Question about conditional probability

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on conditional probability, specifically the concepts of attraction and repulsion between events A, B, and C. It establishes that if event B attracts event A (P(A|B) > P(A)), then A also attracts B, and the negation of B (~B) repels A. The thread further explores whether attraction is transitive, concluding that while A attracts B and B attracts C, A does not attract C. Examples using a sample space S illustrate these principles, confirming the relationships through calculated probabilities. The findings emphasize the nuanced interactions between events in probability theory.
Alexsandro
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Question about conditional probability. Can someone help me ?

Repulsion. The event A is said to be repelled by the event B is P(A|B) < P(A), and to be attracted by B P(A|B) > P(A).

(a) Show that if B attracts A, then A attracts B, and ~B repels A.

(b) If A attracts B, and B attarcts C, does A attract C?

(c) Explain this, throught ratio idea:

P(A|B) > P(A) => P(B|A) > P(B).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use definition of cond. prob., P(A|B) = P(A & B)/P(B).

(a) B Attracts A ---> P(A & B)/P(B) > P(A) ---> P(A & B) > P(A)P(B) ---> P(A & B)/P(A) > P(B) ---> A attr. B.

B Attracts A ---> P(A & B)/P(B) > P(A) ---> (P(A)-P(A & ~B))/(1-P(~B)) > P(A) ---> P(A)-P(A & ~B) > P(A) - P(A)P(~B) ---> -P(A & ~B) > - P(A)P(~B) ---> P(A & ~B) < P(A)P(~B) ---> P(A & ~B)/P(~B) < P(A) ---> ~B repels A.

(c) See (a).
 
Last edited:
(b) Counterex.

Let S = {1,2,2,3,4,5}
A = {x is in S : x is even} = {2,2,4}
B = {x is in S : x < 3} = {1,2,2}
C = {x is in S : x is boldface} = {1,2,5}

"P" is the uniform prob. measure over the elements of S.

A and B attract each other.
Proof: P(A & B) = P({2,2}) = 1/3 > 1/4 = P(A)P(B).

B and C attract each other.
Proof: P(B & C) = P({1,2}) = 1/3 > 1/4 = P(B)P(C).

A and C do not attract each other.
Proof: P(A & C) = P({2}) = 1/6 < 1/4 = P(A)P(C) ---> A and C repel.
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top