Probability Axioms: Deriving Version 2 from Version 1

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eddo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms Probability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the fourth axiom of Version 2 of probability axioms from Version 1. Participants explore the relationships between the axioms, specifically focusing on how to express the union of two events in terms of their intersections and unions. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification regarding probability theory.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the two versions of probability axioms and expresses difficulty in deriving axiom 4 of Version 2 from Version 1.
  • Another participant suggests partitioning the union of A and B into distinct components to derive the necessary expression, indicating a potential pathway to the solution.
  • A different participant questions the transition from P(AnB) to -P(AnB) and expresses uncertainty about how to manipulate terms involving intersections, as the first version does not address them directly.
  • A later reply claims to have resolved the issue by manipulating P(AnB) and applying Boolean algebra to simplify the terms, ultimately leading to the desired expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation process, as some express uncertainty and others propose different methods. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of the steps involved in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the axioms regarding intersections, which complicates the derivation process. The discussion reflects varying levels of understanding and approaches to the problem.

eddo
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
In my probability class we were given two versions of probability axioms which are equivalent. Let S be the sure event, A and B any arbitrary events, I the impossible event. I will use u to denote union, and n to denote intersection:

Version 1
1. P(S)=1
2. P(A)>=0
3. If AnB=I, than P(AuB)=P(A)+P(B)

Version 2
1. P(S)=1
2. P(A)>=0
3. P(I)=0
4. P(AuB)=P(A)+P(B)-P(AnB)

It is easy to go from version 2 to version 1, and I can see how to show that P(I)=0 using version 1. The problem I'm having is how to derive axiom 4 of version 2 from version 1. I know I will have to consider two events made up of unions and intersections of A and B, to which I can apply axiom 3 of version 1, but I can't quite figure out how to do it. Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
After some trial and error I got this: partition A u B into A n ~B, A n B, and B n ~A. If you work that out you can get the right expression; one of the terms you'll get is P(A n B), and there is a way to go from P(A n B) to -P(A n B) and the other terms will fall into place.
 
I tried this but wasn't able to work it out. How do you go from P(AnB) to -P(AnB)? Once I get to the second step I'm not sure how to write the two terms other than P(AnB) in any other way, since they involve intersections, and the axioms version 1 don't say anything about intersections. You can rewrite the other two terms (before you make them into 2 separate terms) as (An~B)u(Bn~A)=(AuB)n(~Bu~A), but once again this involves intersections, not unions which doesn't help much.
 
Nevermind I got it. You just have to turn P(AnB) into 2P(AnB)-P(AnB), then group one of each of the positive terms with your other two terms. Axiom 3 of version 1 can than be used in reverse to turn each of these into a single probability, where the events in question simplify, using boolean algebra, to A and B. Thanks for the help Bicycle Tree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K