MHB Joint Probability Distributions

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion regarding the calculation of joint probability distributions. The initial formula used, P_{(\xi1,\xi2)}(x1,x2)=P_{(\xi1)}(x1)P_{(\xi2)}(x2), applies only to independent variables. The user realized that their variables were not independent, which clarified their misunderstanding. This highlights the importance of recognizing variable independence when calculating joint distributions. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurate probability analysis.
Carla1985
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
I have this question:

View attachment 690and I'm a little confused. To calculate joint distributions in the earlier questions i was using:P_{(\xi1,\xi2)}(x1,x2)=P_{(\xi1)}(x1)P_{(\xi2)}(x2)But that would mean that if:P_{(\xi1,\xi2)}(2,0)=0\ either\ P_{(\xi1)}(2)=0\ or\ P_{(\xi2)}(0)=0which can't be true in either case as P_{(\xi1,\xi2)}(1,0)\ isnt\ 0\ and\ neither\ is\ P_{(\xi1,\xi2)}(2,1)Can someone please explain what I'm missing. Thanks :/
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-03-11 at 11.40.06 copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2013-03-11 at 11.40.06 copy.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 75
Physics news on Phys.org
Nevermind, I found my mistake. This was only for independent variables, which these obviously aren't :)
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.