Understanding Conditional Probability with Dependent Variables

  • Thread starter Thread starter hodor
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a user's confusion regarding conditional probability in the context of dependent variables. They encounter a problem where introducing a restriction alters the independence of two variables, making original probabilities ineffective. The user struggles with recalculating probabilities, particularly P(K|B,M), after establishing that P(B=murderer, Maid=murderer) equals zero. Another participant clarifies that while P(B,murderer, Maid=murderer) is zero, it does not necessitate a change in P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer). The conversation highlights the complexities of conditional probability when dealing with dependent variables and the importance of correctly interpreting relationships between them.
hodor
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've run into a snag trying to read a textbook problem. Here is the original example, it's pretty straightforward. The problem I have is when I get to the exercise and it asks me to place a restriction on this example. This restriction seems to break the independence of two variables and renders all the probabilities in the original example useless to me. For example:

HXPAUZ8.jpg


a6cTuIp.jpg


So, ignoring that it's asking for a code update here, I seem to have P(Butler = murderer, Maid = murderer) = 0 and so on. But it appears I can't recalculate P(K) (knife used) since B and M are no longer independent. So I really don't understand how to proceed. This leads me to believe I'm misinterpreting things so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see why you would need that independence. You have P(B, not M) and P(M, not B) and there are no other cases to consider.
 
Ok, I had thought since those probabilities had changed, the P(k|B,M) probabilities would also have to change, and without ndependence I wouldn't be able to recalculate. It seems I can set P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer)=0 and reuse the others unchanged, but that still makes me a bit uncomfortable?
 
hodor said:
It seems I can set P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer)=0 and reuse the others unchanged, but that still makes me a bit uncomfortable?

No, P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer) is not changed - it is P(B=murderer,M=murderer) that is 0, and P(B=murderer,~M=murderer) etc. are different.
 
ok, thanks. I had assumed that since P(B=murderer,M=murderer) had changed, P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer) would change since P(K|B=murderer,M=murderer) = P(K,B=murderer,M=Murderer)/P(B=murderer,M=murderer), and similarly for the other conditionals.
 
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