Prad's example might help explain some of the confusion: coin flips are easy examples to mention in class, and have the disconcerting characteristic that they are BOTH independent (as regards successive flips of the coin -- supposing one is not using a mechanical flipping device that makes the process non-random!) AND mutually exclusive (as regards any particular flip, which if heads cannot be tails). -- Don.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, prad s u wrote: > On "mutual exclusive" and "independence" -- > > Perhaps this may be useful (or not?): > > One can think of the two in terms of a coin flip, getting "heads" is > mutually exclusive to getting a "tails" on any flip of the coin; yet, > given that you know that a heads was obtained, you automatically know > you don't have tails on that particular trial, i.e., extreme > dependence, as I think you [Don] put it. > > if there are any flaws in my analogy, please do point them out, i'm > interested to know -- it was quick and dirty. < snip, my earlier post to which Prad was replying. -- DFB. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 56 Sebbins Pond Drive, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 626-0816 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
