Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2007 ia Paper 2 4F Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 ia Paper 2 11F Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2011 ia Paper 2 3F b Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 ia Paper 2 9F iii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
Let and . Since they are independent, applying the product rule for moment-generating functions to givesAll factors are finite and strictly positive for every real by the stated hypothesis. Applying the same identity to and dividing yields , orThe centered unit-variance Taylor expansion from part (ii) gives and the same expansion for . Consequently .
For the first step of dyadic rigidity of a moment-generating function, take logarithms, which are allowed because . For each fixed and every integer ,Since , the right side tends to zero: it is . Thus for every , and the moment-generating function is even.
The original identity now becomes . Iterating this time with the correct fourth-power scaling givesNear zero, , so the right side tends to . ThereforeThis is the moment-generating function of a standard normal variable. By the uniqueness theorem for moment-generating functions, each of and has the standard normal distribution. The proof establishes the Gaussian characterization by independent sum and difference directly from the two functional identities and the first two moments.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 38 3 i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Squaring a variable with the standard normal distribution gives the required chi-squared distribution. Its two inverse images at are , so the change-of-variable formula givesDraw the branch-selection uniform variable independently of the randomness used for the normal draw. Then the pair has the product law: conditioning on leaves uniform. This independence is exactly what justifies interpreting the subsequent threshold as the conditional probability of selecting the smaller root.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 29 3 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
For the Box-Muller transform, draw independent from the uniform distribution on and setThe radial density is for , with an independent uniform angle. The polar-to-Cartesian Jacobian determinant is , so the joint density of isThis factorization proves that both outputs have the standard normal distribution and are independent. Repeating the Box-Muller transform with fresh independent uniform pairs gives independent normal outputs; discard one extra output if the desired sample size is odd.
For the prescribed binary probabilities, generate independent standard normal values in this way and useThe standard normal distribution function gives , and independence is preserved because each threshold uses a different independent normal value.
For the probit regression posterior, introduce latent variablesGiven , these are independent variables, and normal symmetry gives . Thus this data augmentation has exactly the observed binary likelihood. With the specified normal prior distribution, the augmented joint posterior is proportional toThe latent-normal Gibbs sampler for probit regression alternates two blocks. First, given the current , draw each independently from its truncated normal distribution, namely restricted to the sign fixed by . One exact method is to use the Box-Muller transform for , form , and reject until the sign is correct. The probability of success is positive at every finite parameter value, so the method is valid, although it can be slow for a rare sign.
For direct sign-truncated normal sampling, let , and draw . An inverse transform sampling implementation isUse suitable tail or survival-function evaluations when floating-point probabilities approach zero or one; the rejection construction remains a valid alternative.
Second, completing the square in yields its full conditional distribution:Generate a fresh standard normal value by the Box-Muller transform, multiply by the conditional standard deviation, and add the conditional mean. Start from any finite , alternate these steps, discard an initial transient and use the retained values to approximate its posterior distribution. These are dependent Markov chain Monte Carlo samples, rather than independent posterior draws. Each block is an exact Gibbs sampling update for the augmented posterior, whose marginal in is the requested posterior.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 31 2 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Use the following normalization for the Lasso estimator, leaving the intercept unpenalized:A different convention for the factor in front of squared error rescales the regularization parameter. With this convention, centering of the columns gives . Put and . Then and . The Lasso minimizes . A minimum exists since makes this continuous objective coercive; the bound below holds for every minimizer.
We first prove the needed sharp two-sided Gaussian tail bound. If is standard normal and , substituting in its density integral yieldsThe last integral without is one after multiplication by . In particular this proves the two-sided bound with no extra factor of two.
Since , each has a standard normal distribution. The union bound, which does not require independent columns or independent scores, gives the Gaussian score event for the LassoHere the positive tuning choice presupposes and . When the displayed lower bound is negative it is simply a valid, vacuous lower bound. For the prescribed parameter is zero and the probability lower bound is also zero, so no positive-parameter assertion is supplied by that prescription.
Let and . Comparing the Lasso objective at its minimizer and at and expanding the squares gives the Basic inequality for the LassoOn , the stochastic term is at most . Because , the triangle inequality givesIt follows thatIn particular , which is the Lasso cone condition. The given Compatibility condition for the Lasso is therefore applicable and gives .
Adding to the preceding inequality and using compatibility now yieldsThe last inequality is just the nonnegativity of . Thus , and dropping one nonnegative coefficient-error term givesThis prediction and coefficient error bound for compatible Lasso holds on , and hence with the required probability. If , the earlier basic inequality directly forces on , so the zero right side is also correct.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 32 1 a i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
For a one-sided Wald test use the signed normal Wald statistic, rather than its square. The maximum-likelihood estimate is the sample mean , with exact variance , soA sum of independent normal random variables is normal, giving and hence . Under the null hypothesis its mean is zero:Thus its null distribution is exactly the standard normal distribution, without an asymptotic approximation. If the squared Wald statistic convention is used, has a chi-squared distribution with one degree of freedom; the signed form is needed to distinguish the two directions.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 32 1 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Let denote a quantile of the standard normal distribution. Reject when . The statistical power at the specified positive effect isEquating this to and using gives . Thus, for the usual target ,Rounding up ensures at least the target statistical power. This normal-mean sample size calculation assumes a positive integer sample size; if a requested power is at most , every positive sample size already exceeds that target for , and one should not square a negative quantile sum to impose an unnecessary lower bound.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 32 1 d Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Set . Under the null hypothesis rejection requires both and . Since has the standard normal distribution,The bivariate normal distribution in the preceding calculation has a nonsingular covariance matrix and strictly positive statistical probability density everywhere. For every finite futility boundary and , the open rectangle has positive probability. ThereforeFor an explicit expression, conditional on the full-sample statistic is under the null hypothesis, yieldingThe Type I error is reduced because some otherwise rejecting paths stop for futility. Equality is approached as , but does not hold at a finite futility boundary.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 36 3 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Generate independent and use the Box-Muller transformFor , , so its density is on . The angle is uniform on and independent of . Dividing the joint radial-angular density by the polar-coordinate Jacobian givesThus both outputs are independent and have the standard normal distribution. Independent pairs of uniforms give further independent normal observations. The null event is excluded in implementation so the logarithm is finite.