Sum and product rule of measures

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the requirements for a measure, denoted as m, to satisfy the sum and product rules in the context of measure theory and probability. Participants explore the implications of these rules when applied to sets or propositions and consider how measures might be defined or adapted for propositions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the requirements for a measure to satisfy the sum rule, m(Sum(P_i))= Sum(m(P_i)), and the product rule, m(Prod(P_i))=Prod(m(P_i)), where P_i are underlying sets or propositions.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the definitions of Sum and Prod, suggesting that they might refer to traditional addition and multiplication of numbers, while also considering the implications for measures on sets.
  • A participant notes that for the sum rule to hold, the sets must be disjoint, raising a question about whether a similar requirement exists for the product rule.
  • Discussion includes the concept of independence in probability theory, where the product of measures applies to independent events, as illustrated by the equation P(A∩B∩C) = P(A)P(B)P(C).
  • There is uncertainty about how the conditions for addition and multiplication of measures can be reconciled, particularly regarding the implications of disjoint sets versus independent events.
  • One participant expresses a desire to understand how measures on sets can be translated to measures on propositions, questioning if this transition could affect the treatment of unions and intersections as disjunctions and conjunctions.
  • Another participant mentions a known relationship in measure theory: m(A∪B) + m(A∩B) = m(A) + m(B), but does not elaborate further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the sum and product rules, particularly regarding the conditions under which they hold. There is no consensus on the requirements for these rules or how they relate to measures on propositions versus sets.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in existing definitions and the need for further exploration of how measures can be applied in different contexts, particularly concerning independence and disjointness.

friend
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
9
I'm wondering what requirements must exist for a measure, m, to have the following properties:

m(Sum(P_i))= Sum(m(P_i)) the sum rule

m(Prod(P_i))=Prod(m(P_i)) the product rule


Where P_i are underlying sets or single propositions.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So Pi are sets??

Then how did you define Sum Pi and Prod Pi??
 
micromass said:
So Pi are sets??

Then how did you define Sum Pi and Prod Pi??

OK. I wanted to leave even that part open in case there are particular definitions of Sum and Prod for which the measure distributes inside the Sum or the Prod. But initially my first guess is that Sum is defined as traditional addition of numbers, and Prod is defined as traditional multiplication of numbers, and the P_i are sets.

For example, as I understand measure theory, in order that m(P1 union P2)=m(P1)+m(P2), there must be the restriction that P1 intersect P2 = empty set. In other words, P1 and P2 must be disjoint. In all the books I've looked at, this seems to be given as an axiom that's not proven. Yet, I wonder if there is a similar or perhaps dual requirement for Prod?

Also, my goal is to be able to somehow put a measure on the space of propositions so that disjunction and conjunction get translated to addition and multiplication of measures on propositions or on sets of propositions. Can one get from the more traditional treatments of measures on sets to getting measures on propositions by letting the number of elements in a set go to 1 element? Then propositions could be labeled synonymously with its set. Would this turn unions and intersections into disjunction and conjunction? Any help would be very much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
For product, you need to look at probability theory, where the concept of independence comes in. P(A∩B∩C) = P(A)P(B)P(C) if A,B,C are independent.
 
... I'm not sure that is quite applicable.

Anyway, that's how a measure is defined. And then we prove theorems about things that satisfy that property (hopefully).
 
mathman said:
For product, you need to look at probability theory, where the concept of independence comes in. P(A∩B∩C) = P(A)P(B)P(C) if A,B,C are independent.

Yes, I've read that somewhere. I'm not sure how this is consistent with sets being disjoint for addition. For if [tex]A\bigcap B \equiv \oslash[/tex], then [tex]P(A\bigcap B\bigcap C) \equiv 0[/tex] for every [tex]A, B, or C.[/tex]

But if this can be made to be consistent with adding probabilities, then I wonder if this multiplication can be made more general for other kinds of measures. Or is there something in the normalization procedure that gives us this multiplication of probabilities for independent events.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of anything other than the obvious. m(A∪B) + m(A∩B) = m(A) + m(B).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K