My book uses this certain notation, but doesn't seem to explain it. It's probably something that I should already know...(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Bill and George (Noice!) go target shooting at each other. Both shoot at the target at the same time. Bill hits target with prob 0.7 and G independently hits target with prob 0.4.

(a) Given that exactly one shot hit the target, what is the prob it was G's shot?

[sol]

P{G|exactly 1 hit} = P{G, not Bill}/ P(exactly 1 hit}

= P{G, B'}/(P{G,B'} + P{B,G'})

= [tex]\frac{P(G)P(B^{c})}{(P(G)P(B^{c}) + P(B)P(G^{c})}[/tex]

I think the reason I don't follow is a notation thing. Can I treat the P{G, not Bill} as P(G[tex]\wedge[/tex]B[tex]^{c}[/tex])? If that's the case then it makes perfect sense as the events are independent.

(b) Given that the target was hit, what's the probability it was G's shot?

P(G|H) = P(G)/P(H)

where

P(H) = 1- P(no hit) = 1 - (P(G')P(B'))

Why is it not P(G|H) = P(G)/P(G)P(B) ?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Notation question

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**