MHB I don't understand the question.

Alone
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
This is a simple question.

On pages 5-6 of Measure Theory,Vol 1, Vladimir Bogachev he writes that:

for E=(A\cap S)\cup (B\cap (X-S))

Now, he writes that:

X-E = ((X-A)\cap S) \cup ((X-B)\cap (X-S))

But I don't get this expression, I get another term of ((X-B)\cap (X-A))

i.e, X-E =( ((X-A)\cap S) \cup ((X-B)\cap (X-S)))\cup ((X-B)\cap (X-A)).

I believe I did it correctly according to De-Morgan rules and distribution.

I am puzzled...:confused:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Something in Measure Theory.

Nevermind, I got it.

It follows from the fact that S is disjoint to A and B.

Sometimes I wonder how I still can do math...:-D
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top