Shouldn't the joint probability of 2 independent events be equal to zero?












27














If the joint probability is the intersection of 2 events, then shouldn't the joint probability of 2 independent events be zero since they don't intersect at all? I'm confused.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 18




    The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
    – user1936752
    Dec 7 at 18:18








  • 3




    @user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Dec 9 at 12:41










  • @HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
    – Rui Barradas
    Dec 10 at 10:44








  • 2




    @Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
    – jdmc
    Dec 10 at 17:45












  • This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
    – Learn_Share
    Dec 11 at 22:59
















27














If the joint probability is the intersection of 2 events, then shouldn't the joint probability of 2 independent events be zero since they don't intersect at all? I'm confused.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 18




    The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
    – user1936752
    Dec 7 at 18:18








  • 3




    @user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Dec 9 at 12:41










  • @HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
    – Rui Barradas
    Dec 10 at 10:44








  • 2




    @Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
    – jdmc
    Dec 10 at 17:45












  • This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
    – Learn_Share
    Dec 11 at 22:59














27












27








27


7





If the joint probability is the intersection of 2 events, then shouldn't the joint probability of 2 independent events be zero since they don't intersect at all? I'm confused.










share|cite|improve this question













If the joint probability is the intersection of 2 events, then shouldn't the joint probability of 2 independent events be zero since they don't intersect at all? I'm confused.







probability joint-distribution






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 7 at 8:35









gaston

17125




17125








  • 18




    The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
    – user1936752
    Dec 7 at 18:18








  • 3




    @user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Dec 9 at 12:41










  • @HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
    – Rui Barradas
    Dec 10 at 10:44








  • 2




    @Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
    – jdmc
    Dec 10 at 17:45












  • This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
    – Learn_Share
    Dec 11 at 22:59














  • 18




    The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
    – user1936752
    Dec 7 at 18:18








  • 3




    @user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Dec 9 at 12:41










  • @HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
    – Rui Barradas
    Dec 10 at 10:44








  • 2




    @Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
    – jdmc
    Dec 10 at 17:45












  • This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
    – Learn_Share
    Dec 11 at 22:59








18




18




The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
– user1936752
Dec 7 at 18:18






The probability that I watch on a given day TV is 1/2. The probability that it rains on a given day is 1/2. These are independent events. What is the probability of me watching TV on a rainy day?
– user1936752
Dec 7 at 18:18






3




3




@user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 9 at 12:41




@user1936752 Strictly speaking, your example events are not independent for most people (e.g., they might be more willing to spend time outdoors when it does not rain)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 9 at 12:41












@HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
– Rui Barradas
Dec 10 at 10:44






@HagenvonEitzen OK, good point. Change rainy day to eat chocolate.
– Rui Barradas
Dec 10 at 10:44






2




2




@Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
– jdmc
Dec 10 at 17:45






@Gaston: Don't confuse "independent" with "mutually exclusive". Independent events are completely unrelated to each other, whereas mutually exclusive events are inherently related. For example, suppose I flip two coins: whether I get heads on Coin 1 is unaffected by the result of Coin 2, but it's inherently connected to whether I get tails on Coin 1! =)
– jdmc
Dec 10 at 17:45














This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
– Learn_Share
Dec 11 at 22:59




This video here and this other one will be helpful in understanding these concepts.
– Learn_Share
Dec 11 at 22:59










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















54














There is a difference between




  • independent events: $mathbb P(A cap B) =mathbb P(A),mathbb P(B)$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= mathbb P(A)$ so knowing one happened gives no information about whether the other happened

  • mutually disjoint events: $mathbb P(A cap B) = 0$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= 0$ so knowing one happened means the other did not happen


You asked for a picture. This might help:



picture






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 7




    Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
    – gerrit
    Dec 7 at 10:51








  • 3




    @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
    – gerrit
    Dec 7 at 13:13








  • 2




    @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
    – emory
    Dec 7 at 13:24






  • 4




    I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
    – Chris H
    Dec 7 at 13:53








  • 2




    @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
    – Acccumulation
    Dec 7 at 19:45



















13














What I understood from your question, is that you might have confused independent events with disjoint events.



disjoint events: Two events are called disjoint or mutually exclusive if they cannot both happen. For instance, if we roll a die, the outcomes 1 and 2 are disjoint since they cannot both occur. On the other hand, the outcomes 1 and “rolling an odd number” are not disjoint since both occur if the outcome of the roll is a 1. The intersect of such events is always 0.



