Independence of events question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter geoffrey159
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Events Independence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the independence of events in probability theory, specifically the independence of a sequence of events defined by a partition of indices. The formula discussed states that if ##(A_i)_{i\in I}## is a sequence of independent events, then the sequence ##(B_i)_{i\in I}##, where ##B_i = A_i## for indices in partition ##I_1## and ##B_i = A_i^c## for indices in partition ##I_2##, is also independent. The proof involves demonstrating that for any finite set ##J \subset I##, the probability of the intersection of events in ##B## equals the product of their individual probabilities, utilizing the inclusion-exclusion principle.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of probability theory and independent events
  • Familiarity with the inclusion-exclusion principle
  • Knowledge of set theory and partitions
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of independent events in probability theory
  • Learn about the inclusion-exclusion principle in depth
  • Explore advanced topics in probability such as conditional independence
  • Practice problems involving sequences of independent events and their properties
USEFUL FOR

Students of probability theory, mathematicians, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of independent events and their applications in statistical analysis.

geoffrey159
Messages
535
Reaction score
68
Hello,

I am studying independence of events and I came across a formula that I don't understand. It is rather technical, not very interesting, but I feel stuck and it stays in my mind. Could you explain the following :

If ## (A_i)_{i\in I}## is a sequence of independent events on ##(\Omega,{\cal A}, P)##, then, given the partition ## I_1 \cup I_2## of ##I##, the sequence of events ##(B_i)_{i\in I}## defined by ## B_i = A_i ## if ##i\in I_1## and ##B_i = A_i^c## if ##i\in I_2## is also independent.

To prove this, one must show that for any finite set ##J\subset I## : ##P(\bigcap_{j\in J} B_j) = \prod_{j\in J} P(B_j)##

Since ## J = J_1 \cup J_2##, where ## J_i = I_i \cap J ##, we have ## \bigcap_{j\in J} B_j = (\bigcap_{j\in J_1} A_j) \bigcap (\bigcap_{j\in J_2} A_j^c) =(\bigcap_{j\in J_1} A_j) - (\bigcup_{j\in J_2} A_j) ##

so that
##P(\bigcap_{j\in J} B_j) = P(\bigcap_{j\in J_1} A_j) - P(\bigcup_{j\in J_2} A_j) ##

With the inclusion-exclusion principle
## P(\bigcup_{j\in J_2} A_j) = \sum_{ K\subset J_2 \ |K| = 1} P(\bigcap_{j\in K} A_j ) - \sum_{ K\subset J_2 \ |K| = 2} P(\bigcap_{j\in K} A_j ) + ... + (-1)^{|J_2|-1} P(\bigcap_{j\in J_2} A_j) ##

But I don't see how to finish this once ##P(\bigcap_j A_j ) ## is developped into a product !
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh I've made a mistake I get it now :

##\bigcap_{j\in J} B_j = A\cap B^c = A - A\cap B##

with ##A = \bigcap_{j\in J_1} A_j## and ##B = \bigcup_{j\in J_2} A_j ##

we have ## A \cap B = \bigcup_{j\in J_2} \bigcap_{k\in J_1} (A_k \cap A_j) ##

And with the principle of inclusion exclusion and the independence of ##(A_i)_{i\in I}## we find ## P( A \cap B) = P(A) P(B) ##
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K