Probability of unions/intersections

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter e12514
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 6K views
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?
 
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) ]