Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A probability measure defined on a sample space $\Omega$ has the following properties:

  1. For each $E \subset \Omega$, $0 \le P(E) \le 1$
  2. $P(\Omega) = 1$
  3. If $E_1$ and $E_2$ are disjoint subsets $P(E_1 \cup E_2) = P(E_1) + P(E_2)$

The above definition defines a measure that is finitely additive (by induction) but not necessarily countably additive.

What is a probability measure that would be finitely additive but not countably additive (for a countable sample space $\Omega$)?

The example that I have seen most commonly on forums (this and elsewhere) is to set $P(E) = 0$ if $E$ is finite and $P(E) = 1$ if $E$ is co-finite. But that is not a probability measure as defined above since it is not defined on every subset of $\Omega$.

So an example of such a probability measure, or what is the reasoning that a finitely additive probability measure is not always countably additive?

share|improve this question
    
I doubt that a general (probability-) measure has to be defined on all subsets of $\Omega$. If it is defined for a set $A$, then $A$ is said to be measurable. –  Berci Sep 30 '12 at 13:41
    
@Berci I believe that would make sense for uncountable sets and the restriction exists because a general measure is countably additivity. But for a countable set, you should be able to define a probability measure for each subset. I edited the question to make it clarify countable sample space. –  kostub Oct 1 '12 at 6:31

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a free ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. Let $P(A)=1$ if $A\in\mathcal{U}$ and $P(A)=0$ if $A\notin\mathcal{U}$. I think it is impossible to give an explicit example of a finitely additive measure on a $\sigma$-algebra that is not countably additive, but our resident set theorists might be able to tell you more about that.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks very helpful. I can see why a free ultrafilter will have this property, while a principle ultrafilter will not. Moreover, the Ultrafilter Lemma asserts the existence of a free ultrafilter (which contains the co-finite filter). However I cannot quite visualize what such a free ultrafilter on $\N$ will contain. And why can't such an ultrafilter be explicitly described? –  kostub Oct 1 '12 at 6:04
1  
@kostub: There are models without the axiom of choice in which there are no free ultrafilters (at all!), so it is impossible to give an explicit description of a free ultrafilter. Using the axiom of choice we can prove such filter exists, but not much more. –  Asaf Karagila Oct 1 '12 at 7:33

In the following note the author shows that a finitely additive diffused measure on $\mathcal{P}(\omega)$ can be used to define a non Ramsey family. Combining this with a result of Mathias, it follows that it is consistent with $ZFC$ that there is no (ordinal) definable finitely additive diffused total measure on $\mathcal{P}(\omega)$.

share|improve this answer

In this interesting note, the author proves the following: It is consistent to have a finitely additive total extension of Lebesgue measure on $[0, 1]$ such that, although, the measure zero sets form a sigma ideal, there is no real valued measurable cardinal below continnum.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.