Looking for a hint on a stats proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter bennyska
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Stats
bennyska
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
so I'm somewhat new to statistics proofs, but this one is for the most part a sets proof, which i can do. I'm having trouble connecting them.
(c = complement)(AB = A intersect B)

Let A_1, A_2... be any infinite sequence of events, and let B_1, B_2... be another infinite sequence defined as B_1=A_1, B_2=A_1cA_2, B_3=A_1cA_2cA_3 and so on.
Prove that Pr(Union i=1 to n A_i) = Sum i=1 to n Pr(B_i).
(sorry if that notation is hard to understand)

So I've convinced myself that this is true. I see if i take the union of A_i up to n, that B_i up to n is equal. Each B_i is A_i minus any previous As that intersect it. I'm just having trouble saying that in math. If I had to write a proof right now, I'd say each Sum B_i = Union A_i, so they're equal.

So yeah, if i could get some hints on where to start. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "Sum B_i" mean? Can you add sets?

I would have defined Z_k = union of A_i up to k.

Show the equality holds for k=1, and it also holds for k+1 assuming it does for k.
 
Last edited:
i have since restarted this thread over in the homework section. i do have a proof there, if you wouldn't mind taking a peek at it, see if it looks okay. the thread has the same name as this one.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top