Let say there're cards numbered 1 to 10. P(A) is the probability you pick a card whose number is the multiple of 2. P(B) is the probability you pick a card whose number is the multiple of 5. So now you draw two cards without replacement. You don't place the first card you just drew back in the original deck. Then, you draw again from that 9 remaining cards.
In the picture, P(A) is shown as the ordered pairs colored red, and P(B) is shown as the ordered pairs shaded with light blue.
Then I counted them all.
- P(A) = (9+9+9+9+9) / (100-10) = 45/90 = 1/2
- P(B) = (9+9) / (100-10) = 18/90 = 1/5
- P(A∩B) = 9 / 90 = 1/10
So here, I found out that P(A∩B) is actually the multiple of P(A) and P(B), which shouldn't be if they are dependent, meaning they are independent. I've also found out, in a different model, that the probabilities could be dependent each other in the case of W/O replacement such as this one.
I know events with replacements are independent. But it feels like events without replacements doesn't mean dependency. It's more like the case of contraposition of the first one. Events with replacements mean independent, which means, by the contraposition rule, dependent events are the ones done without replacements.
But all the other internet pages say like "if they are done without replacement, then they are dependent". This claim is so prevalent. But one of us, they or I, must be wrong. What am I missing here?