Intuitively use marginalization












0












$begingroup$


Is it always true that if you sum over some variable then you can "remove" that varaible in each expression of the product inside the sum? For example:



$ sum_x P(x, y)P(y | x)P(y | x, z) = P(y)P(y)P(y|z)? $



It seems that this is often the case, but what I'm asking is if this is a general "rule" you can use?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Is it always true that if you sum over some variable then you can "remove" that varaible in each expression of the product inside the sum? For example:



    $ sum_x P(x, y)P(y | x)P(y | x, z) = P(y)P(y)P(y|z)? $



    It seems that this is often the case, but what I'm asking is if this is a general "rule" you can use?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Is it always true that if you sum over some variable then you can "remove" that varaible in each expression of the product inside the sum? For example:



      $ sum_x P(x, y)P(y | x)P(y | x, z) = P(y)P(y)P(y|z)? $



      It seems that this is often the case, but what I'm asking is if this is a general "rule" you can use?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Is it always true that if you sum over some variable then you can "remove" that varaible in each expression of the product inside the sum? For example:



      $ sum_x P(x, y)P(y | x)P(y | x, z) = P(y)P(y)P(y|z)? $



      It seems that this is often the case, but what I'm asking is if this is a general "rule" you can use?







      probability probability-theory conditional-probability marginal-probability






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 16 '18 at 19:28









      FerusFerus

      103




      103






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          The notation you use is a little ambiguous, but in general the way you describe it, it is incorrect. For example, take $X, Y, Z$ as discrete random variables that are independent. Let $X$ take values $x_1, dots , x_n$. According to your conjecture we should find that,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) $$



          But this is false since if $X, Y, Z$ are independent we obtain,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i)^2 $$



          The sum of squares of the probabilities is not in general 1, take $X sim text{Bernoulli}(p)$ for example; that is, $X$ takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and $0$ with probability $(1-p)$. We do have that $(1-p) + p = 1$ but in general $(1-p)^2 + p^2 neq 1$.



          You should try to understand why marginalization works in the first place, it all comes back down to the following law of probability,



          If $A, B$ are disjoint events then,



          $$mathbb{P}(A cup B) = mathbb{P}(A) + mathbb{P}(B), (*)$$



          From this we have that if $B_1, dots, B_n$ is a partition of the sample space, meaning



          $$bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = Omega, B_i cap B_j = emptyset, i neq j$$



          Then we obtain by applying the additivity of probability $(*)$, since we have that,



          $$A = A cap Omega = A cap bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = bigcup_{i=1}^n A cap B_i $$



          Then,



          $$mathbb{P} (A) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(A cap B_i) $$



          Now, coming back to the language of events as values of random variables, how is this marginilisation? Consider $X$ as a discrete random variable taking values $x_1, dots , x_n$. Then the events, ${X = x_1 }, {X = x_2 }, dots , {X = x_n } $ constitute a partition of the sample space! (since the cases are exhaustive and disjoint).



          So if we let $A = {Y = y}$ and $B_i = {X = x_i }$ we have the familiar procedure of "marginilisation"



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i), (**)$$



          Note that this also works when there is a conditional probability as long as that conditional probability does not involve the variable you are marginilising over, again, try to link it back to the basics, a conditional event is of the form,



          $$mathbb{P}(A | C) = frac{mathbb{P}(A cap C)}{mathbb{P}(C)} $$



          For our marginilisation formula we have from $(**)$ that if we wanted to condition on $Z = z$ for example we can do the following,



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)$$



          Then we have,



          $$frac{mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)} = sum_{i=1}^n frac{mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)}$$



          So in fact we recover our "marginilisation" with just simple arithmetic,



          $$mathbb{P}(Y = y | Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i| Z = z)$$



          In summary, when thinking about laws of probability, try to link it back to the fundamental laws of probability.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:44










          • $begingroup$
            You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
            $endgroup$
            – symchdmath
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:49










          • $begingroup$
            Alright, thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 17 '18 at 0:03











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043051%2fintuitively-use-marginalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          The notation you use is a little ambiguous, but in general the way you describe it, it is incorrect. For example, take $X, Y, Z$ as discrete random variables that are independent. Let $X$ take values $x_1, dots , x_n$. According to your conjecture we should find that,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) $$



          But this is false since if $X, Y, Z$ are independent we obtain,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i)^2 $$



          The sum of squares of the probabilities is not in general 1, take $X sim text{Bernoulli}(p)$ for example; that is, $X$ takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and $0$ with probability $(1-p)$. We do have that $(1-p) + p = 1$ but in general $(1-p)^2 + p^2 neq 1$.



