Post History
#5: Post edited
by
DNB
·
2021-12-25T00:33:24Z (almost 3 years ago)
Acceptable, usual to write $\ge 2$ pipes?
- Acceptable, usual to write $\ge 2$ pipes simultaneously?
#4: Post edited
by
DNB
·
2021-12-25T00:33:12Z (almost 3 years ago)
Acceptable, usual to write $\ge 2$ pipes? Can you write pipes on their own?
- Acceptable, usual to write $\ge 2$ pipes?
NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194)?2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".>- Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87.
- p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
- ***I'm NOT asking for the solution to this exercise that's publicly accessible.*** Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
- Is it natural or wont to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194) simultaneously?
- 
- Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87.
- p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
#3: Post edited
by
DNB
·
2021-12-23T09:26:30Z (almost 3 years ago)
- NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
- 1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194)?
- 2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?
- I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".
- >
Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87. p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
- NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
- 1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194)?
- 2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?
- I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".
- >
- Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87.
- p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
#2: Post edited
by
DNB
·
2021-12-23T09:26:12Z (almost 3 years ago)
Ordinary to write $\ge 2$ pipes? Can you write pipes on their own?
- Acceptable, usual to write $\ge 2$ pipes? Can you write pipes on their own?
- NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194) INSIDE a Probability?- 2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?
- I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".
- >
- Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87. p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
- NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
- 1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194)?
- 2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?
- I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".
- >
- Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87. p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.
#1: Initial revision
by
DNB
·
2021-12-23T09:24:56Z (almost 3 years ago)
Ordinary to write $\ge 2$ pipes? Can you write pipes on their own?
NOT asking for the solution to this exercise, which is publicly accessible. Rather, pls see the green and red underlines. If I apply the author's green definition to the red underline, then $\tilde P({\color{red}{L \mid M_2}}) \equiv P(\color{red}{L \mid M_2} \quad \color{limegreen}{\mid M_1})$.
1. Is it natural or wonted to write $\ge 2$ Conditional Probability [pipes](https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/110194) INSIDE a Probability?
2. Is it customary or respectable to write Pipes on their own, without probability?
I get mixed messages. [heropup](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/118193/heropup) [commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1794977/question-involving-bayes-rule-and-the-law-of-total-probability#comment3666498_1795078) $(C \mid B) \mid (A \mid B)$, but [Michael Hardy](https://math.stackexchange.com/users/11667/michael-hardy) chided that ["There's no such thing as A∣B. When one writes Pr(A∣B), one is NOT writing about the probability of something that's called A∣B](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/341113/)".
>
Blitzstein, *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 edn), Ch 2, Exercise 26, p 87. p 12 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.