independent events: Two events are independent if knowing the outcome of one provides no useful information about the outcome of the other. For instance, when we roll two dice, the outcome of each is an independent event – knowing the outcome of one roll does not help determining the outcome of the other. Let's build on that example:
We roll two dice, a red and a blue. The probability of getting a 1 on the red is given by P(red = 1) = 1/6, and the probability of getting a 1 on the white is given by P(white = 1) = 1/6. It is possible to get their intersect (i.e. both get 1) simply by multiplying them, since they are independent. P(red = 1) x P(white = 1) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 != 0.
In simple words 1/6 of the time the red die is a 1, and 1/6 of those times the white die is 1. To illustrate:



P(red = 1)xP(white = 1)






share|cite|improve this answer































    2














    The confusion of the OP lies on the notions of disjoint events and independent events.



    One simple and intuitive description of independence is:




    A and B are independent if knowing that A happened gives you no
    information about whether or not B happened.




    Or in other words,




    A and B are independent if knowing that A happened does not change the
    probability that B happened.




    If A and B are disjoint then knowing that A happened is a game changer! Now you would be certain that B did not happen! And so they are not independent.



    The only way independence and "disjointedness" in this example are the same is when B is the empty set (which has probability 0). In this case A happening does not inform anything on B



    No pictures but at least some intuition






    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: "65"
      };
      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',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      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
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380789%2fshouldnt-the-joint-probability-of-2-independent-events-be-equal-to-zero%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      54














      There is a difference between




      • independent events: $mathbb P(A cap B) =mathbb P(A),mathbb P(B)$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= mathbb P(A)$ so knowing one happened gives no information about whether the other happened

      • mutually disjoint events: $mathbb P(A cap B) = 0$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= 0$ so knowing one happened means the other did not happen


      You asked for a picture. This might help:



      picture






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 7




        Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 10:51








      • 3




        @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 13:13








      • 2




        @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
        – emory
        Dec 7 at 13:24






      • 4




        I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
        – Chris H
        Dec 7 at 13:53








      • 2




        @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
        – Acccumulation
        Dec 7 at 19:45
















      54














      There is a difference between




      • independent events: $mathbb P(A cap B) =mathbb P(A),mathbb P(B)$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= mathbb P(A)$ so knowing one happened gives no information about whether the other happened

      • mutually disjoint events: $mathbb P(A cap B) = 0$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= 0$ so knowing one happened means the other did not happen


      You asked for a picture. This might help:



      picture






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 7




        Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 10:51








      • 3




        @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 13:13








      • 2




        @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
        – emory
        Dec 7 at 13:24






      • 4




        I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
        – Chris H
        Dec 7 at 13:53








      • 2




        @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
        – Acccumulation
        Dec 7 at 19:45














      54












      54








      54






      There is a difference between




      • independent events: $mathbb P(A cap B) =mathbb P(A),mathbb P(B)$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= mathbb P(A)$ so knowing one happened gives no information about whether the other happened

      • mutually disjoint events: $mathbb P(A cap B) = 0$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= 0$ so knowing one happened means the other did not happen


      You asked for a picture. This might help:



      picture






      share|cite|improve this answer














      There is a difference between




      • independent events: $mathbb P(A cap B) =mathbb P(A),mathbb P(B)$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= mathbb P(A)$ so knowing one happened gives no information about whether the other happened

      • mutually disjoint events: $mathbb P(A cap B) = 0$, i.e. $mathbb P(A mid B)= 0$ so knowing one happened means the other did not happen


      You asked for a picture. This might help:



      picture







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Dec 8 at 1:26









      user985366

      1032




      1032










      answered Dec 7 at 8:41









      Henry

      18.6k13466




      18.6k13466








      • 7




        Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 10:51








      • 3




        @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 13:13








      • 2




        @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
        – emory
        Dec 7 at 13:24






      • 4




        I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
        – Chris H
        Dec 7 at 13:53








      • 2




        @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
        – Acccumulation
        Dec 7 at 19:45














      • 7




        Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 10:51








      • 3




        @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
        – gerrit
        Dec 7 at 13:13








      • 2




        @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
        – emory
        Dec 7 at 13:24






      • 4




        I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
        – Chris H
        Dec 7 at 13:53








      • 2




        @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
        – Acccumulation
        Dec 7 at 19:45








      7




      7




      Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
      – gerrit
      Dec 7 at 10:51






