Consider two infinite sequences of indicators of events, $s_1$ and $s_2$, with respective relative frequencies $l_1$ and $l_2$, where $l_1\neq l_2$. Let $A$ be the indicator of an event not an element of $s_1$ or $s_2$. Consider new sequences $s^\prime_1 = (A, s_1 )$ and $s^\prime_2 = (A, s_2 )$. These sequences have relative frequencies $l_1$ and $l_2$, respectively. Hence within this theory the event A does not have a well-defined probability.

Quote is from page 76/77.

I am confused in how to understand $s_i$. What does it mean that $A$ is not an element of $s_1$ or $s_2$?

It also says

...Let $A$ be the indicator of an event not an element of $s_1$ or $s_2$.

What does this mean? $s_i$ are supposed to be sequences of of indicators, not events. So how do the new sequences look like, namely $s^\prime_i$? Also, why do they have the same relative frequencies $l_i$.


1 Answer 1


There is usually some equation in the book relating to these variables: s,l,A can you add that information for clarity?

I believe that A not being an element of $s_i$ means that if you were to create a ven diagram A would not fall into the category of event indicators enclosed by $s_i$

$s^′_i$ seems to just be a notation that it was produced with the pair of event indicators $s_i\ and\ A$ and not to be confused with $s_i$ or it could be a derivation, if an equation is provided it could help clarify this for me.


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.