1
$\begingroup$

In a conditional probability distribution $P(A|B)$, can I substitute a new random variable $C$ to represent "A given B" and write it as $P(C) = P(A|B)$?

If so, would this expression be true? $$P(C|D) = P(A|B,D)$$

Please forgive my ignorance and correct me if I'm wrong, I've taken courses on probability but don't know where the gaps in my knowledge lie.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I see nothing wrong with this. For example the notation $P(A|B=b)$ means there is a random variable, chosen to be denoted as $A|B=b$, and whose probability we write as $P(A|B=b)$. You can certainly replace $A|B=b$ with anything you like. Using your $C$ there is no restriction on then asking what is the distribution of $C|D=d$, i.e we want $P(C|D=d)$. Omitting the constants for clarity;

\begin{align} P(C|D)&=P(A|B,D)\\ \Longleftrightarrow\frac{P(C,D)}{P(D)}&=P(A|B,D)\\ \Longleftrightarrow\frac{P(A|B,D)}{P(D)}&=P(A|B,D), \end{align}

which holds if $P(D)=1$, i.e. if $D$ is a constant and not a random variable. Thus in general your notation of "carrying D along" with B after the "|" notation will only be correct for constants.

You see this in non-time-series regression contexts a lot, for example you might see $Y|U=u\sim F(\beta_{0},\beta_{1},X)$ to mean a conditional distribution induced by the model $Y|\{U=u\}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}X+\epsilon$ for $\epsilon$ random, and where $U\sim N(0,\sigma^{2}_{u})$ is a random coefficient or "random effect". We can write $P(Y|U,\beta_{0},\beta_{1},X)$ for our probability, and this is equal to $P[C=\{Y|U\}|D=\{\beta_{0},\beta_{1},X\}]$ because $D$ is constant. For other regression models in time-series settings the covariate set $X$ is assumed random, and then the distribution $P(\{Y|U\}|X)$ is not neccessarily equal to $P(Y|U,X)$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thanks a lot! this really helped consolidate my understanding $\endgroup$
    – jytoronto
    Commented Apr 13, 2019 at 0:30
1
$\begingroup$

It is a typical mistake of confused freshmen to think that $\Pr(A\mid B)$ is the probability of some object called $\text{“}A\text{ given }B\text{''}$ or $\text{“}A\mid B\text{''}.$ It is in fact the probability-given-$B$, of $A.$

However, you could let $C = A\cap B$ and then in a new sample space consisting only of $B,$ the conditional probability $\Pr(A\mid B)$ would become $\Pr(C).$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ what's wrong with this "object" view (as another random variable), if it has its own probability distribution that describes events in a (different) sample space? $\endgroup$
    – jytoronto
    Commented Apr 13, 2019 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ @jytoronto : What wrong is the parsing. The thing whose probability is referred to is $A,$ not something called $\text{“}A\text{ given }B\text{''},$ but it's the conditional probability given $B,$ not the unconditional probability. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2019 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ gotcha. thank you for explicitly calling this out! $\endgroup$
    – jytoronto
    Commented Apr 13, 2019 at 20:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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