Combining Probability Measures: A Concrete Illustration and Proof"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexsandro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that a mixture of two probability measures, P and Q, defined on the same countable sample space, can also be a probability measure when combined as a.P + b.Q, where a and b are nonnegative numbers summing to 1. The key approach involves verifying that the combined function satisfies the three axioms of probability measures: non-negativity, countable additivity, and normalization. The first axiom is illustrated by showing that R(A) = a.P(A) + b.Q(A) remains non-negative for any subset A. The participants emphasize the importance of applying the definitions and properties of P and Q to derive the properties of the new measure. The discussion concludes with a successful resolution of the initial question.
Alexsandro
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Do Someone know reply this question? It seems easy, but I am not being able to resolve it.

Show that if P and Q are two probability measures defined on the same (countable) sample space, then a.P + b.Q is also a probability measure for any two nonnegative numbers a and b satisfying a + b = 1. Give a concrete illustration of such a mixture
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The basic approach is to look at the definition of what a probability measure is. Then you go through and check if the mixture as defined in the question satisfies those conditions given that P and Q are already probability measures.
 
Probability measure

David said:
The basic approach is to look at the definition of what a probability measure is. Then you go through and check if the mixture as defined in the question satisfies those conditions given that P and Q are already probability measures.


David, I know that an probability measure on same space \Omega is a function of subsets of \Omega satisfying three axioms:

(i) For every set A \subset \Omega, the value of the function is a non-negative number: P(A) \geqslant 0.

(ii) For any two disjoint sets A and B, the value of the function for their union A + B is equal to the sum of its value for A and its value for B:

P(A + B) = P(A) + P(B) provided A.B = {\O}.

(iii) The value of the function for \Omega (as a subset) is equal to 1:

P(\Omega) = 1.

but I don't know how to show that a.P + b.Q is too.
 
Perhaps you're not sure of the process foor how to show the axioms apply to the new measure so I'll give you an example with the first one.

Remember that the a.P + b.Q is a function that maps a subset A onto a real number. You already know some properties of how the functions P and Q work and you use them to work out the properties of the combined function.

So for the first axiom, we want to show that a.P + b.Q (which I'll call R for the moment) is non-negative. i.e. that R(A) >=0 for any A. The definition of P and Q say that P(A)>=0 and Q(A)>=0. Also, from the conditions set in the question, a and b are >=0. So for any A, the function R(A) = a.P(A) + b.Q(A) is a non-negative times a non-negative plus a non-negative times a non-negative. This total is non-negative, which is what you need for the axiom to hold.

What I just did there might seem overkill, but explicitly remembering that you can do this for a particular subset A and then realizing that it works for any subset A will sometimes get you to the answer you need. That will be helpful to organize yout thoughts for axiom ii. Axiom iii works just like the proof of axiom i.
 
response

David said:
Perhaps you're not sure of the process foor how to show the axioms apply to the new measure so I'll give you an example with the first one.

Remember that the a.P + b.Q is a function that maps a subset A onto a real number. You already know some properties of how the functions P and Q work and you use them to work out the properties of the combined function.

So for the first axiom, we want to show that a.P + b.Q (which I'll call R for the moment) is non-negative. i.e. that R(A) >=0 for any A. The definition of P and Q say that P(A)>=0 and Q(A)>=0. Also, from the conditions set in the question, a and b are >=0. So for any A, the function R(A) = a.P(A) + b.Q(A) is a non-negative times a non-negative plus a non-negative times a non-negative. This total is non-negative, which is what you need for the axiom to hold.

What I just did there might seem overkill, but explicitly remembering that you can do this for a particular subset A and then realizing that it works for any subset A will sometimes get you to the answer you need. That will be helpful to organize yout thoughts for axiom ii. Axiom iii works just like the proof of axiom i.

Thank you for help. I responsed the question with success.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top