In plain words
Probability shares one unit of certainty among outcomes, and conditioning discards what is ruled out and rescales the rest. Keep the base rate in view, or a rare condition will mislead you.
Basics
P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B) − P(A∩B); inclusion–exclusion for more sets. Boole: . Bonferroni: ᶜ).
Conditioning
P(A|B) = P(A∩B)/P(B). Bayes: |B) = P(B||.
Symmetry facts (the recurring Part-C pattern):
| Statement | Symmetric in A, B? |
|---|---|
| P(A|B) = 0 ⇔ P(B|A) = 0 | ✓ (both say P(A∩B) = 0) |
| P(A|B) > P(A) ⇔ P(B|A) > P(B) | ✓ (both say P(A∩B) > P(A)P(B)) |
| P(A|B) = 1 ⇒ P(B|A) = 1 | ✗ (A ⊇ B does not give B ⊇ A) |
| P(A|B) > P(B) ⇒ P(B|A) > P(A) | ✗ |
Independence
- A ⫫ B ⇔ P(A∩B) = P(A)P(B). Then Aᶜ ⫫ B too.
- Pairwise independence does not imply mutual independence: two fair coins with A = first head, B = second head, C = "same face" are pairwise independent but not mutually.
- Independent events with positive probability are never disjoint.
Standard traps
- Mutually exclusive ≠ independent (they are opposites unless one has probability 0).
- Conditional independence given C does not imply independence, and vice versa (Simpson's paradox territory).
Key takeaways
- Convert every conditional statement to P(A∩B) vs P(A)P(B) and symmetry becomes obvious.
- Pairwise ⇏ mutual independence.
- Disjoint and independent are almost opposite notions.