If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

# Proof of expected value of geometric random variable

Proof of expected value of geometric random variable.

## Want to join the conversation?

• Why are there multipliers next to the expected values? EX: P(x=2) * 2
• When Sal said that E(x) = 1/1-(1-p), I understand how you can get the denominator using the finite geometric series proof he showed on a previous video, but how do you get the one on the numerator? I get 1-(1-p)^n / 1-(1-p).
• Not 1 actually.
The sum of an infinite geometric series is a/1-r ; where a is the first term and r is the common ratio.
Here, "a" happened to be 1 co-incidentally.
• My teacher tought us that the expected value of a geometric random variable is q/p (where q = 1 - p). I found both formulas on the internet. Which one is the correct one?
(1 vote)
• It depends on how you've set up the geometric random variable. Here, Sal is setting X to be the number of trials you need before you get a successful outcome.
Your teacher, on the other hand, set X to be the number of failures before the first successful outcome.
• How do you interpret the expected value in this context?
• In this context, X is the number of trials it takes until you get your first success. Therefore, E(X) is the average number of trials it takes to get your first success. With this in mind, it makes intuitively sense that E(X) = 1/p.
• (P) is the average success rate (proportion) of any trial, and a geometric random variable (X) is the number of trials until we reach the first success, so the expected value of (X) should be the number of (P)'s that get us to 1. How many (p)'s are there in 1 ? It's ( 1/p ), which is the expected number of trials until we reach the first success or E(X)
• is the number of (p)'s the same as the value of p?
(1 vote)
• When you subtract (1-p)E(x) from E(x), are you allowed to leave the first term--1p--alone, instead just subtracting the terms of (1-p)E(x) from the corresponding next term in E(x), and still come up with the right answer? I know it's an infinite sequence, so you can't add the unaltered ∞p*(1-p)^∞. Does that mean it doesn't matter, as both sequences go on forever, or does it still change the result?
• When subtracting (1 − p)E(X) from E(X), you are essentially subtracting the weighted sum of the probabilities of each outcome in E(X) from E(X) itself. Leaving the first term 1p alone while subtracting the corresponding terms from (1 − p)E(X) effectively cancels out the terms related to the probabilities of the outcomes occurring, leaving only the constant term 1p on one side of the equation. This approach is mathematically valid because, as you noted, it's an infinite sequence, and the subtraction process will eventually lead to cancellation of the terms related to probabilities, leaving only the constant term. So, yes, it is allowed, and it doesn't change the result because you're essentially subtracting an infinite series from another infinite series term by term.
(1 vote)
• In the video he is referring to, I think he proved that the sum of a geometric series is a(1-r^n)/(1-r), not 1/(1-r). I have watched all his videos until this point. Did I forget something? When did he prove that the sum of a geometric series is 1/1-r?
(1 vote)
• This requires you to know about limit (Or maybe think about it in your mind). 0 < r < 1 for probability.

Let r = 0.5.
Now if n = 1, what is 0.5^n? It's 0.5.
Now if n = 10, what is 0.5^n? It's 9.765625 * 10^-4.
Now if n = 100000, what is 0.5^n? It's a really small number (I can't get the result on my calculator lol). So by this you know when n tends to infinity, r^n tends to 0. Thus a(1 - r^n) / (1 - r) tends to a / (1 - r).
And the first term is 1, so a = 1.

This means you have a probability of 1 / (1 - r) to success 1 time, if each trial has a success probability of r.
• will we need the proofs of the formulas on the exam?
is it possible to be a topic of a question?
(1 vote)
• My question is how do we know that we have to take a certain approach while proving the E(X)? In the binomial proof Sal took a different path than the one he took in this video but there also I thought why this path and not something else?
(1 vote)
• The approach taken in proving the expected value of a random variable can vary depending on the specific random variable being considered and the mathematical tools available. In the case of proving the expected value of a geometric random variable, Sal used a method akin to summing an infinite geometric series, leveraging mathematical techniques to manipulate the expression and arrive at the desired result. The choice of approach often depends on the mathematical properties of the random variable and the most effective way to manipulate the equations to prove the desired result. In different scenarios or with different random variables, alternative approaches may be more suitable or easier to implement.
(1 vote)
• For this question:
Lilyana runs a cake decorating business, for which 10% of her orders come over the telephone. Let C be the number of cake orders Lilyana receives in a month until she first gets an order over the telephone. Assume the method of placing each cake order is independent.
Find the probability that it takes fewer than 5 orders for Lilyana to get her first telephone order of the month.

I understand why this is the formula for the answer:
1 - 0.9^4

But can someone explain why this doesn't work?
(4!/(1!3!)*.1^1*.9^3)