Why did it suddenly become subtractive? (Example of Bayes’ Theorem)

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rev. Cheeseman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Bayes' Theorem in a financial context, specifically analyzing the probability of stock price increases in relation to CEO replacements. Participants explore the formulation of probabilities, the interpretation of terms, and the calculations involved in applying Bayes' Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the appearance of the term (1 - 0.04) in the calculations, seeking clarification on its significance and origin.
  • There is a discussion about the correct formulation of the probabilities involved, with emphasis on the need for proper parentheses in mathematical expressions.
  • Some participants propose that 1 represents a certainty in probability, indicating that the sum of probabilities of an event and its complement equals one.
  • Others express confusion regarding the use of certain numbers in the equations, particularly in relation to the probabilities of stock price increases and CEO replacements.
  • A later reply clarifies that the calculations involve both the probability of stock price increases and the probability of stock price stability, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of Bayes' Theorem but express differing views on the interpretation of specific terms and the necessity of certain calculations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of the mathematical expressions and the implications of the terms used.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the notation and the need for clearer definitions of the probabilities involved. Some mathematical steps remain unresolved, particularly in the context of how to properly structure the equations.

Rev. Cheeseman
Messages
360
Reaction score
21
From https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/data-science/bayes-theorem/#:~:text=Formula for Bayes' Theorem&text=P(A|B) –,given event A has occurred

Example of Bayes’ Theorem
Imagine you are a financial analyst at an investment bank. According to your research of publicly-traded companies, 60% of the companies that increased their share price by more than 5% in the last three years replaced their CEOs during the period.

At the same time, only 35% of the companies that did not increase their share price by more than 5% in the same period replaced their CEOs. Knowing that the probability that the stock prices grow by more than 5% is 4%, find the probability that the shares of a company that fires its CEO will increase by more than 5%.

Before finding the probabilities, you must first define the notation of the probabilities.

P(A) – the probability that the stock price increases by 5%
P(B) – the probability that the CEO is replaced
P(A|B) – the probability of the stock price increases by 5% given that the CEO has been replaced
P(B|A) – the probability of the CEO replacement given the stock price has increased by 5%.
Using the Bayes’ theorem, we can find the required probability:

Sample Calculation

P(A l B) = 0.60 x 0.04/0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 x (1 - 0.04) = 0.067 or 6.67%

Thus, the probability that the shares of a company that replaces its CEO will grow by more than 5% is 6.67%.

Sorry but notice the bold numbers, how did (1 - 0.04) appear there? I can't find 1 mentioned in the question? English is not my native language.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

can you fix the errors?

0.60 x 0.04/0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 + (1 - 0.04) =1.3116

so something isn't right.

1-0.04 is the probability that the stock prices do NOT grow by more than 5%

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman
BvU said:
Hi,

can you fix the errors?

0.60 x 0.04/0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 + (1 - 0.04) =1.3116

so something isn't right.

1-0.04 is the probability that the stock prices do NOT grow by more than 5%

##\ ##

Yeah sorry, it supposed to be 0.35 x (multiply) (1-0.04).

So, 1 - 0.04 is 0.96 which is more likely to happen than 0.04? Is that correct?

Why did we used 1 instead of any numbers? Is that part of the formula? It mentioned something like binary variable, something like that.
 
One step at atime ?

0.60 x 0.04/0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 * (1 - 0.04) = 0.3376

But we are getting there ...

:wink: sorrry to be so obnoxious ...


##\ ##
 
BvU said:
One step at atime ?

0.60 x 0.04/0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 * (1 - 0.04) = 0.3376

But we are getting there ...

:wink: sorrry to be so obnoxious ...


##\ ##

Ok, one step at a time. I am still confused why we should use 1 but not other number. Especially the 0.35*(1 - 0.04).
 
What I mean is: Do not forget the brackets !

0.60 x 0.04/(0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 * (1 - 0.04)) = ...

