MHB How Do Probability Formulas for Bayes Theorem and Exponential Distribution Work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Longines
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parameters
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the application of probability formulas related to Bayes' Theorem and the exponential distribution. The first formula calculates the probability of a specific event occurring within a given interval, while the second formula illustrates how to apply Bayes' Theorem to find conditional probabilities. Participants express confusion over the calculations and seek clarification on the steps involved. A user acknowledges a previously overlooked detail that simplifies the understanding of the problem. The conversation highlights the importance of breaking down complex probability concepts for better comprehension.
Longines
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I don't understand how this question works... I don't understand the answers either. Could someone take me through this step-by-step?

See attached image:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2014-09-20 20.20.08.png
    Screenshot 2014-09-20 20.20.08.png
    39.1 KB · Views: 93
Physics news on Phys.org
Longines said:
Hey guys,

I don't understand how this question works... I don't understand the answers either. Could someone take me through this step-by-step?

See attached image:

a) is...

$\displaystyle P \{ G = k\} = \int_{k-1}^{k} e^{- \lambda\ x}\ d x = e^{\lambda\ k} (e^{\lambda} - 1)\ (1)$

b) for the Bayes theorem is...

$\displaystyle P\{X > k + x| G > k \} = \frac{P \{ X > k + x \}}{P\{X>k \}} = \frac{e^{- \lambda\ (k + x)}}{e^{- \lambda\ k}} = e^{- \lambda\ x}\ (2) $

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
a) is...

$\displaystyle P \{ G = k\} = \int_{k-1}^{k} e^{- \lambda\ x}\ d x = e^{\lambda\ k} (e^{\lambda} - 1)\ (1)$

b) for the Bayes theorem is...

$\displaystyle P\{X > k + x| G > k \} = \frac{P \{ X > k + x \}}{P\{X>k \}} = \frac{e^{- \lambda\ (k + x)}}{e^{- \lambda\ k}} = e^{- \lambda\ x}\ (2) $

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
Lol... once again, a simple step that I did not see.

Thank you
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K