Probability that a randomly selected chicken has the genetic modification

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the probabilities associated with genetic modifications in the Krueper chicken breed, particularly focusing on the occurrence of short-leggedness due to these modifications. Participants explore various probability calculations related to the presence of genetic modifications 1 and 2, their effects on the phenotype, and the implications of mutual exclusivity of these modifications.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants outline the probabilities related to genetic modifications and short-leggedness, including $P(V_1)=2\cdot P(V_2)$ and $P(K)=0.21$.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the statement that the two genetic modifications never occur simultaneously, leading to $P(V_1 \cap V_2) = 0$.
  • Participants express uncertainty about needing additional information to fully resolve the probabilities of genetic modifications in randomly selected chickens.
  • Calculations are proposed for determining $P(V_1)$ and $P(V_2)$ based on the given probabilities and mutual exclusivity.
  • There is an exploration of how to calculate $P(K \mid (V_1 \cup V_2)^c)$, with participants questioning the numerator and discussing the implications of short-leggedness without genetic modifications.
  • Participants arrive at a calculation for $P(K \cap (V_1 \cup V_2)^c)$ and its contribution to the overall probability of short-leggedness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical framework and the need for additional information to complete the calculations, but there is no consensus on the final probabilities or the interpretation of certain steps in the reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for clarity on how to derive certain probabilities and the importance of mutual exclusivity in their calculations. There are unresolved questions about the exact values of some probabilities based on the provided information.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

In the case of the reproduction of the chicken of the breed Krueper, in some cases it can be that they are extremely short-legged, which has as a result that they already die in the egg. A group of researchers now considers that they have found two main genetic modifications, which have a short-leg effect. These two modifications never occur at the same time. The genetic modification 1 is observed twice as often as genetic modification 2, but in 70% of the cases none of the two. In total, the short-leggedness occurs in 21% of all cases. If the genetic modification 1 occurs, the chicked are in 80% of the cases short-legged, and if the genetic modification 2 occurs, it is 40%.

(a) State all probabilities contained in the text. Introduce suitable events for this purpose.
(b) Determine the probability that a randomly selected chicken has the genetic modification 1. Determine also the probability that the genetic modification 2 is present in a randomly selected chicken.
(c) A chicken chosen at random is short-legged. What is the probability with which genetic modification 1 is present?
(d) What is the probability that a chicken is short-legged even though neither the first nor the second genetic modification is present?
I have done the following :For (a) :

We consider the following events :
  • $K$: A randomly selected chicken is short-legged
  • $V_1$ : The genetic modification 1 exists.
  • $V_2$ : The genetic modification 1 exists.

From the above text we get the below probabilities :

The genetic modification 1 is observed twice as often as genetic modification 22 : $P(V_1)=2\cdot P(V_2)$
In 70% of the cases none of the two genetic modifications occur : $P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.70$
In total, the short-leggedness occurs in 21% of all cases : $P(K)=0.21$
If the genetic modification 1 occurs, the chicked are in 80% of the cases short-legged : $P(K\mid V_1)=0.80$
If the genetic modification 1 occurs, the chicked are in 40% of the cases short-legged: $P(K\mid V_2)=0.40$Is everything correct and complete so far? :unsure:

For (b) :

We have the below :
$P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.70 \Rightarrow P(V_1^c\cap V_2^c)=0.70$
$P(K\mid V_1)=0.80 \Rightarrow \frac{P(K\cap V_1)}{P(V_1)}=0.80$
$P(K\mid V_2)=0.40 \Rightarrow \frac{P(K\cap V_2)}{P(V_2)}=0.40$

The probability that a randomly selected chicken has the genetic modification 1 ia equal to $P(V_1)$, right?
Respectively, the probability that the genetic modification 2 is present in a randomly selected chicken is $P(V_2)$, right?

:unsure:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
For (a) :
The genetic modification 1 is observed twice as often as genetic modification 22 : $P(V_1)=2\cdot P(V_2)$
In 70% of the cases none of the two genetic modifications occur : $P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.70$
In total, the short-leggedness occurs in 21% of all cases : $P(K)=0.21$
If the genetic modification 1 occurs, the chicked are in 80% of the cases short-legged : $P(K\mid V_1)=0.80$
If the genetic modification 1 occurs, the chicked are in 40% of the cases short-legged: $P(K\mid V_2)=0.40$

Hey mathmari!