          You should try to understand why marginalization works in the first place, it all comes back down to the following law of probability,



          If $A, B$ are disjoint events then,



          $$mathbb{P}(A cup B) = mathbb{P}(A) + mathbb{P}(B), (*)$$



          From this we have that if $B_1, dots, B_n$ is a partition of the sample space, meaning



          $$bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = Omega, B_i cap B_j = emptyset, i neq j$$



          Then we obtain by applying the additivity of probability $(*)$, since we have that,



          $$A = A cap Omega = A cap bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = bigcup_{i=1}^n A cap B_i $$



          Then,



          $$mathbb{P} (A) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(A cap B_i) $$



          Now, coming back to the language of events as values of random variables, how is this marginilisation? Consider $X$ as a discrete random variable taking values $x_1, dots , x_n$. Then the events, ${X = x_1 }, {X = x_2 }, dots , {X = x_n } $ constitute a partition of the sample space! (since the cases are exhaustive and disjoint).



          So if we let $A = {Y = y}$ and $B_i = {X = x_i }$ we have the familiar procedure of "marginilisation"



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i), (**)$$



          Note that this also works when there is a conditional probability as long as that conditional probability does not involve the variable you are marginilising over, again, try to link it back to the basics, a conditional event is of the form,



          $$mathbb{P}(A | C) = frac{mathbb{P}(A cap C)}{mathbb{P}(C)} $$



          For our marginilisation formula we have from $(**)$ that if we wanted to condition on $Z = z$ for example we can do the following,



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)$$



          Then we have,



          $$frac{mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)} = sum_{i=1}^n frac{mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)}$$



          So in fact we recover our "marginilisation" with just simple arithmetic,



          $$mathbb{P}(Y = y | Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i| Z = z)$$



          In summary, when thinking about laws of probability, try to link it back to the fundamental laws of probability.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:44










          • $begingroup$
            You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
            $endgroup$
            – symchdmath
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:49










          • $begingroup$
            Alright, thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 17 '18 at 0:03
















          0












          $begingroup$

          The notation you use is a little ambiguous, but in general the way you describe it, it is incorrect. For example, take $X, Y, Z$ as discrete random variables that are independent. Let $X$ take values $x_1, dots , x_n$. According to your conjecture we should find that,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) $$



          But this is false since if $X, Y, Z$ are independent we obtain,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i)^2 $$



          The sum of squares of the probabilities is not in general 1, take $X sim text{Bernoulli}(p)$ for example; that is, $X$ takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and $0$ with probability $(1-p)$. We do have that $(1-p) + p = 1$ but in general $(1-p)^2 + p^2 neq 1$.



          You should try to understand why marginalization works in the first place, it all comes back down to the following law of probability,



          If $A, B$ are disjoint events then,



          $$mathbb{P}(A cup B) = mathbb{P}(A) + mathbb{P}(B), (*)$$



          From this we have that if $B_1, dots, B_n$ is a partition of the sample space, meaning



          $$bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = Omega, B_i cap B_j = emptyset, i neq j$$



          Then we obtain by applying the additivity of probability $(*)$, since we have that,



          $$A = A cap Omega = A cap bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = bigcup_{i=1}^n A cap B_i $$



          Then,



          $$mathbb{P} (A) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(A cap B_i) $$



          Now, coming back to the language of events as values of random variables, how is this marginilisation? Consider $X$ as a discrete random variable taking values $x_1, dots , x_n$. Then the events, ${X = x_1 }, {X = x_2 }, dots , {X = x_n } $ constitute a partition of the sample space! (since the cases are exhaustive and disjoint).



