Probability of unions/intersections

  • Thread starter Thread starter e12514
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of a probability formula involving unions and intersections of sets. The formula suggests that the probability of the union of intersections of sets is equal to the probability of the union of those sets minus the intersection of the last two sets. While one participant confirms the formula holds for the case where k equals m+1, they express uncertainty about its general validity for k greater than m. They propose using mathematical induction to prove the formula, having established a base case but struggling with the inductive step. The conversation highlights the complexity of the algebra involved and the potential for confusion in proving the formula's correctness.
e12514
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Is it true that

Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) ((A_n) ∩ ((A_(n+1))^c)) )
= Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) (A_n) ) - Pr( (A_k) ∩ (A_k+1) )

where A_1, A_2, ... is any sequence of sets.



Well, for the (k=m+1) case I am convinced since I can see they are equal after expanding both sides out, so for example I can see that
Pr((A∩(B^c))∪(B∩(C^c))) = Pr(A∪B) - Pr(B∩C)

but I can't manage to do the same for the (k>m) case in general, so overall I'm not convinced.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry I can't make much sense out of the formula, but assuming its correct, try induction. Assume the proposition is true for k <= m, and add one more term to it and use the truth of the m previous propositions to prove it for (m+1). Will require some grouping and basic properties of sets and cardinalities under union and intersections.
 
That (induction) is exactly what I've been attempting to use to convince myself that it is true. I've got the base step (k=m+1) which was (for me) expand-able to see that both sides are equal.
However I couldn't get through the inductive step. Perhaps it is false then? Or it could also just mean that I got totally lost within the messy algebra?
 
You have a "special symbol" right at the beginning of that formula that will not show up on my (or Maverick280857's) browser.
 
Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) ((A_n) ∩ ((A_(n+1))^c)) )
= Pr( ∪_(n from m to k) (A_n) ) - Pr( (A_k) ∩ (A_k+1) )



or



the probability of [ the union (where n goes from m to k) of [ A_n intersect (A_(n+1) compliment) ] ]

is equal to

the probability of [ the union (where n goes from m to k) of A_n ]
minus
the probability of [ A_k intersect A_(k+1) ]
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top