      Is there a reason you wrote "almost" in the second bullet point? Is that one of those "possible with probability zero" things? I would think it is by definition impossible (such as the probability of heads and the probability of tails), then why write "almost certainly" rather than "certainly"? I suppose this is the probabilistic interpretation.
      – gerrit
      Dec 7 at 10:51






      3




      3




      @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
      – gerrit
      Dec 7 at 13:13






      @Barranka I get that, but that doesn't look like what is drawn in the picture on right. The joint probability of a uniformly drawn random number in [0, 1] being both smaller than 0.4 and larger than 0.6 is not only zero, it is also completely impossible. Isn't that what the wide band in the right figure illustrates? Or am I misreading the figure?
      – gerrit
      Dec 7 at 13:13






      2




      2




      @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
      – emory
      Dec 7 at 13:24




      @Barranka I could throw the coin so fast that it escapes earth's gravitational pull. I would venture P(HEADS)=0.499..., P(TAILS)=0.499..., 0<P(LAND ON SIDE)<0.000000000001, and 0<P(ESCAPE VELOCITY)<0.0000000000001. Strictly speaking if the probability of an event is zero, then it can not happen.
      – emory
      Dec 7 at 13:24




      4




      4




      I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
      – Chris H
      Dec 7 at 13:53






      I'm no expert, but even after your last comment I agree with @gerrit: Heads and Tails are disjoint. It's possible to get Not heads and not tails, but it's impossible to get heads and tails. Thus knowing heads happened means that tails could not possibly have happened - no "almost" about it. I could be wrong on my terminology, but if so please explain patiently as I'm not the only one missing it
      – Chris H
      Dec 7 at 13:53






      2




      2




      @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
      – Acccumulation
      Dec 7 at 19:45




      @Braanka Your coin example is a poor one, as presumably landing on a side has non-zero probability, and if you say that it has zero probability, well, now you're pretty much just begging the question.
      – Acccumulation
      Dec 7 at 19:45













      13














      What I understood from your question, is that you might have confused independent events with disjoint events.



      disjoint events: Two events are called disjoint or mutually exclusive if they cannot both happen. For instance, if we roll a die, the outcomes 1 and 2 are disjoint since they cannot both occur. On the other hand, the outcomes 1 and “rolling an odd number” are not disjoint since both occur if the outcome of the roll is a 1. The intersect of such events is always 0.



      independent events: Two events are independent if knowing the outcome of one provides no useful information about the outcome of the other. For instance, when we roll two dice, the outcome of each is an independent event – knowing the outcome of one roll does not help determining the outcome of the other. Let's build on that example:
      We roll two dice, a red and a blue. The probability of getting a 1 on the red is given by P(red = 1) = 1/6, and the probability of getting a 1 on the white is given by P(white = 1) = 1/6. It is possible to get their intersect (i.e. both get 1) simply by multiplying them, since they are independent. P(red = 1) x P(white = 1) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 != 0.
      In simple words 1/6 of the time the red die is a 1, and 1/6 of those times the white die is 1. To illustrate:



      P(red = 1)xP(white = 1)






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        13














        What I understood from your question, is that you might have confused independent events with disjoint events.



        disjoint events: Two events are called disjoint or mutually exclusive if they cannot both happen. For instance, if we roll a die, the outcomes 1 and 2 are disjoint since they cannot both occur. On the other hand, the outcomes 1 and “rolling an odd number” are not disjoint since both occur if the outcome of the roll is a 1. The intersect of such events is always 0.



        independent events: Two events are independent if knowing the outcome of one provides no useful information about the outcome of the other. For instance, when we roll two dice, the outcome of each is an independent event – knowing the outcome of one roll does not help determining the outcome of the other. Let's build on that example:
        We roll two dice, a red and a blue. The probability of getting a 1 on the red is given by P(red = 1) = 1/6, and the probability of getting a 1 on the white is given by P(white = 1) = 1/6. It is possible to get their intersect (i.e. both get 1) simply by multiplying them, since they are independent. P(red = 1) x P(white = 1) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 != 0.
        In simple words 1/6 of the time the red die is a 1, and 1/6 of those times the white die is 1. To illustrate:



        P(red = 1)xP(white = 1)






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          13












          13








          13






          What I understood from your question, is that you might have confused independent events with disjoint events.



          disjoint events: Two events are called disjoint or mutually exclusive if they cannot both happen. For instance, if we roll a die, the outcomes 1 and 2 are disjoint since they cannot both occur. On the other hand, the outcomes 1 and “rolling an odd number” are not disjoint since both occur if the outcome of the roll is a 1. The intersect of such events is always 0.



