How to deal with a probability conditioned on empty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sabbagh80
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Empty Probability
sabbagh80
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,
The question:

Pr( A|\Phi )=? where \Phi means empty
Is it equal to 1 or not?
what is the meaning of this probability?

thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A|empty set = empty set is an event in the empty "probability space", for which you can't assign a probability measure, so it isn't a probability space after all. So A|empty set isn't an event in any probability space, so Pr(A|empty set) doesn't make sense.

The axioms for a probability measure P on a sigma algebra X is that P(empty set) = 0, and P(X) = 1. But in this case X = empty set, so P(X) = 0, so such a measure cannot exist.
 
disregardthat said:
A|so Pr(A|empty set) doesn't make sense.

However, in practical problems you may need to dance around that obstacle.
For example, if W is a uniform random variable on [0,1] then you might want to define a function
F(z,x,y) = P(W > z | x < W and W < y)
This function wouldn't exist at values such as x = 4 and y = 3.
If you want to define F(z,x,y) there, you have to include an additional provision in its definition. The most common one would be to say:
F(z,x,y) = P(W > z | x < W and W < y) when the set defined by (x < W
and W < y) is not empty. F(z,x,y) = 0 otherwise.

This is not extending the theory of sample spaces. It is extending the definition of a function, rather like removing a discontinuity.
 
Sure, we can define what would otherwise be meaningless all day long. OP asked for the probability of A|empty set, and that cannot be interpreted in any other way than what the theory of probability of reference would yield for Pr(A|empty set). For that my answer is sufficient.
 
sabbagh80,

Are you asking the question merely out of curiosity or did you have a specific application in mind that must deal with it?
 
Stephen Tashi,
No, it is not related to an specific application. this question arose me when I was dealing with another problem and was not directly related to that problem.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top