Bayes:
$$P(A|B) = {P(B|A)\,P(A)\over P(B)}$$compare that to the much more legible
$$P(A|B)={0.60\times 0.04\over 0.60\times 0.04+0.35\times (1-0.04)}$$
knowing
  • 35% of the companies that did not increase their share price by more than 5% in the same period replaced their CEOs
  • 60% of the companies that increased their share price by more than 5% in the last three years replaced their CEOs
In short: what is ##{ 0.60\times 0.04+0.35\times (1-0.04)}## ?


BvU said:
1-0.04 is the probability that the stock prices do NOT grow by more than 5%
We use the number 1 for a probability that is a certainty (100%).
For example $$P(A)+P(\neg A)=1$$ (##\neg A ## means NOT ##A## )

So in the denominator we expect to see ##P(B)## appearing: the probability the ceo is replaced

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman and FactChecker
wonderingchicken said:
Ok, one step at a time. I am still confused why we should use 1 but not other number. Especially the 0.35*(1 - 0.04).
But it is much easier to begin answering your question if it is correctly stated. A computer (and many people) will take your equation literally. It doesn't cost you anything to put parenthesis around the entire denominator.
0.60 * 0.04/(0.60 * 0.04 + 0.35 * (1 - 0.04))
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman
BvU said:
What I mean is: Do not forget the brackets !

0.60 x 0.04/(0.60 x 0.04 + 0.35 * (1 - 0.04)) = ...

Bayes:
$$P(A|B) = {P(B|A)\,P(A)\over P(B)}$$compare that to the much more legible
$$P(A|B)={0.60\times 0.04\over 0.60\times 0.04+0.35\times (1-0.04)}$$
knowing
  • 35% of the companies that did not increase their share price by more than 5% in the same period replaced their CEOs
  • 60% of the companies that increased their share price by more than 5% in the last three years replaced their CEOs
In short: what is ##{ 0.60\times 0.04+0.35\times (1-0.04)}## ?



We use the number 1 for a probability that is a certainty (100%).
For example $$P(A)+P(\neg A)=1$$ (##\neg A ## means NOT ##A## )

So in the denominator we expect to see ##P(B)## appearing: the probability the ceo is replaced

##\ ##

Oh, so the first P (B| A) P (A) is did increase their share by 5% and the second P (B| A) P (A) is did NOT increase their share by 5%, correct? If NOT, we have to subtract 1 with the first P(A)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Yes. Spelling it out:

We are after
  • ##P(A|B)##, the probability that the shares of a company that fires its CEO will increase by more than 5%
knowing
  • ##P(B|A) = 0.60##, the probability of the CEO replacement given the stock price has increased by 5%
  • ##P(A)=0.04##, the probability that the stock prices grow by more than 5%
and Bayes' formula tells us
$$P(A|B) = {P(B|A)\,P(A)\over P(B)}$$so all we still need is
  • ##P(B)##, the probability that the CEO is replaced
For this last one we use$$P(B) = P(B|A)\,P(A)+P(B|\neg A)\,P(\neg A)$$
knowing
  • ##P(B|\neg A) = 0.35##, 35% of the companies that did not increase their share price by more than 5% replaced their CEOs
  • ##P(\neg A) = 1-0.04##, the probability that the stock prices do not grow by more than 5%
making use of the fact that stock prices either grow more than 5% or not grow more than 5%:

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman
  • #10
BvU said:
Yes. Spelling it out:

We are after
  • ##P(A|B)##, the probability that the shares of a company that fires its CEO will increase by more than 5%
knowing
  • ##P(B|A) = 0.60##, the probability of the CEO replacement given the stock price has increased by 5%
  • ##P(A)=0.04##, the probability that the stock prices grow by more than 5%
and Bayes' formula tells us
$$P(A|B) = {P(B|A)\,P(A)\over P(B)}$$so all we still need is
  • ##P(B)##, the probability that the CEO is replaced
For this last one we use$$P(B) = P(B|A)\,P(A)+P(B|\neg A)\,P(\neg A)$$
knowing
  • ##P(B|\neg A) = 0.35##, 35% of the companies that did not increase their share price by more than 5% replaced their CEOs
  • ##P(\neg A) = 1-0.04##, the probability that the stock prices do not grow by more than 5%
making use of the fact that stock prices either grow more than 5% or not grow more than 5%:

##\ ##
Thank you so much, Sir.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K