How to proof P(A U B U C) without using Venn Diagram

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the probability of the union of three events, P(A U B U C), using set theory without Venn diagrams. The proof involves expressing P(A U B U C) in terms of P(A), P(B), P(C), and their intersections, leading to the formula P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A^B) - P(B^C) - P(C^A) + P(A^B^C). Additionally, a method for proving P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A^B) is discussed, highlighting the use of pairwise disjoint sets. The conversation also touches on the importance of careful sign management in probability calculations. Overall, the thread provides insights into probability proofs and set operations.
ooooo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Do you know how to proof

P(A U B U C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) - P(A^B) - P(B^C) - P(C^A) + P(A^B^C)


^ is intersection.

Do you know how to find P(A U B U C U D)

Thank you very much.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Let

<br /> D = B \cup C<br />

and note that

<br /> A \cup B \cup C = A \cup D<br />

then

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \Pr(A \cup B \cup C) &amp; = \Pr(A \cup D)\\<br /> &amp; = \Pr(A) + \Pr(D) - \Pr(A \cap D) \\<br /> &amp; = \Pr(A) + \Pr(B \cup C) - \Pr(A \cap D)\\<br /> &amp; = \Pr(A) + \Pr(B) + \Pr(C) - \Pr(B \cap C) - \Pr(A \cap D)<br /> \end{align*}<br />

The rest of the proof comes from realizing that

<br /> \Pr(A \cap D) = \Pr(A \cap \left(B \cup C\right)) = \Pr((A \cap B) \cup (A \cap C)),<br />

using the Addition Rule for probability to expand the final term, and being very careful with positive and negative signs.
 
Thank you so much Statdad. I would like to ask another question.

How to proof P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A ^ B) ?

Thank you again.
 
This proof isn't needed for the problem you posted above - is there a reason you need it here?
 
Sorry. I'm just curious. :)
 
No - I was interrupted by someone at the door.
Here is one method - there are others.
First, note that

<br /> A \cup B = (A-B) \cup (A \cap B) \cup (B - A)<br />

and the three sets on the right are pair-wise disjoint. Now

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \Pr(A \cup B) &amp; = \Pr(A-B) + \Pr(A \cap B) + \Pr(B - A)\\<br /> &amp; = \left(\Pr(A-B) + \Pr(A \cap B) \right) + \left(\Pr(B-A) + \Pr(A \cap B)\right) - \Pr(A \cap B) \\<br /> &amp; = \Pr(A) + \Pr(B) - \Pr(A \cap B)<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Again, sorry for the abrupt end to my previous post - I'm getting really tired of our election season.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top