Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $A, B$ be two event. My question is as follows:

Will the following relation holds: $$A \to B \Rightarrow \Pr(A) \le\Pr(B) $$

And why?

share|improve this question
2  
Note that events are subsets of your sample space. I suppose what you really mean by $A \to B$ is that $A \subset B$. Then $P(A) \leqslant P(B)$ follows by the monotonicity of the probability measure. –  ZulfiqarIII Jan 4 '12 at 15:54
4  
That somebody who asked this can ask that somehow escapes me. –  Did Jan 4 '12 at 15:54

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In terms of intuition, the fact that some event $A$ implies some event $B$ means that whenever $A$ happens, $B$ happens. But if the event $B$ happens, we might not have event $A$. So in other words, we have that $\mathbb P(A) \le \mathbb P(B)$ because the probability that $A$ happens is also "the probability that $B$ happens because of $A$", which is less than "the probability that $B$ happens" with no constrains on it. (Note that there are cases with equality, for instance when $A \Rightarrow B$ and $B \Rightarrow A$. )

From a theoretical point of view though (this is a little bit more advanced for a beginner course in probability though), the expression "$A \Rightarrow B$" doesn't make much sense, since the way probabilities are defined is that the "$\mathbb P$" is actually a function from something we call an space of possible events to the interval of real numbers $[0,1]$. The possible events are sets, and the right way to say $A \Rightarrow B$ in this system would be that the set $A$ is included in the set $B$, i.e. $A \subseteq B$. (You need to think about those sets as "a regrouping of possibilities", for instance if the event space is all subsets of $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ in the context where we roll a fair dice, an example of event would be the possibility that "the roll is even" or "the roll is a $1$ or a $4$".) Since in the construction of probabilities, one most common axiom is that a probability function is countably additive, or in other words $$ \mathbb P \left( \bigcup_{i=0}^{\infty} A_i \right) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \,\mathbb P (A_i) $$ when the sets $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint, and another axiom would be that $P(\varnothing) = 0$, we can deduce from that that \begin{align} \mathbb P(B) = \mathbb P( (A \cap B) \cup (A^c \cap B)) & = \mathbb P( (A \cap B) \cup (A^C \cap B) \cup \varnothing \cup \dots) \\ & = \mathbb P(A \cap B) + \mathbb P(A^c \cap B) + \mathbb P (\varnothing) + \mathbb P (\varnothing) + \dots \\ & = \mathbb P(A) + \mathbb P(A^c \cap B) + 0 + 0 + \dots \\ & \ge \mathbb P(A). \end{align}

Note that the reason I added this is because I used the axiom "countably additive" and not "finitely additive". The way to show that countably additive implies finitely additive is by adding plenty of $\varnothing$'s after the finitely many sets.

There are many possible axioms you can add/choose that are equivalent though. I just took my favorite.

Hope that helps,

share|improve this answer
    
Many treatments take $P(\Omega)=1$ to be an axiom and deduce $P(\varnothing) = 0$ as a theorem using countable additivity: $$1=P(\Omega)=P(\Omega\cup\varnothing\cup\varnothing\cdots) = P(\Omega)+\sum P(\varnothing)$$ –  Dilip Sarwate Jan 4 '12 at 17:28
    
Yes, but I would've needed to describe $\Omega$ then, and an appropriate explanation of what $\Omega$ means is that it is the dude from which you build the $\sigma$-algebra over. I didn't wanna get into that. –  Patrick Da Silva Jan 4 '12 at 17:34

Yes. Since events are sets of states, $A\implies B$ means $A\subseteq B$, which is equivalent to $B=A\cup(B\backslash A)$, a disjoint union. So $P(B)=P(A)+P(B\backslash A)\geq P(A)$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.