The following problem appeared in Volume 131, Issue 9 (2024) of The American Mathematical Monthly.
Let
and
be independent normally distributed random variables, each with its own mean and variance. Show that the variance of
conditioned on the event
is smaller than the variance of
alone.
In previous posts, we reduced the problem to showing that if , then
is always positive, where
is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution. If we can prove this, then the original problem will be true.
When I was solving this problem for the first time, my progress through the first few steps was hindered by algebra mistakes and the like, but I didn’t doubt that I was progressing toward the answer. At this point in the solution, however, I was genuinely stuck: nothing immediately popped to mind for showing that must be greater than
.
So I turned to Mathematica, just to make sure I was on the right track. Based on the graph, the function of certainly looks positive.
What’s more, the graph suggests attempting to prove a couple of things: is an increasing function, and
or, equivalently,
. If I could prove both of these claims, then that would prove that
must always be positive.
I started by trying to show
.
I vaguely remembered something about the asymptotic expansion of the above integral from a course decades ago, and so I consulted that course’s textbook, by Bender and Orszag, to refresh my memory. To derive the behavior of as
, we integrate by parts. (This is permissible: the integrands below are well-behaved if
, so that
is not in the range of integration.)
.
This is agonizingly close: the leading term is as expected. However, I was stuck for the longest time trying to show that the second term goes to zero as
.
So, once again, I consulted Bender and Orszag, which outlined how to show this. We note that
.
Therefore,
,
so that
.
Therefore,
,
or
.
So (I thought) I was halfway home with the solution, and all that remained was to show that was an increasing function.
And I was completely stuck at this point for a long time.
Until I realized — much to my utter embarrassment — that showing was increasing was completely unnecessary, as discussed in the next post.
