What is the importance of conditional probability in probability theory?

Mogarrr
Messages
120
Reaction score
6
I'd like some help understanding a proof, from http://www.statlect.com/cndprb1.htm. Properties are introduced, which a conditional probability ought to have:
1) Must satisfy properties of probability measures:
a) for any event E, 0≤P(E)≤1;
b) P(Ω)=1;
c) Sigma-additivity: Let {E1, E2, ... En, ...} be a sequence of events, where i≠j implies Ei and Ej are mutually exclusive, then P([itex]\bigcup_{n=1}^∞ E_n[/itex]) = [itex]\sum_{n=1}^∞ P(E_n)[/itex].​
2)P(I|I)=1
3) If [itex]E \subseteq I[/itex] and [itex]F \subseteq I[/itex], and P(I) is greater than 0, then [itex]\frac {P(E|I)}{P(F|I)} = \frac {P(E)}{P(F)}[/itex].​

Then a proof is given for the proposition: Whenever P(I) is positive, P(E|I) satisfies the four properties above if and only if P(E|I) = [itex]\frac {P(E \cap I)}{P(I)}[/itex].

I'm having a hard time following the proof of the "only if" part. That is, if P(E|I) satisfies the four properties above, then P(E|I) = [itex]\frac {P(E \cap I)}{P(I)}[/itex].

Here's a quote:
Now we prove the 'only if' part. We prove it by contradiction. Suppose there exists another conditional probability [itex]\bar{P}[/itex] that satifies the four properties. Then There Exists an even E such that:
[itex]\bar{P}(E|I) ≠ P(E|I)[/itex]

It can not be noted that [itex]E \subseteq I[/itex], otherwise we would have:
[itex]\frac {\bar{P}(E|I)}{\bar{P}(I|I)} = \frac {\bar{P}(E|I)}1 ≠ \frac {P(E|I)}1 = \frac {P(E \cap I)}{P(I)} = \frac {P(E)}{P(I)}[/itex]

*which would be a contradiction, since if [itex]\bar{P}[/itex] was a conditional probability, it would satisfy:
[itex]\frac {\bar{P}(E|I)}{\bar{P}(I|I)} = \frac {P(E)}{P(I)}[/itex]​

The proof by contradiction, seems more like a proof of the uniqueness of a conditional probability.

Anyways, I'm not really seeing the statement, *. How is it that [itex]\frac {\bar{P}(E|I)}{\bar{P}(I|I)} = \frac {P(E)}{P(I)}[/itex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For "only if", you assume that ##\bar P(E|I)## satisfies the four properties. In particular, it satisfies the third one with F=I.
 
OH...

So Property 3 asserts that: If [itex]E \subseteq I[/itex] and [itex]F \subseteq I[/itex], where P(F) is positive, then for any probability A, [itex]\frac {A(E|I)}{A(F|I)} = \frac {P(E)}{P(F)}[/itex]?

BTW, the other property was this: If [itex]E \subseteq I^C[/itex] then P(E|I)=0.
 
Oh, I thought the RHS would have bars as well, they are hard to see. Maybe a typo there and it should be ##\bar P##.
 
mfb said:
Oh, I thought the RHS would have bars as well, they are hard to see. Maybe a typo there and it should be ##\bar P##.

Yes, I agree, but...

If [itex]\frac {\bar{P}(E|I)}{\bar{P}(I|I)} = \frac {\bar{P}(E)}{\bar{P}(I)}[/itex], then there is no contradiction.

So I'm looking for a justification for the statement *.

I'm fairly certain that I quoted the author correctly, but if there is doubt, you can always visit statlect.com. The notes on Conditional probability are in the Fundamentals of probability theory section.
 
Last edited:
mfb said:
Oh, I thought the RHS would have bars as well, they are hard to see. Maybe a typo there and it should be ##\bar P##.


I think the notation for probabilities and conditional probabilities is not the same and therefore there is no typo.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K