Quest for a non-inductive proof of the addition theorem of probability.












0














The addition theorem of probability states that:
$$P(A_1cup A_2cup … cup A_n) = sum P(A_i) - sum P(A_icap A_j) + sum P(A_icap A_jcap A_k) - … + (-1)^nP(A_1cap A_2cap … cap A_n)$$
Although this result is proved using the method of induction (as in the case of most textbooks), can it be proved directly?
The only thing which I see is its structural similarity with the general product of binomials :
$$(1+alpha)(1+beta)……(1+nu) = 1 + (alpha + beta + … + nu) + (alpha beta + ……) + ……… + (alpha beta gamma …nu)$$
However I am unable to get a link between the two. Any help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:53










  • @Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 13:20
















0














The addition theorem of probability states that:
$$P(A_1cup A_2cup … cup A_n) = sum P(A_i) - sum P(A_icap A_j) + sum P(A_icap A_jcap A_k) - … + (-1)^nP(A_1cap A_2cap … cap A_n)$$
Although this result is proved using the method of induction (as in the case of most textbooks), can it be proved directly?
The only thing which I see is its structural similarity with the general product of binomials :
$$(1+alpha)(1+beta)……(1+nu) = 1 + (alpha + beta + … + nu) + (alpha beta + ……) + ……… + (alpha beta gamma …nu)$$
However I am unable to get a link between the two. Any help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:53










  • @Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 13:20














0












0








0







The addition theorem of probability states that:
$$P(A_1cup A_2cup … cup A_n) = sum P(A_i) - sum P(A_icap A_j) + sum P(A_icap A_jcap A_k) - … + (-1)^nP(A_1cap A_2cap … cap A_n)$$
Although this result is proved using the method of induction (as in the case of most textbooks), can it be proved directly?
The only thing which I see is its structural similarity with the general product of binomials :
$$(1+alpha)(1+beta)……(1+nu) = 1 + (alpha + beta + … + nu) + (alpha beta + ……) + ……… + (alpha beta gamma …nu)$$
However I am unable to get a link between the two. Any help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question















The addition theorem of probability states that:
$$P(A_1cup A_2cup … cup A_n) = sum P(A_i) - sum P(A_icap A_j) + sum P(A_icap A_jcap A_k) - … + (-1)^nP(A_1cap A_2cap … cap A_n)$$
Although this result is proved using the method of induction (as in the case of most textbooks), can it be proved directly?
The only thing which I see is its structural similarity with the general product of binomials :
$$(1+alpha)(1+beta)……(1+nu) = 1 + (alpha + beta + … + nu) + (alpha beta + ……) + ……… + (alpha beta gamma …nu)$$
However I am unable to get a link between the two. Any help is appreciated.







probability






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:15









Asaf Karagila

302k32426756




302k32426756










asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42









Awe Kumar Jha

38613




38613












  • You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:53










  • @Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 13:20


















  • You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:53










  • @Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 '18 at 13:20
















You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
– Stockfish
Nov 16 '18 at 12:46






You could decompose the union into disjoint sets. For instance, $A cup B = (A cap B) cup (A cap B^c) cup (A^c cap B)$. Now rearrange $P(A) = P(A cap B) + P(A cap B^c)$.
– Stockfish
Nov 16 '18 at 12:46














Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
– Stockfish
Nov 16 '18 at 12:53




Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
– Stockfish
Nov 16 '18 at 12:53












@Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
– Awe Kumar Jha
Nov 16 '18 at 12:58




@Stockfish, I think it may involve polynomial fields and other concepts of linear algebra, when we are looking for the decomposition of the general union operator and further rearrangement.
– Awe Kumar Jha
Nov 16 '18 at 12:58












@Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
– Awe Kumar Jha
Nov 16 '18 at 13:20




@Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
– Awe Kumar Jha
Nov 16 '18 at 13:20










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Your very statement:



$$ P(A1∪A2∪…∪An)=∑P(Ai)−∑P(Ai∩Aj)+∑P(Ai∩Aj∩Ak)−…+(−1)nP(A1∩A2∩…∩An) $$



is what we arrive at from what we call the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.



Since you are looking for a non-induction based proof, there exists a proof using the Binomial Theorem here and an algebraic proof using indicator functions over here.






share|cite|improve this answer























    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%2f3001097%2fquest-for-a-non-inductive-proof-of-the-addition-theorem-of-probability%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









    2














    Your very statement:



    $$ P(A1∪A2∪…∪An)=∑P(Ai)−∑P(Ai∩Aj)+∑P(Ai∩Aj∩Ak)−…+(−1)nP(A1∩A2∩…∩An) $$



    is what we arrive at from what we call the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.



    Since you are looking for a non-induction based proof, there exists a proof using the Binomial Theorem here and an algebraic proof using indicator functions over here.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      2














      Your very statement:



      $$ P(A1∪A2∪…∪An)=∑P(Ai)−∑P(Ai∩Aj)+∑P(Ai∩Aj∩Ak)−…+(−1)nP(A1∩A2∩…∩An) $$



      is what we arrive at from what we call the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.



      Since you are looking for a non-induction based proof, there exists a proof using the Binomial Theorem here and an algebraic proof using indicator functions over here.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2






        Your very statement:



        $$ P(A1∪A2∪…∪An)=∑P(Ai)−∑P(Ai∩Aj)+∑P(Ai∩Aj∩Ak)−…+(−1)nP(A1∩A2∩…∩An) $$



        is what we arrive at from what we call the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.



        Since you are looking for a non-induction based proof, there exists a proof using the Binomial Theorem here and an algebraic proof using indicator functions over here.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Your very statement:



        $$ P(A1∪A2∪…∪An)=∑P(Ai)−∑P(Ai∩Aj)+∑P(Ai∩Aj∩Ak)−…+(−1)nP(A1∩A2∩…∩An) $$



        is what we arrive at from what we call the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle.



        Since you are looking for a non-induction based proof, there exists a proof using the Binomial Theorem here and an algebraic proof using indicator functions over here.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered Nov 16 '18 at 13:34









        Tusky

        644618




        644618






























            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            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%2f3001097%2fquest-for-a-non-inductive-proof-of-the-addition-theorem-of-probability%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

            An IMO inspired problem

            Management

            Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?