14
$\begingroup$

I understand that the probability mass function of a discrete random-variable X is $y=g(x)$. This means $P(X=x_0) = g(x_0)$.

Now, a probability density function of of a continuous random variable X is $y=f(x)$. Wikipedia defines this function $y$ to mean

In probability theory, a probability density function (pdf), or density of a continuous random variable, is a function that describes the relative likelihood for this random variable to take on a given value.

I am confused about the meaning of 'relative likelihood' because it certainly does not mean probability! The probability $P(X is given by some integral of the pdf.

So what does $f(x_0)$ indicate? It gives a real number, but isn't the relative likelihood of a specific value for a CRV always zero?

5 Answers 5

13

'Relative likelihood' is indeed misleading. Look at it as a limit instead: $ f(x)=\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{F(x+h)-F(x)}{h} $ where $F(x) = P(X \leq x)$

  • 0
    I don't know much about physics sorry.2018-12-13
5

I am not sure if Jester is still interested, as it's been 5 years, but I think I found a less confusing anwer than in Wikipedia.

In contrast to discrete random variables, if X is continuous, f(X) is a function whose value at any given sample is not the probability but rather it indicates the likelihood that X will be in that sample/interval. For example if the value of the PDF around a point (can be generalized for a sample) x is large, that means the random variable X is more likely to take values close to x. If, on the other hand, f(x)=0 in some interval, then X won't be in that interval

Of course a more practical way of thinking it is that the probability of X being in an interval is given by the integral of the PDF.

You might want to look at the link below for more details: http://mathinsight.org/probability_density_function_idea

3

In general, if $X$ is a random variable with values of a measure space $(A,\mathcal A,\mu)$ and with pdf $f:A\to [0,1]$, then for all measurable set $S\in\mathcal A$, $P(X\in S) = \int_S fd\mu $ So, if $A=\Bbb R$ (and $\mu=\lambda$), then $P(a So, $f(x) = \displaystyle\lim_{t\to 0} \frac1{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t} f =\lim_{t\to 0} \frac1{2t} P(|X-x| for example.. We can call it 'relative likelihood'..

  • 1
    This is a better answer than [Alex's](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/210633/825) but doesn't explain the significance of the number $f(x)$. Does it have a meaning independent of a cdf? Andre's answer of it being approximately $hf(a)$ is great but he doesn't indicate if there's more to $f(x)$ by itself.2013-02-27
2

Intro statistics focuses on the PDF as the description of the population, but in fact it is the CDF (cumulative density function) that gives you a functional understanding of the population, as points on the CDF denote probabilities over a relevant range of measures. If you look at all stats from this perspective, then the PDF is just the description of probability change with respect to a change around a point along the measure at hand. The values on the PDF therefore only give you a look at the spread. For example, given two normal distributions $N(\mu_1, \sigma_1^2)$ and $N(\mu_2, \sigma_2^2)$, if you choose any value of $x$ to get point $p_n=\mu_n+x\cdot\sigma_n$ for the respective distributions and get $X_1[p_1 ] > X_2[p_2 ]$, then this just means $\sigma_1 < \sigma_2$. Similar relationships exist for other distributions.

  • 0
    Very interesting answer!2018-06-07
0

The ratio of the pdf $f(x)$ at two points, $r_x = f(x_0)/f(x_1)$, is not a measure of relative probability (or "relative likelihood") for the two outcomes for the random variable $X$. The ratio depends on the metric. That is, with a variable transformation, $z=z(x)$, with the pdf for $Z$ given by $h(z)$, the ratio $r_z=h(z_0)/h(z_1)\neq r_x$, in general, even though the two ratios refer to the same two outcomes. For monotonic transformations, $f(x)\,dx = h(z)\,dz$.

Numerical values of the pdf have no value on their own. The metric, $dx$, is required for probability interpretations (ie. $f(x)\,dx$). Wikipedia got this wrong, so I have corrected it.