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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Longines
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parameters
AI Thread 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: 89
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
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top