Principle of inclusion-exclusion proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter mottov2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle Proof
mottov2
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
There are 3 events A,B and C prove that

P(A\cupB\cupC) = P(A)+P(B)+P(C)-P(A\capB)-P(A\capC)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)
each event is disjoint so by the additivity rule...

My attempt:
A\cupB\cupC = (A\capB\capC)\cup(A\cap[A\capB\capC]c)\cup([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)\cup(C\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c)\cup(B\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c)

each event is disjoint so by the additivity rule...
P(A\cupB\cupC) = P(A\capB\capC)+P(A\cap[A\capB\capC]c)+P([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)+P(C\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c)+P(B\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c)

P(A\cap(A\capB\capC)c) = P(A)-P(A\capB\capC)
P((B\capC)\cap(A\capB\capC)c) = P(B\capC)-P(A\capB\capC)
P(C\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c) = P(C\cap(A\capC)c\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c) = P(C)-P(A\capC)-P((B\capC)\cap(A\capB\capC)c) = P(C)-P(A\capC)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)
P(B\capAc\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c) = P(B\cap(A\capB)c\cap([B\capC]\cap[A\capB\capC]c)c) = P(B)-P(A\capB)-P((B\capC)\cap(A\capB\capC)c) = P(B)-P(A\capB)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)

then by substitution...

P(A\cupB\cupC) = P(A\capB\capC)+P(A)-P(A\capB\capC)+P(B\capC)-P(A\capB\capC)+P(C)-P(A\capC)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)+P(B)-P(A\capB)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)
= P(A)+P(B)+P(C)-P(A\capC)-P(A\capB)-P(B\capC)+P(A\capB\capC)

did i do this right? I feel like i may have overcomplicated it..
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You haven't explained what laws of probability can be assumed in order to prove the result and you didn't say which laws you used. Putting a 'P' in front of each set in an expression is not "substitution".
 
Proof By Induction is a lot more elegant,but you have to be careful of your notation
 
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...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Back
Top