Can Distributions of Combined Sample Spaces Be Derived from Individual Ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmzaj
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between individual sample spaces and their combined distributions within the context of measure theory and probability. It poses a question about deriving the distribution of a new sample space formed by the union of n disjoint sample spaces, each with known distributions. The author presents a formula to calculate the probability of selecting an element from the combined space based on the individual probabilities and the likelihood of choosing each sample space. The inquiry also touches on the concept of independence in decision theory, suggesting a connection between these mathematical principles. Overall, the thread seeks to clarify whether the distribution of a combined sample space can be systematically derived from its individual components.
mmzaj
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Dear all

I've just begun studying measure theory , and i can't help it but to think of it in terms of probability theory , i don't know if that is right or wring . any way , i have this naive question :

consider the following : we have n sample spaces \Omega_{}i, each with a distribution P_{}i ( i=1,...n) , if we combine (union) the sample spaces to form a new sample space whose distribution is unknown , is there a way to extract the distribution of the new sample space from the previously know distributions ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The simplest case is to assume disjoint sample spaces. In that case, the probability of obtaining element x from the k'th space, x(k), will be P{x(k)} = P{x|k}P{k} = Pk{x}P{k}, where P{k} is the probability of obtaining the k'th space within the set of all spaces, or the measure of the k'th space in the union.

In general:

P\{x\} = \sum_{k=1}^N P\{x|k\}P\{k\}

where N is the number of spaces.

This is related to the axiom of independence [from] irrelevant alternatives in decision theory.
 
Last edited:
what about the general case ?
 
See the portion of my post that begins with "In general."
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top