Probability of unions/intersections

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter e12514
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the probability of unions and intersections of sets, specifically examining a formula involving a sequence of sets \( A_1, A_2, \ldots \). Participants explore the validity of the formula under different conditions, including cases where \( k = m + 1 \) and \( k > m \).

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the formula \( Pr( \cup_{n=m}^{k} (A_n \cap (A_{n+1})^c)) = Pr( \cup_{n=m}^{k} (A_n)) - Pr( A_k \cap A_{k+1}) \) for general \( k > m \).
  • Another participant suggests using mathematical induction to prove the formula, proposing to assume it holds for \( k \leq m \) and then extend it to \( m + 1 \).
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the inductive step, indicating they have successfully shown the base case but struggle with the general case, leading to doubt about the formula's validity.
  • One participant notes a potential issue with a "special symbol" in the formula that may not display correctly for all users.
  • A later post reiterates the formula in a clearer format, emphasizing the components involved in the probability expressions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the formula for \( k > m \). There are competing views on the effectiveness of the inductive approach and the clarity of the formula itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the algebraic manipulation required for the inductive step, and there are indications of potential issues with notation visibility across different browsers.

e12514
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Is it true that

Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) ((A_n) ∩ ((A_(n+1))^c)) )
= Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) (A_n) ) - Pr( (A_k) ∩ (A_k+1) )

where A_1, A_2, ... is any sequence of sets.



Well, for the (k=m+1) case I am convinced since I can see they are equal after expanding both sides out, so for example I can see that
Pr((A∩(B^c))∪(B∩(C^c))) = Pr(A∪B) - Pr(B∩C)

but I can't manage to do the same for the (k>m) case in general, so overall I'm not convinced.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry I can't make much sense out of the formula, but assuming its correct, try induction. Assume the proposition is true for k <= m, and add one more term to it and use the truth of the m previous propositions to prove it for (m+1). Will require some grouping and basic properties of sets and cardinalities under union and intersections.
 
That (induction) is exactly what I've been attempting to use to convince myself that it is true. I've got the base step (k=m+1) which was (for me) expand-able to see that both sides are equal.
However I couldn't get through the inductive step. Perhaps it is false then? Or it could also just mean that I got totally lost within the messy algebra?
 
You have a "special symbol" right at the beginning of that formula that will not show up on my (or Maverick280857's) browser.
 
Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) ((A_n) ∩ ((A_(n+1))^c)) )
= Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) (A_n) ) - Pr( (A_k) ∩ (A_k+1) )



or



the probability of [ the union (where n goes from m to k) of [ A_n intersect (A_(n+1) compliment) ] ]

is equal to

the probability of [ the union (where n goes from m to k) of A_n ]
minus
the probability of [ A_k intersect A_(k+1) ]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
21K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K