Sample space and probability measure.

╔(σ_σ)╝
Messages
838
Reaction score
2
If we have two red balls and we are to choose one it is true that the probability measure of picking a red ball is 1. In this case it is understood that the sample space only contains a red ball and this is because events in the sample space are to be disjoint.

But how come this is not the case when we try to calculate the probability of picking a red ball out of a basket with 49 yellow balls and 1red ball.

If I write down the "sample space" such that the outcomes are disjoint I will only have 2 outcomes (namely the red and yellow ball) in which case the probability measure of picking a red or yellow is 0. 5. I got this from dividing the size of the event ( red) by the size sample space.

Ofcourse this is not the case because red and yellow balls are not equally likely. But by writing down the sample space such that outcomes are disjoint it appears as if red and yellow are equally likely.

What is the reason or flaw in my reasoning? Do you we only use the formula sizeof(event)/sizeof(sample space) when the sample space is understood ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First sample space: \{R1, R2\} [/tex] (red one and red two), each with probability 1/2. Probability of red is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1<br /> <br /> Second sample space: \{Y1, \dots, Y49, R\}<br /> <br /> Probability of yellow: <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; \underbrace{\frac 1 {50} + \frac 1 {50} + \cdots + \frac 1 {50}}_{49 \text{ terms}} = \frac{49}{50}&lt;br /&gt;
 
Okay. So basic assumption is that the sample space is understood in a meaning way.

Thanks, that is all I needed.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top