Wikipedia (at the time I write this) has two mutually inconsistent entries (one after the other !, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-gamma_distribution#Properties):
$$X \sim \mbox{Gamma}(k, \theta) \Leftrightarrow \dfrac{1}{X} \sim \mbox{Inv-Gamma}(k, \theta^{-1})$$
$$ X \sim \mbox{Gamma}(\alpha, \beta) \Leftrightarrow \dfrac{1}{X} \sim \mbox{Inv-Gamma}(\alpha, \beta)$$
My questions are:
- Do these two definitions reflect different conventions? Or one of them is plain wrong?
- Let's assume the mean of the inverse gamma mean is $\dfrac \beta{\alpha-1}$ (as in the Wikipedia page). Which one of the above definitions is consistent with this?
Most distributions have alternative or competing definitions or 'parameterisations' -- so using black box names such as $InverseGamma(a,b)$ has no specific meaning unless combined with an explicit statement of the functional form being used. Several software packages make this mistake of assigning black-box names to distributions, which causes a lot of problems and much confusion when users expecting one functional form discover that the software package is using a different form ... and their answers are 'wrong'.
In this specific case, if $X \sim Gamma(a,b)$ with pdf $f(x)$:
$$f(x) = \frac{x^{a-1} e^{-\frac{x}{b}}}{\Gamma(a) b^a }$$
... then the pdf of $Y = 1/X$ is $InverseGamma(a,b)$ with pdf say $g(y)$:
$$g(y) = \frac{y^{-(a+1)} e^{-\frac{1}{b y}}}{\Gamma(a) b^a }$$
Given pdf $g(y)$, $E_g[Y] = \frac{1}{(a-1) b}$ (assuming $a>1$).