          independent events: Two events are independent if knowing the outcome of one provides no useful information about the outcome of the other. For instance, when we roll two dice, the outcome of each is an independent event – knowing the outcome of one roll does not help determining the outcome of the other. Let's build on that example:
          We roll two dice, a red and a blue. The probability of getting a 1 on the red is given by P(red = 1) = 1/6, and the probability of getting a 1 on the white is given by P(white = 1) = 1/6. It is possible to get their intersect (i.e. both get 1) simply by multiplying them, since they are independent. P(red = 1) x P(white = 1) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 != 0.
          In simple words 1/6 of the time the red die is a 1, and 1/6 of those times the white die is 1. To illustrate:



          P(red = 1)xP(white = 1)






          share|cite|improve this answer














          What I understood from your question, is that you might have confused independent events with disjoint events.



          disjoint events: Two events are called disjoint or mutually exclusive if they cannot both happen. For instance, if we roll a die, the outcomes 1 and 2 are disjoint since they cannot both occur. On the other hand, the outcomes 1 and “rolling an odd number” are not disjoint since both occur if the outcome of the roll is a 1. The intersect of such events is always 0.



          independent events: Two events are independent if knowing the outcome of one provides no useful information about the outcome of the other. For instance, when we roll two dice, the outcome of each is an independent event – knowing the outcome of one roll does not help determining the outcome of the other. Let's build on that example:
          We roll two dice, a red and a blue. The probability of getting a 1 on the red is given by P(red = 1) = 1/6, and the probability of getting a 1 on the white is given by P(white = 1) = 1/6. It is possible to get their intersect (i.e. both get 1) simply by multiplying them, since they are independent. P(red = 1) x P(white = 1) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36 != 0.
          In simple words 1/6 of the time the red die is a 1, and 1/6 of those times the white die is 1. To illustrate:



          P(red = 1)xP(white = 1)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 7 at 10:05

























          answered Dec 7 at 9:55









          Umair Rafique

          1314




          1314























              2














              The confusion of the OP lies on the notions of disjoint events and independent events.



              One simple and intuitive description of independence is:




              A and B are independent if knowing that A happened gives you no
              information about whether or not B happened.




              Or in other words,




              A and B are independent if knowing that A happened does not change the
              probability that B happened.




              If A and B are disjoint then knowing that A happened is a game changer! Now you would be certain that B did not happen! And so they are not independent.



              The only way independence and "disjointedness" in this example are the same is when B is the empty set (which has probability 0). In this case A happening does not inform anything on B



              No pictures but at least some intuition






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                2














                The confusion of the OP lies on the notions of disjoint events and independent events.



                One simple and intuitive description of independence is:




                A and B are independent if knowing that A happened gives you no
                information about whether or not B happened.




                Or in other words,




                A and B are independent if knowing that A happened does not change the
                probability that B happened.




                If A and B are disjoint then knowing that A happened is a game changer! Now you would be certain that B did not happen! And so they are not independent.



                The only way independence and "disjointedness" in this example are the same is when B is the empty set (which has probability 0). In this case A happening does not inform anything on B



                No pictures but at least some intuition






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  2












                  2








                  2






                  The confusion of the OP lies on the notions of disjoint events and independent events.



                  One simple and intuitive description of independence is:




                  A and B are independent if knowing that A happened gives you no
                  information about whether or not B happened.




                  Or in other words,




                  A and B are independent if knowing that A happened does not change the
                  probability that B happened.




                  If A and B are disjoint then knowing that A happened is a game changer! Now you would be certain that B did not happen! And so they are not independent.



                  The only way independence and "disjointedness" in this example are the same is when B is the empty set (which has probability 0). In this case A happening does not inform anything on B



                  No pictures but at least some intuition






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  The confusion of the OP lies on the notions of disjoint events and independent events.



                  One simple and intuitive description of independence is:




                  A and B are independent if knowing that A happened gives you no
                  information about whether or not B happened.




                  Or in other words,




                  A and B are independent if knowing that A happened does not change the
                  probability that B happened.




                  If A and B are disjoint then knowing that A happened is a game changer! Now you would be certain that B did not happen! And so they are not independent.



                  The only way independence and "disjointedness" in this example are the same is when B is the empty set (which has probability 0). In this case A happening does not inform anything on B



                  No pictures but at least some intuition







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 7 at 15:41









                  gota

                  1437




                  1437






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380789%2fshouldnt-the-joint-probability-of-2-independent-events-be-equal-to-zero%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

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa