Expectation, Variance & SD
A die game answers the wish from last lesson: two numbers can stand in for a whole table — the expectation for where the variable sits, the variance for how much it swings. With linearity and one famous trap, these summarise every distribution to come.
Written and reviewed by Shreyash Prashu Last reviewed
What you'll learn
- Expectation E[X] = Σ x·p(x) — the probability-weighted average
- Linearity: E[aX + b] = aE[X] + b, always
- Variance Var(X) = E[X²] − (E[X])², and Var(aX + b) = a²·Var(X)
- The nonlinearity trap: E[g(X)] ≠ g(E[X]) in general
Before you start
The last lesson left us with a whole table of chances and a wish: could just two numbers stand in for it — one for where the variable sits, one for how much it swings? They can. Picture a simple game: roll a fair die and win that many rupees. Roll a six, win six; roll a one, win one. Before you play, what would you expect to win on a typical roll?
The first number: what you expect on average
You cannot win 3.5 rupees on any single roll, yet that is the honest long-run
average — add the six equally likely payouts and share them out, (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5. That probability-weighted average is the expectation, written E[X]. When
the chances are not equal, you weight each value by its own mass instead of sharing
equally:
E[X] = Σ x · p(x)
— run through the values, multiply each by its chance, and add. That is the first of our two summary numbers.
Expectation has one habit worth trusting completely: it is linear. Scaling and
shifting the variable scales and shifts its average, exactly — E[aX + b] = aE[X] + b — and this holds always, even when variables depend on each other. Double every
payout and add two, and the average doubles and adds two.
The second number: how much it swings
The average alone hides a lot. A game paying 3 or 4 rupees and a game paying 0
or 7 can share the very same average, yet feel completely different to play. The
variance captures that swing: the average squared distance from the mean. The
form you actually compute from is the mean of the squares minus the square of the
mean:
Var(X) = E[X²] − (E[X])²
Two formulas just went past for the same thing, and being handed both without a word
is where variance starts to feel slippery. They are not rivals. The definition is
Var(X) = E[(X − μ)²] — literally average the squared distances from the mean. Expand
that square and the second form falls out:
E[(X − μ)²] = E[X² − 2μX + μ²] = E[X²] − 2μ·E[X] + μ² = E[X²] − 2μ² + μ² = E[X²] − μ²
Same quantity, algebra already done. The reason everyone computes with the second
version is practical: it needs one sweep through the table, whereas the definition
makes you find μ first and then sweep again to measure distances from it. A free
consequence falls out too — since a variance can never be negative, E[X²] is always
at least (E[X])², and the gap between them is the variance.
The two pieces are genuinely different computations — E[X²] weights each x² by
its chance, while (E[X])² squares the single number E[X]. Take the square root
and you return to the original units: the standard deviation, SD = √Var(X).
Spread reacts to scaling and shifting differently from the mean — Var(aX + b) = a²·Var(X) — because a shift b slides every value together and changes nothing
about the swing, while a scale a stretches every distance and so comes out
squared. If Var(X) = 2, then Var(5X − 1) = 5²·2 = 50: the −1 contributes nothing.
Watching it on the die
A fair die shows
1to6, each with chance1/6. FindE[X],E[X²],Var(X), andSD.
Average the faces, then average the squared faces, then subtract the square of the mean:
E[X] = (1+2+3+4+5+6) / 6 = 21/6 = 3.5
E[X²] = (1+4+9+16+25+36) / 6 = 91/6 ≈ 15.1667
Var(X) = E[X²] − (E[X])²
= 15.1667 − 3.5²
= 15.1667 − 12.25
= 2.9167 (exactly 35/12)
SD = √2.9167 ≈ 1.708
Mind the order: square each face and average for E[X²] = 15.1667, then subtract
the square of the mean, 3.5² = 12.25. Squaring at the wrong moment is the usual
slip.
A question to carry forward
We now have a way to squeeze any table into two numbers, but we still computed them by grinding through the whole list. Here is the thread onward: a few special shapes of randomness — a single yes/no trial, a count of successes — come up again and again, and for those the mean and variance have ready-made formulas you will not need to re-derive. What are those repeat-offender distributions, and what are their two numbers?
In one breath
- Expectation
E[X] = Σ x·p(x)— the probability-weighted average (the long-run mean); fair die= 3.5. - Linearity
E[aX+b] = aE[X]+bholds always; butE[g(X)] ≠ g(E[X])for nonlinearg—E[X²] ≠ (E[X])²,E[1/X] ≠ 1/E[X]. - Variance
Var(X) = E[X²] − (E[X])²(mean of squares − square of mean); SD = √Var, back in X’s units. - Affine variance
Var(aX+b) = a²·Var(X)— a shiftbleaves the swing untouched; a scaleacomes out squared. - Fair die:
E[X]=3.5,Var = 35/12 ≈ 2.917,SD ≈ 1.708.
Practice
Quick check
Practice this in an interview
All questionsExpected value is the probability-weighted center of a random variable, while variance is the expected squared distance from that center. Expected value is always linear, but variance needs scaling and covariance terms; independence is only required for the familiar variance-addition shortcut.
Variance is the average squared deviation from the mean; standard deviation is its square root and lives in the same units as the data. Variance is mathematically tractable — variances of independent variables add — while standard deviation is interpretable as a typical distance from the mean.
Each distribution has a natural generative story: Bernoulli is a single coin flip; Binomial sums Bernoullis; Poisson counts rare arrivals; Normal emerges from sums of many small effects; Exponential models waiting times between Poisson events; Uniform assigns equal probability across a range. Choosing correctly comes from matching that story to the data-generating process.
The normal distribution is a symmetric, bell-shaped probability distribution completely described by its mean and standard deviation. The empirical rule states that approximately 68%, 95%, and 99.7% of observations fall within one, two, and three standard deviations of the mean respectively — a direct consequence of integrating the Gaussian density over those intervals.