For all sequences of mutually exclusive events \(E_{1}, E_{2}, \ldots,E_{N}\) (where \(N\) can go to infinity):
\[P\left(\cup_{i=1}^{N} E_{i} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} P(E_{i} )\]
eHarmony matches you based on compatibility in the most important areas of life – like values, character, intellect, sense of humor, and 25 other dimensions
\(\Pr(\text{2 people agree}) = 0.5\)
\[ \begin{eqnarray} \text{Pr(Exact)} & = & \text{Pr(Agree)}_{1} \times \text{Pr(Agree)}_{2}\times \ldots \times \text{Pr(Agree)}_{29} \\ & = & 0.5 \times 0.5 \times \ldots \times 0.5 \\ & = & 0.5^{29} \\ & \approx & 1.8 \times 10^{-9} \end{eqnarray} \]
1 in 536,870,912 people
Suppose we have two events, \(E\) and \(F\), and that \(P(F)>0\). Then,
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(E|F) & = & \frac{P(E\cap F ) } {P(F) } \end{eqnarray} \]
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(A|B) & = & \frac{P(A\cap B)}{P(B)} \\ P(B|A) & = & \frac{P(A \cap B) } {P(A)} \end{eqnarray} \]
Then, for any event \(E\)
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(E) & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N} P(E | F_{i} ) \times P(F_{i}) \end{eqnarray} \]
Bayes’ Rule: For two events \(A\) and \(B\),
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(A|B) & = & \frac{P(A)\times P(B|A)}{P(B)} \end{eqnarray} \]
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(A|B) & = & \frac{P(A \cap B) }{P(B) } \\ & = & \frac{P(B|A)P(A) } {P(B) } \end{eqnarray} \]
P(black\(|\)Washington) = ???
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(\text{black}|\text{Wash} ) & = & \frac{P(\text{black}) P(\text{Wash}| \text{black}) }{P(\text{Wash} ) } \\ & = & \frac{P(\text{black}) P(\text{Wash}| \text{black}) }{P(\text{black})P(\text{Wash}|\text{black}) + P(\text{nb})P(\text{Wash}| \text{nb}) } \\ & = & \frac{0.126 \times 0.00378}{0.126\times 0.00378 + 0.874 \times 0.000060616} \\ & \approx & 0.9 \end{eqnarray} \]
You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I’ll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don’t need the world’s highest IQ propagating more. Shame! – Scott Smith, Ph.D. University of Florida (From Wikipedia)
If \(C\) is revealed to not have a car:
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(B| C \text{ revealed} ) & = & \frac{P(B)P(C \text{ revealed} | B)}{P(B)P(C \text{ revealed} | B) + P(A) P(C \text{ revealed} | A) } \\ & = & \frac{1/3 \times 1}{1/3 \times 1 + 1/3 \times 1/2 } = \frac{1/3}{1/2} = \frac{2}{3} \\ P(A| C \text{ revealed} ) & = & \frac{P(A) P(C \text{ revealed} | A)}{ P(B)P(C \text{ revealed} | B) + P(A) P(C \text{ revealed} | A) } \\ & = & \frac{1/3 \times 1/2}{1/3 \times 1 + 1/3 \times 1/2} = \frac{1}{3} \end{eqnarray} \]
Double chances of winning with switch
Independence: Two events \(E\) and \(F\) are independent if
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(E\cap F ) & = & P(E)P(F) \end{eqnarray} \]
Independence is symetric
\(F = \text{second flip heads}\)
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(E \cap F ) & = & P( \{ (H, H) , (H, T) \} \cap \{ (H, H), (T, H) \} ) \\ & =& P( \{(H, H)\} ) \\ & = & \frac{1}{4} \\ P(E ) & = & \frac{1} {2} \\ P(F) & = & \frac{1}{2} \\ P(E)P(F) & =& \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{4} =P(E \cap F ) \end{eqnarray} \]
Suppose \(E\) and \(F\) are independent. Then,
\[ \begin{eqnarray} P(E|F ) & = & \frac{P(E \cap F) }{P(F) } \\ & = & \frac{P(E)P(F)}{P(F)} \\ & = & P(E) \end{eqnarray} \]
A random variable \(X\) is a function of the sample space \[ \begin{eqnarray} X:\text{Sample Space} \rightarrow \mathcal{R} \end{eqnarray} \]
Defining the function
\[ \begin{equation} X = \left \{ \begin{array} {ll} 0 \text{ if } (C, C, C) \\ 1 \text{ if } (T, C, C) \text{ or } (C, T, C) \text{ or } (C, C, T) \\ 2 \text{ if } (T, T, C) \text{ or } (T, C, T) \text{ or } (C, T, T) \\ 3 \text{ if } (T, T, T) \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \]
In other words:
\[ \begin{eqnarray} X( (C, C, C) ) & = & 0 \\ X( (T, C, C)) & = & 1 \\ X((T, C, T)) & = & 2 \\ X((T, T, T)) & = & 3 \end{eqnarray} \]
Value of random variable for any outcome weighted by the probability of observing that outcome
\[ \begin{eqnarray} E[X] & = & \sum_{x:p(x)>0} x p(x) \end{eqnarray} \]
What is \(E[X]\)?
\[ \begin{eqnarray} E[X] & = & 0\times \frac{1}{8} + 1 \times \frac{3}{8} + 2 \times \frac{3}{8} + 3 \times \frac{1}{8} \\ & = & 1.5 \end{eqnarray} \]
Measure of central tendency
Then, we might take weighted average of these distances,
\[ \begin{eqnarray} E[(X - E[X])^2] & = & \sum_{x:p(x)>0} (x - E[X])^2p(x) \\ & = & \sum_{x:p(x)>0} \left(x^2 p(x)\right) - 2 E[X]\sum_{x:p(x)>0} \left(x p(x)\right) \\ & \quad & + E[X]^2\sum_{x:p(x)>0} p(x) \\ & = & E[X^2] - 2E[X]^2 + E[X]^2 \\ & = & E[X^2] - E[X]^2 \\ & = & \text{Var}(X) \end{eqnarray} \]
The variance of a random variable \(X\), var\((X)\), is
\[ \begin{eqnarray} \text{var}(X) & = & E[(X - E[X])^2] \\ & = & E[X^2] - E[X]^2 \end{eqnarray} \]
var\((X) \geq 0\)
We have two components to our variance calculation:
\[ \begin{eqnarray} E[X^2] & = & 3 \\ E[X]^2 & = & 1.5^2 = 2.25 \\ \text{Var}(X) & = & E[X^2] - E[X]^2 \\ & = & 3 - 2.25 = 0.75 \end{eqnarray} \]