          So if we let $A = {Y = y}$ and $B_i = {X = x_i }$ we have the familiar procedure of "marginilisation"



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i), (**)$$



          Note that this also works when there is a conditional probability as long as that conditional probability does not involve the variable you are marginilising over, again, try to link it back to the basics, a conditional event is of the form,



          $$mathbb{P}(A | C) = frac{mathbb{P}(A cap C)}{mathbb{P}(C)} $$



          For our marginilisation formula we have from $(**)$ that if we wanted to condition on $Z = z$ for example we can do the following,



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)$$



          Then we have,



          $$frac{mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)} = sum_{i=1}^n frac{mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)}$$



          So in fact we recover our "marginilisation" with just simple arithmetic,



          $$mathbb{P}(Y = y | Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i| Z = z)$$



          In summary, when thinking about laws of probability, try to link it back to the fundamental laws of probability.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:44










          • $begingroup$
            You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
            $endgroup$
            – symchdmath
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:49










          • $begingroup$
            Alright, thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 17 '18 at 0:03














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          The notation you use is a little ambiguous, but in general the way you describe it, it is incorrect. For example, take $X, Y, Z$ as discrete random variables that are independent. Let $X$ take values $x_1, dots , x_n$. According to your conjecture we should find that,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) $$



          But this is false since if $X, Y, Z$ are independent we obtain,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i)^2 $$



          The sum of squares of the probabilities is not in general 1, take $X sim text{Bernoulli}(p)$ for example; that is, $X$ takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and $0$ with probability $(1-p)$. We do have that $(1-p) + p = 1$ but in general $(1-p)^2 + p^2 neq 1$.



          You should try to understand why marginalization works in the first place, it all comes back down to the following law of probability,



          If $A, B$ are disjoint events then,



          $$mathbb{P}(A cup B) = mathbb{P}(A) + mathbb{P}(B), (*)$$



          From this we have that if $B_1, dots, B_n$ is a partition of the sample space, meaning



          $$bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = Omega, B_i cap B_j = emptyset, i neq j$$



          Then we obtain by applying the additivity of probability $(*)$, since we have that,



          $$A = A cap Omega = A cap bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = bigcup_{i=1}^n A cap B_i $$



          Then,



          $$mathbb{P} (A) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(A cap B_i) $$



          Now, coming back to the language of events as values of random variables, how is this marginilisation? Consider $X$ as a discrete random variable taking values $x_1, dots , x_n$. Then the events, ${X = x_1 }, {X = x_2 }, dots , {X = x_n } $ constitute a partition of the sample space! (since the cases are exhaustive and disjoint).



          So if we let $A = {Y = y}$ and $B_i = {X = x_i }$ we have the familiar procedure of "marginilisation"



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i), (**)$$



          Note that this also works when there is a conditional probability as long as that conditional probability does not involve the variable you are marginilising over, again, try to link it back to the basics, a conditional event is of the form,



          $$mathbb{P}(A | C) = frac{mathbb{P}(A cap C)}{mathbb{P}(C)} $$



          For our marginilisation formula we have from $(**)$ that if we wanted to condition on $Z = z$ for example we can do the following,



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)$$



          Then we have,



          $$frac{mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)} = sum_{i=1}^n frac{mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)}$$



          So in fact we recover our "marginilisation" with just simple arithmetic,



          $$mathbb{P}(Y = y | Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i| Z = z)$$



          In summary, when thinking about laws of probability, try to link it back to the fundamental laws of probability.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The notation you use is a little ambiguous, but in general the way you describe it, it is incorrect. For example, take $X, Y, Z$ as discrete random variables that are independent. Let $X$ take values $x_1, dots , x_n$. According to your conjecture we should find that,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i, Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) $$



          But this is false since if $X, Y, Z$ are independent we obtain,



          $$sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Y = y) mathbb{P}(X = x_i) mathbb{P}(Z = z) = mathbb{P}(Y=y) mathbb{P}(Z = z) sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(X = x_i)^2 $$



          The sum of squares of the probabilities is not in general 1, take $X sim text{Bernoulli}(p)$ for example; that is, $X$ takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and $0$ with probability $(1-p)$. We do have that $(1-p) + p = 1$ but in general $(1-p)^2 + p^2 neq 1$.



