet! There are many ways to see why. Here is one "certificate" that shows they are not independent. (Although this doesn't really clear up the intuition of why they arent independent, you will have to think about that one).
                                      Notice $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=0$ since $X^2+Y^2=1$ always. However, each probability $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ and $P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ are non-zero, so it is impossible that $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      I will give a geometric example involving random points in the plane. These come up in real life all the time if there is a mechanism by which points are distributed. (For example, it could be the location of a house or something)



                                      Choose a random point $(X,Y)$ in the plane chosen uniformly from the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (by this I mean, the probability of $(X,Y)$ being contained in an arc of the circle is proportional to the length of the arc...you could also choose $theta$ uniformly distributed in $[0,2pi)$ and put $X=cos(theta), Y=sin (theta)$)



                                      Now, the random variables $X$ and $Y$ are uncorrelated. Indeed, for any given value of $X=x$ there are always exactly two possible values of $Y$ that fit, namely $+sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $-sqrt{1-x^2}$. These are equally likely so both have probability $frac{1}{2}$. Hence $E(XY|X=x) = frac{1}{2}xsqrt{1-x^2}+frac{1}{2}x (-sqrt{1-x^2})=0$. From here, you should be able to see that they are uncorrelated.



                                      However these are not independenet! There are many ways to see why. Here is one "certificate" that shows they are not independent. (Although this doesn't really clear up the intuition of why they arent independent, you will have to think about that one).
                                      Notice $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=0$ since $X^2+Y^2=1$ always. However, each probability $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ and $P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$ are non-zero, so it is impossible that $P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2}, Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})=P(X>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})P(Y>frac{sqrt{2}}{2})$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Aug 8 '13 at 19:51









                                      Mihai Nica

                                      34119




                                      34119

















                                          protected by J. M. is not a mathematician Dec 29 '16 at 8:42



                                          Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Plaza Victoria

                                          Puebla de Zaragoza

                                          Musa