I'm missing: "These two modifications never occur at the same time." 🤔

mathmari said:
For (b) :
$P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.70 \Rightarrow P(V_1^c\cap V_2^c)=0.70$
$P(K\mid V_1)=0.80 \Rightarrow \frac{P(K\cap V_1)}{P(V_1)}=0.80$
$P(K\mid V_2)=0.40 \Rightarrow \frac{P(K\cap V_2)}{P(V_2)}=0.40$
The probability that a randomly selected chicken has the genetic modification 1 ia equal to $P(V_1)$, right?
Respectively, the probability that the genetic modification 2 is present in a randomly selected chicken is $P(V_2)$, right?

Yes... but it looks as if we need one more piece of information... 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
I'm missing: "These two modifications never occur at the same time." 🤔

Ah yes! From that we get $P(V_1\cap V_2)=0$, or not? :unsure:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yes... but it looks as if we need one more piece of information... 🤔

How do we get the information that we need? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Ah yes! From that we get $P(V_1\cap V_2)=0$, or not?

How do we get the information that we need?
Indeed. And since $V_1$ and $V_2$ are mutually exclusive, we can apply the sum rule on the probability of their union
That should give us the information we need. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Indeed. And since $V_1$ and $V_2$ are mutually exclusive, we can apply the sum rule on the probability of their union
That should give us the information we need. 🤔

We have that \begin{align*} P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.70&\Rightarrow 1-P(V_1\cup V_2)=0.70\\ & \Rightarrow P(V_1\cup V_2)=0.30\\ & \Rightarrow P(V_1)+P(V_2)=0.30\\ & \Rightarrow 3P(V_2)=0.30\\ & \Rightarrow P(V_2)=0.10\end{align*} and so $P(V_1)=0.20$.

At (c) we want to calculate the probability $P(V_1\mid K) $. We calculate that using the formula $\frac{P(K\mid V_1)P(V_1)}{P(K)}$ where everything is now known.

Is everything correct so far? :unsure: At (d) do we want to calculate the probability $P(K\mid (V_1\cup V_2)^c)$?

:unsure:
 
All correct. (Nod)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
All correct. (Nod)

So at (d) we have $$P(K\mid (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=\frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)}= \frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{0.70}$$But how can we calculate the numerator? It is equal to $P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=P(K\cap V_1^c\cap V_2^c)$. This means that the chicken is short-legged but neither genetic modification 1 nor genetic modification occur, right? Is this equal to $0,70$ ? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
So at (d) we have $$P(K\mid (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=\frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)}= \frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{0.70}$$But how can we calculate the numerator? It is equal to $P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=P(K\cap V_1^c\cap V_2^c)$. This means that the chicken is short-legged but neither genetic modification 1 nor genetic modification occur, right? Is this equal to $0,70$ ?
We know that $P(K)=21\%$ and we also have $K=(K\cap V_1)\cup(K\cap V_2)\cup(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)$ with parts that are mutually exclusive. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We know that $P(K)=21\%$ and we also have $K=(K\cap V_1)\cup(K\cap V_2)\cup(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)$ with parts that are mutually exclusive. 🤔

Ah ok! And so we get \begin{align*}P(K)=P(K\cap V_1)+P(K\cap V_2)+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.80\cdot 0.20+0.40\cdot 0.10+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.16+0.04+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.20+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.01 \end{align*} Therefore we get $$
P(K\mid (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=\frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)}= \frac{0.01}{0.70}\approx 0.014$$ Is everything correct? :unsure:
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
Ah ok! And so we get \begin{align*}P(K)=P(K\cap V_1)+P(K\cap V_2)+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.80\cdot 0.20+0.40\cdot 0.10+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.16+0.04+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow 0.21=0.20+P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c) \\ & \Rightarrow P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=0.01 \end{align*} Therefore we get $$
P(K\mid (V_1\cup V_2)^c)=\frac{P(K\cap (V_1\cup V_2)^c)}{P((V_1\cup V_2)^c)}= \frac{0.01}{0.70}\approx 0.014$$ Is everything correct?

You may want to add the intermediate step that $P(K\cap V_1)+\ldots=P(K\mid V_1)\cdot P(V_1)+\ldots=0.80\cdot 0.20+\ldots$.
Other than that, it looks correct to me. (Sun)
 
  • #11
Klaas van Aarsen said:
You may want to add the intermediate step that $P(K\cap V_1)+\ldots=P(K\mid V_1)\cdot P(V_1)+\ldots=0.80\cdot 0.20+\ldots$.
Other than that, it looks correct to me. (Sun)

Great! Thanks a lot for your help! 🤩
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
2K