          You should try to understand why marginalization works in the first place, it all comes back down to the following law of probability,



          If $A, B$ are disjoint events then,



          $$mathbb{P}(A cup B) = mathbb{P}(A) + mathbb{P}(B), (*)$$



          From this we have that if $B_1, dots, B_n$ is a partition of the sample space, meaning



          $$bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = Omega, B_i cap B_j = emptyset, i neq j$$



          Then we obtain by applying the additivity of probability $(*)$, since we have that,



          $$A = A cap Omega = A cap bigcup_{i=1}^n B_i = bigcup_{i=1}^n A cap B_i $$



          Then,



          $$mathbb{P} (A) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(A cap B_i) $$



          Now, coming back to the language of events as values of random variables, how is this marginilisation? Consider $X$ as a discrete random variable taking values $x_1, dots , x_n$. Then the events, ${X = x_1 }, {X = x_2 }, dots , {X = x_n } $ constitute a partition of the sample space! (since the cases are exhaustive and disjoint).



          So if we let $A = {Y = y}$ and $B_i = {X = x_i }$ we have the familiar procedure of "marginilisation"



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i), (**)$$



          Note that this also works when there is a conditional probability as long as that conditional probability does not involve the variable you are marginilising over, again, try to link it back to the basics, a conditional event is of the form,



          $$mathbb{P}(A | C) = frac{mathbb{P}(A cap C)}{mathbb{P}(C)} $$



          For our marginilisation formula we have from $(**)$ that if we wanted to condition on $Z = z$ for example we can do the following,



          $$mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)$$



          Then we have,



          $$frac{mathbb{P} (Y = y, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)} = sum_{i=1}^n frac{mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i, Z = z)}{mathbb{P}(Z = z)}$$



          So in fact we recover our "marginilisation" with just simple arithmetic,



          $$mathbb{P}(Y = y | Z = z) = sum_{i=1}^n mathbb{P}(Y = y, X = x_i| Z = z)$$



          In summary, when thinking about laws of probability, try to link it back to the fundamental laws of probability.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 16 '18 at 23:48

























          answered Dec 16 '18 at 21:40









          symchdmathsymchdmath

          39816




          39816












          • $begingroup$
            Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:44










          • $begingroup$
            You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
            $endgroup$
            – symchdmath
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:49










          • $begingroup$
            Alright, thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 17 '18 at 0:03


















          • $begingroup$
            Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:44










          • $begingroup$
            You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
            $endgroup$
            – symchdmath
            Dec 16 '18 at 23:49










          • $begingroup$
            Alright, thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Ferus
            Dec 17 '18 at 0:03
















          $begingroup$
          Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
          $endgroup$
          – Ferus
          Dec 16 '18 at 23:44




          $begingroup$
          Great explanation! Though I don’t understand how you say A and B are disjoint if B is a partition of the sample space? Also I think there is a typo in the last formula.
          $endgroup$
          – Ferus
          Dec 16 '18 at 23:44












          $begingroup$
          You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
          $endgroup$
          – symchdmath
          Dec 16 '18 at 23:49




          $begingroup$
          You're right there was a typo in the last formula. As for A and B being disjoint, that only refers to the formula (*), if A and B are disjoint then we can add the probabilities over them. $B$ cannot be a partition as it is a single set (unless $B = Omega$), but the sequence of events $B_1, B_2, dots , B_n$ can form a partition
          $endgroup$
          – symchdmath
          Dec 16 '18 at 23:49












          $begingroup$
          Alright, thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Ferus
          Dec 17 '18 at 0:03




          $begingroup$
          Alright, thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Ferus
          Dec 17 '18 at 0:03


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043051%2fintuitively-use-marginalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Cabo Verde

          Gyllenstierna