MHB Max Value of $P(A \cap B): \min(P(A),P(B))

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the maximum value of the intersection of two events, $P(A \cap B)$, given that the sum of their probabilities exceeds one. It is established that the largest possible value of $P(A \cap B)$ is equal to the minimum of the individual probabilities, expressed as $\min(P(A), P(B))$. Participants suggest using the formula $P(A \cap B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A \cup B)$ to derive this relationship. Through rearranging the equation, it is shown that $P(A \cap B)$ cannot exceed either $P(A)$ or $P(B)$. The conclusion emphasizes understanding the bounds of intersection probabilities in relation to the individual event probabilities.
Guest2
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Suppose $A$ and $B$ are events with $P(A)+P(B)>1$. Show that the largest possible value of $P(A \cap B)$ is $ \min(P(A), P(B))$.

I suspect I'm supposed to use $P(A \cap B) = P(A)+P(B) -P(A \cup B)$ but I've no idea how.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rearrange your equation to:
$$P(A)-P(A\cap B)=P(A\cup B)-P(B)$$
I hope you now see that
$$P(A\cap B)\leq P(A)$$
Now finish.
 
johng said:
Rearrange your equation to:
$$P(A)-P(A\cap B)=P(A\cup B)-P(B)$$
I hope you now see that
$$P(A\cap B)\leq P(A)$$
Now finish.
Thank you. I get it now. :D
 
Last edited:
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.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top