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











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












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 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 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 at 12:58










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















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












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 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 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 at 12:58










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













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











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 at 13:15









Asaf Karagila

300k32420750




300k32420750










asked Nov 16 at 12:42









Awe Kumar Jha

3189




3189












  • 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 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 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 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 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 at 12:46












  • Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
    – Stockfish
    Nov 16 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 at 12:58










  • @Tusky, Ah, that was very helpful.
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Nov 16 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 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 at 12:46














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




Of course, that's not really an answer to your question ...
– Stockfish
Nov 16 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 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 at 12:58












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




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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Your very statement:



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



is what we you 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',
    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








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Your very statement:



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



    is what we you 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

























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      Your very statement:



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



      is what we you 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























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        Your very statement:



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



        is what we you 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 you 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










        answered Nov 16 at 13:34









        Tusky

        632618




        632618






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            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

            Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

            Aardman Animations

            Are they similar matrix