Skip to content

Mathematics · Ch 14 — Probability

Probability of 'Not' an Event

6

Probability of 'Not' an Event

Probability of 'Not' an Event

A very useful consequence of the three axioms is a formula for the probability of the complementary event A′A' ("not AA") in terms of P(A)P(A) alone — derived directly from the axioms, not assumed separately.

Deriving P(A′)=1−P(A)P(A') = 1 - P(A)

For any event A⊆SA \subseteq S, the events AA and A′A' satisfy two facts from set theory:

A∪A′=SandA∩A′=ϕ.A \cup A' = S \qquad \text{and} \qquad A \cap A' = \phi.

The first says AA and A′A' together cover the whole sample space; the second says they cannot occur together — i.e. AA and A′A' are mutually exclusive.

Since AA and A′A' are mutually exclusive, Axiom 3 applies to their union:

P(A∪A′)=P(A)+P(A′).P(A \cup A') = P(A) + P(A').

But A∪A′=SA \cup A' = S, so by Axiom 2, P(A∪A′)=P(S)=1P(A \cup A') = P(S) = 1. Combining the two:

P(A)+P(A′)=1.P(A) + P(A') = 1.

P(A′)=1−P(A)P(A') = 1 - P(A)

where A′A' (also written A‾\overline{A} or AcA^c) is the event "not AA".

Worked check: if P(A)=0.6P(A) = 0.6, then P(A′)=1−0.6=0.4P(A') = 1 - 0.6 = 0.4; indeed P(A)+P(A′)=0.6+0.4=1P(A) + P(A') = 0.6 + 0.4 = 1, matching Axiom 2 exactly.

Why This Formula Is So Useful

Many events are much easier to describe, or to count, as a complement than directly. "At least one head in three coin tosses" is naturally computed as 1−P(no heads at all)1 - P(\text{no heads at all}), since "no heads" is a single simple description, while "at least one head" covers many separate cases (exactly one, exactly two, exactly three heads). …