conditional probability of dependent random variables
As @BobHanlon points out that the probability is zero for a specific value. But probabilities are not (necessarily) 0 in intervals. So we can get a probability statement for an interval and then take the limit as the size of that interval goes to zero.
p = Probability[X == 1 \[Conditioned] Abs[X + Z - y] <= δ,
{X \[Distributed] BernoulliDistribution[1/2], Z \[Distributed] NormalDistribution[]},
Assumptions -> δ > 0 && y ∈ Reals]
Limit[p, δ -> 0]
So we end up with what you did with pencil and paper.
WARNING: The answer I provided earlier is wrong because, perhaps among other reasons, it equates a PDF with a probability. I provide a better answer immediately below that slightly extends @JimB's correct answer.
prob = Limit[
FullSimplify[
Probability[
X == 1 \[Conditioned]
Abs[X + Z - y] < \[Delta], {X \[Distributed]
BernoulliDistribution[f],
Z \[Distributed] NormalDistribution[m, s]},
Assumptions -> {y \[Element] Reals, \[Delta] > 0}]], \[Delta] ->
0]
The output is:
(1 - (E^((1 + 2*m - 2*y)/(2*s^2))*(-1 + f))/f)^(-1)
If we now do the following substitution, we get the special case considered in the original post.
prob /. {f -> 1/2, m -> 0, s -> 1}
We get the same answer as the OP did using pencil and paper and @JimB did using his code. It is in a slightly different form, but if you test for equality, you get True.
Also, if anyone wants a numeric answer, I get the following:
prob /. {f -> 1/2, m -> 0, s -> 1, y -> 1} // N
0.622459
The following earlier answer is not correct. Sorry for sowing confusion.
Let's try something harder and then do your problem as a special case:
ydist[f_, m_, s_] := ProbabilityDistribution[{"CDF",
FullSimplify[
Probability[
X == 1 \[Conditioned]
X + Z >= y, {X \[Distributed] BernoulliDistribution[f],
Z \[Distributed]
NormalDistribution[m, s]}]]}, {y, -\[Infinity], \[Infinity]}]
You can then write
ydist[f,m,s]
and get an elaborate formula. Or you can plug in the values from your example:
ydist[1/2,0,1]
From there you can compute a PDF and bunch of other stuff. I would note that the answer produced by this method is more complicated than your paper and pencil version. So, either you have erred, I have erred, or the Wolfram engine has erred. Hmm.