Before you can read the parent note Probability, you must be able to read every squiggle it uses without flinching. This page builds each one from nothing. Read top to bottom — each symbol is earned by the one before it.
The whole subject lives inside one picture: draw a box. Every single thing that could happen is one dot inside that box. Nothing that happens can be outside the box — the box is, by definition, "all possibilities".
Picture: S is the whole box from figure s01. Each dot inside it is one outcome.
Coin: S={H,T} — two dots.
One die: S={1,2,3,4,5,6} — six dots.
Recall What does the symbol
Ω mean and why two symbols for one thing?
Ω (omega) and S both name the sample space — the set of all outcomes. Different textbooks picked different letters; the parent note uses both so you must recognise both. ::: They are identical in meaning.
Why the topic needs it: every probability question secretly begins "out of what total set of possibilities?" — that total set is S.
Picture: ∈ is the arrow "this dot lives inside that region". Look at figure s01 — the dot labelled 3 satisfies 3∈S.
Why the topic needs it: outcomes and events are sets, so we need the language of membership to say "the outcome that occurred is one of the favourable ones".
Why the topic needs it: the thing we assign a probability to is an event (a region), not usually a single outcome. "Rolling even" is a region of three dots.
Picture: ∅ is an empty circle; S is the entire box shaded. Every other event sits somewhere between these two extremes — and that "between-ness" is exactly why probability will run from 0 (for ∅) to 1 (for S).
This is the heart of "computing with events". Human logic words — and, or, not — become three picture-operations.
Why the topic needs it: the addition rule P(A∪B)=P(A)+P(B)−P(A∩B) and the complement rule P(Ac)=1−P(A) are literally statements about these three pictures.
Picture: two separate blobs in the box with a gap between them (no overlap). "Rolling a 2" and "rolling a 5" can't both happen on one roll → disjoint.
Why the topic needs it: Kolmogorov's third axiom (additivity) only applies to disjoint events — for them you simply add the probabilities, no overlap to worry about. Miss this word and you'll wrongly add overlapping events.
Picture: nm = (shaded dots) ÷ (all dots). Nf = (successful trials) ÷ (all trials). Both are "part over whole", which is why both live between 0 and 1.
These appear in the empirical definition and the additivity axiom. Meet them before you meet the formulas.
Why the topic needs it: without lim, "empirical probability" would be a different (noisy) number every time you tried. The limit gives it a single, stable meaning.
Read it as: an experiment gives a sample space of dots; groups of dots are events; combining and measuring events, plus counting or measuring trials, all pour into the three axioms — from which everything else is proven.