If mutually exclusive, prove Pr(A) <= Pr(B')

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bjersey
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality Pr(A) ≤ Pr(B') under the condition that events A and B are mutually exclusive. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and reasoning related to probability theory.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that since A and B are mutually exclusive, A ∩ B = ∅, leading to the equation Pr(A ∩ B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B).
  • One participant suggests that A can be expressed as A ∩ B', implying A is a subset of B'.
  • A later reply presents a proof involving the probability axiom, concluding that Pr(B') ≥ Pr(A) as required.
  • Another participant proposes a more concise proof using inequalities, stating that P(A) + P(B) ≤ 1 leads to P(A) ≤ P(B').
  • Some participants discuss the relevance of Bonferroni's inequality in this context, noting its applications and derivation.
  • One participant critiques the mix of mathematical notation and English in the earlier solutions, suggesting that clarity could be improved by focusing on mathematical expressions.
  • Another participant agrees with the subset argument, reinforcing that A being a subset of B' leads to the conclusion Pr(A) ≤ Pr(B').

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various approaches to the proof, with some favoring more concise methods while others provide detailed reasoning. There is no consensus on a single preferred method, and the discussion remains open to different interpretations and styles of proof.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes multiple mathematical approaches and interpretations, with some participants emphasizing clarity in presentation and others focusing on the derivation of inequalities. The interplay between different methods and the potential for confusion in notation is noted.

bjersey
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm having issues proving the following which should be simple:

If A and B are mutually exclusive, prove Pr(A) <= Pr(B')

From the statement about being mutually exclusive, I know A [tex]\cap[/tex] B = [tex]\phi[/tex]

Therefore we have P(A [tex]\cap[/tex] B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B)

Also, A = A [tex]\cap[/tex] B'
and B = A' [tex]\cap[/tex] B

But I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Please help. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bjersey said:
I'm having issues proving the following which should be simple:

If A and B are mutually exclusive, prove Pr(A) <= Pr(B')

From the statement about being mutually exclusive, I know A [tex]\cap[/tex] B = [tex]\phi[/tex]

Therefore we have P(A [tex]\cap[/tex] B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B)

Also, A = A [tex]\cap[/tex] B'
and B = A' [tex]\cap[/tex] B

But I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Please help. Thanks.
A = A [tex]\cap[/tex] B' implies A is a subset of B'.
 
bjersey said:
I'm having issues proving the following which should be simple:

If A and B are mutually exclusive, prove Pr(A) <= Pr(B')

From the statement about being mutually exclusive, I know A [tex]\cap[/tex] B = [tex]\phi[/tex]

Therefore we have P(A [tex]\cap[/tex] B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B)

Also, A = A [tex]\cap[/tex] B'
and B = A' [tex]\cap[/tex] B

But I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Please help. Thanks.

Here's my solution.

Pr(A union B) <= Pr(Entire Sample Space)=1 from probability axiom; and
Pr(A union B) = Pr(A)+Pr(B)-Pr(A intersection B)

Hence, Pr(A intersection B) >= Pr(A) + Pr(B) -1 ...(3)

But for two mutually exclusive events Pr(A intersection B) = P(empty) = 0. Also, Pr(B) = 1- Pr(B')

It follows from (3) that

0>=Pr(A)+1-Pr(B')-1

Therefore, Pr(B')>=Pr(A)

As required
 
You could cut the final proof down a little:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> P(A) + P(B) - P(A \cap B) & \le 1 \\<br /> P(A) + P(B) & \le 1 \\<br /> P(A) & \le 1 - P(B) \\<br /> P(A) & \le P(B')<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
 
statdad said:
You could cut the final proof down a little:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> P(A) + P(B) - P(A \cap B) & \le 1 \\<br /> P(A) + P(B) & \le 1 \\<br /> P(A) & \le 1 - P(B) \\<br /> P(A) & \le P(B')<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

The inequality in (3) is well known named after Bonferonni. It has many applications. Its derivation is good to know too. Anyway, your answer is neat.
 
Yes, Bonferroni's inequality is important (classical example is in the first study of multiple comparisons), but the original question wasn't about that; usually you want the derivations to be as straightforward as possible.

there is nothing wrong with the earlier solution, but the mix of mathematics and english makes its reading awkward. learning when the written word can be safely removed from the mathematical work is an important step as well.
 
I think my comment is the simplest. A is a subset of B', therefore P(A) ≤ P(B').
 
mathman, there is no doubt about that, and if i implied anything else, my apologies. my point was meant as an add-on to the longer approach give by others.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K