3
$\begingroup$

I am currently self-studying with Casella & Berger and there is a problem that has me stumped. Please note I am NOT asking for a solution, I just need clarification on the terms used.

Here is the exercise in question:

C&B exercise

The way I understand the definition of the set Ek, it is not generally true that P(E1) = P(A1) + ... + P(An).

To illustrate, with A1 = {1,2} and A2 = {1,2,3}, E1 would denote elements contained in exactly one of A1 and A2, namely E1 = {3}. The statement in problem (b) would therefore be equivalent to P({3}) = P({1,2}) + P({1,2,3}).

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ "Exactly" in (a) means what it says. Thus $E_1=\{3\}$ and $E_2=\{1,2\}$. Your example should read $$P\left(\{1,2\}\cup\{1,2,3\}\right)=P(\{3\})+P(\{1,2\}).$$ $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    Commented Oct 18, 2016 at 21:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One note that might be relevant to the question you attempt to solve (but not necessarily the question you pose here) is that there is an errata sheet (stat.ufl.edu/archived/casella/class/errata7.pdf) for Casella & Berger and some of the parts of question 1.42 have errors in the text. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Brems
    Commented Oct 18, 2016 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you both for your replies. I have posted an answer based on the information provided, do let me know if this goes against site etiquette. $\endgroup$
    – overdisperse
    Commented Oct 18, 2016 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber You might have missed that the question is about (b), not (a)! OP's example seems to indeed be a counterexample against the statement in the original (b) (when $P(\{1,2\})>0$), and in the errata (b) is replaced with something completely different. $\endgroup$
    – Juho Kokkala
    Commented Oct 19, 2016 at 6:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @whuber Let us assume $n=2$, $A_1=\{1,2\},~A_2=\{1,2,3\}$ (is something already incorrect?). By substituting $k=1$ into "Let $E_k$ denote the set..." we get that $E_1$ is the set containing outcomes that are contained in exactly $1$ of $A_1,A_2$. $1$ and $2$ are contained in $A_1$ and $A_2$, so 2 sets. $3$ is only in $A_2$, possible other outcomes are in $0$ $A_i$s. Thus we conclude $E_1=\{3\}$. Then, the left hand side of the equation in (b) becomes $P(E_1)=P(\{3\})$. The rhs is $P(A_1)+P(A_2) = \sum_{i=1}^2 P(A_i) = P(A_1)+P(A_2) = P(\{1,2\})+P(\{1,2,3\})$ $\endgroup$
    – Juho Kokkala
    Commented Oct 19, 2016 at 18:24

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Piecing together the replies by whuber and Matt Brems, it seems I did understand question 1.42(b) correctly, it's just that there's a mistake in the book.

(I'm still quite unsure of what proper etiquette mandates on this site but my observations lead me to conclude self-replying with an answer is appropriate)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Your understanding of the site is correct--but this does not appear to answer your question! Indeed, upon re-reading your original post I am left wondering what it is you were trying to ask. $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    Commented Oct 18, 2016 at 22:02

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.