The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
If the events are independent then:

P(AandB)=P(A).P(B)P(A and B)=P(A).P(B)

Or, if they're mutually exclusive, they can't be independent. So you could do it that way.

...I think. S1 was a long time ago.
Test for independence is:
if P(A <intersection> B) = P(A) P(B)
or P(B|A)= P(B)
they are independent.
I suggest you put the value into a Venn diagram to work out P(A intersection B); then use the first condition.
*Rachie*
If the events are independent then:

P(AandB)=P(A).P(B)P(A and B)=P(A).P(B)


Oh dear... you've done it in a much better way than me!!!
BrightLightsBigCity
Test for independence is:
if P(A <intersection> B) = P(A) P(B)
or P(B|A)= P(B)
they are independent.
I suggest you put the value into a Venn diagram to work out P(A intersection B); then use the first condition.

THanks to both of you, understand it now :smile:
Reply 5
No problemo ^__^
Okay, now onto mutually exclusive events.

The question says:

P(A)= 0.5, P(B |A) = 0.6, P(B')= 0.7 . Prove that A' and B are mutually exclusive.

The formula I have says that to prove that events are mutually exclusive:
P(A n B) = 0
or
P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B)

Not sure how that ties in with the data I have though.

Thankyou!
You can make a Venn diagram with the data given
P(B) = 1 - P(B')
The Venn will quickly show you P (A n B)

edit: will quickly show you P (A' n B); this is the part of B that is not shared with A...
Then apply the adapted rule :
events are mutually exclusive if P (A' n B)= 0
As this means the chance of them happening at the same time is zero, this is the very definition of mutually exclusive!
BrightLightsBigCity
You can make a Venn diagram with the data given
P(B) = 1 - P(B')
The Venn will quickly show you P (A n B)

edit: will quickly show you P (A' n B); this is the part of B that is not shared with A...
Then apply the adapted rule :
events are mutually exclusive if P (A' n B)= 0
As this means the chance of them happening at the same time is zero, this is the very definition of mutually exclusive!

Ah, I tried to do what you said.

But then I get that P(A' n B)= 0.4

but that does not = 0!
Describe to me what your venn looks like... My Venn does prove that they are mutually exclusive ( P(A' n B)= 0 )
BrightLightsBigCity
Describe to me what your venn looks like... My Venn does prove that they are mutually exclusive ( P(A' n B)= 0 )

I have P(A n B) = 0.3
Then just in A 0.2 and just in B 0.4

and 0.1 on the outside?
OK, P (A) value look good, but you have disregarded the P (B') = 0.7.

P(A n B') + outside = P(B') = 0.7
or
P (all in A but not in B) + all on outside = those not in B = 0.7

So, ignore your P (A' n B) and your "outside" and recalculate the "outside", bearing in mind the above.
Then find P (A' n B)....

Sorry if that is waffle-y!
BrightLightsBigCity
OK, P (A) value look good, but you have disregarded the P (B') = 0.7.

P(A n B') + outside = P(B') = 0.7
or
P (all in A but not in B) + all on outside = those not in B = 0.7

So, ignore your P (A' n B) and your "outside" and recalculate the "outside", bearing in mind the above.
Then find P (A' n B)....

Sorry if that is waffle-y!

get it now :smile:
i don't know how I got that random answer to be originally!
Haha, you could have, alternatively, worked the Venn diagram, assuming P (A' n B) = 0.
Not a good thing to do for homework, as it won't aid your understanding, but a reasonable thing to do if you are quickly constructing a complete Venn diagram in an exam to prove something.
Okay, I'm sorry to keep asking questions, it may seem like I'm trying to get you to do my homework, but I'm really not, and I genuinely don't understand!

I've got a table with two columns, one for "saloon" and another for "hatchback", and then three rows, "silver, "black", and "other". It's asked me to work out, the probability of a silver hatchback, a hatchback, and a hatchback given that it is silver. I've done all that, but then it asks me to "show that the type of car is not independent of its colour.

I have no idea how to work it out!
Darkest Knight
Okay, I'm sorry to keep asking questions, it may seem like I'm trying to get you to do my homework, but I'm really not, and I genuinely don't understand!

I've got a table with two columns, one for "saloon" and another for "hatchback", and then three rows, "silver, "black", and "other". It's asked me to work out, the probability of a silver hatchback, a hatchback, and a hatchback given that it is silver. I've done all that, but then it asks me to "show that the type of car is not independent of its colour.

I have no idea how to work it out!

anyone?
Reply 17
Darkest Knight
Okay, I'm sorry to keep asking questions, it may seem like I'm trying to get you to do my homework, but I'm really not, and I genuinely don't understand!

I've got a table with two columns, one for "saloon" and another for "hatchback", and then three rows, "silver, "black", and "other". It's asked me to work out, the probability of a silver hatchback, a hatchback, and a hatchback given that it is silver. I've done all that, but then it asks me to "show that the type of car is not independent of its colour.

I have no idea how to work it out!


Presumably this table had some values in it? To show something isn't independent show that P(Black)P(BlackHatchback)P(Black) \neq P(Black|Hatchback) or something similiar. Basically, if knowing the colour or model of the car helps you determine the model or colour, they aren't independent.
Original post by Darkest Knight
Hi,

I was wondering if someone can explain how I can prove that two events are independent.

I'm given the information:
P(A)= 0.7, P(B) = 0.4, P(A u B) = 0.82


Thank you


They are independent, proof:
A and B independent
<=====> (by definition)
P(A)*P(B) = P(A n B)
<=====> (add 1-P(A)-P(B) to both sides)
1 - P(A) - P(B) + P(A)*P(B) = 1 - P(A) - P(B) + P(A n B)
<=====> (simplify)
(1 - P(A))*(1 - P(B)) = 1 - ( P(A) + P(B) - P(A n B) )
<=====> (simplify as P(A u B) = P(A)+P(B)-P(Anb) )
(1 - P(A))*(1 - P(B)) = 1 - P(A u B)

noticing that the above statement is true as (1-0.7)*(1-0.4) = 0.18 = 1-0.82, thus A B indepenent.

If you can use theories like "A and B are independent is necessary and sufficient to A' and B' are independent", then you can straight away say (1-.07)*(1-.04)=1-.82 thus A' and B' are independent thus A and B are independent.
Original post by rebelgeorge
They are independent, proof:
A and B independent
<=====> (by definition)
P(A)*P(B) = P(A n B)
<=====> (add 1-P(A)-P(B) to both sides)
1 - P(A) - P(B) + P(A)*P(B) = 1 - P(A) - P(B) + P(A n B)
<=====> (simplify)
(1 - P(A))*(1 - P(B)) = 1 - ( P(A) + P(B) - P(A n B) )
<=====> (simplify as P(A u B) = P(A)+P(B)-P(Anb) )
(1 - P(A))*(1 - P(B)) = 1 - P(A u B)

noticing that the above statement is true as (1-0.7)*(1-0.4) = 0.18 = 1-0.82, thus A B indepenent.

If you can use theories like "A and B are independent is necessary and sufficient to A' and B' are independent", then you can straight away say (1-.07)*(1-.04)=1-.82 thus A' and B' are independent thus A and B are independent.