Let $X\sim\mathrm{Poisson}(\lambda)$, show that $P(X\le \lambda/2) \le 4/\lambda$.
It is clear for $\lambda \in ]0,4]$ because in this case $4/\lambda \ge 1$. But for other values of $\lambda$ I do not see the point.
Let $X\sim\mathrm{Poisson}(\lambda)$, show that $P(X\le \lambda/2) \le 4/\lambda$.
It is clear for $\lambda \in ]0,4]$ because in this case $4/\lambda \ge 1$. But for other values of $\lambda$ I do not see the point.
The mean and the variance of the Poisson distribution of parameter $\lambda$ both are $\lambda$.
So,
$$P\left(X\le\frac{\lambda}2\right)=P\left(X-\lambda\le -\frac{\lambda}2\right).$$ Squaring both sides of the inequality, we get
$$P\left(X\le\frac{\lambda}2\right)=P\left((X-\lambda)^2 \le\frac{\lambda^2}4\right).$$
Then by Markov's inequality
$$P\left(X\le\frac{\lambda}2\right)\le\frac4{\lambda^2}E[(X-\lambda)^2]$$
Since $E[(X-\lambda)^2]=\lambda$, the variance, finally we get what was to be proved.
Yes, this is Chebyshew's inequality.
Let's see, how to prove Markov's inequality for a non negative discrete random variable. The expectation is
$$E[X]=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}x_ip_i\ge a\cdot\sum_{\{j: x_j\ge a\}}p_j=aP(X\ge a),$$
for any non negative $a$. Hence, $$P(X\ge a)\le \frac{E[X]}a.$$