MHB What Does P(X ∈ dx) Mean in Probability Notation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gnob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dx Notation
Click For Summary
The notation P(X ∈ dx) is considered poor because it lacks clarity regarding the variable x. A more appropriate expression is P(X = x)dx, which accurately represents the probability density function for a continuous random variable. This notation indicates the probability that X falls within a very small interval around x. To calculate probabilities over a range, one typically integrates the probability density function, such as P(a ≤ X < b) = ∫_a^b P(X=x)dx. For further understanding, resources that combine probability with calculus are recommended.
gnob
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Good day!
I was trying to make sense of the notation $P(X \in dx),$ where $X$ is a continuous random variable. Some also write this one as $P(X \in [x, x+dx])$ to represent the probability that the random variable $X$ takes on values in the interval $[x, x+dx].$

I have seen similar notation a lot in my readings such as the ff:
$$
P(Z_v \in dy) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(v)}e^{-y}y^{v-1} dy \quad\quad \text{and}\quad\quad
P\left( \int_0^{\tau} e^{\sigma B_s - p\sigma^2 s/2} ds \in du,\,\, B_{\tau} \in dy\right).
$$

Please help me understand these notations, or better yet please suggest me a (reference) book that rigorously explains these notations?
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gnob said:
Good day!
I was trying to make sense of the notation $P(X \in dx),$ where $X$ is a continuous random variable. Some also write this one as $P(X \in [x, x+dx])$ to represent the probability that the random variable $X$ takes on values in the interval $[x, x+dx].$

I have seen similar notation a lot in my readings such as the ff:
$$
P(Z_v \in dy) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(v)}e^{-y}y^{v-1} dy \quad\quad \text{and}\quad\quad
P\left( \int_0^{\tau} e^{\sigma B_s - p\sigma^2 s/2} ds \in du,\,\, B_{\tau} \in dy\right).
$$

Please help me understand these notations, or better yet please suggest me a (reference) book that rigorously explains these notations?
Thanks in advance.

Welcome to MHB, gnob! :)

As far as I'm concerned $P(X \in dx)$ is bad notation.
According to your explanation it refers to an $x$, but that $x$ is not part of the notation, which is bad.

A more usual notation is $P(X = x)dx$ which is the same as $P(x \le X < x + dx)$.
We're talking about a probability density here, which is the probability that an event occurs in a (very) small interval.
Usually, you'd use a probability density to define a probability between 2 boundaries.
Like:
$$P(a \le X < b) = \int_a^b P(X=x)dx$$
 
I like Serena said:
Welcome to MHB, gnob! :)

As far as I'm concerned $P(X \in dx)$ is bad notation.
According to your explanation it refers to an $x$, but that $x$ is not part of the notation, which is bad.

A more usual notation is $P(X = x)dx$ which is the same as $P(x \le X < x + dx)$.
We're talking about a probability density here, which is the probability that an event occurs in a (very) small interval.
Usually, you'd use a probability density to define a probability between 2 boundaries.
Like:
$$P(a \le X < b) = \int_a^b P(X=x)dx$$

Thanks for your time and reply. Its really of great help.
Though I want to ask if you know of some books, that discusses the above topic.
Thanks a lot.
 
gnob said:
Thanks for your time and reply. Its really of great help.
Though I want to ask if you know of some books, that discusses the above topic.
Thanks a lot.

Hmm, books?
Well, I guess that would be any book where probability is explained in combination with calculus.
Sorry, but I don't have any book in particular in mind.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K