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.

I've been reading through a math. stats. book, and I'm a little confused with the concept of measurable random variables. The book states:

Let $(E, \mathcal{E})$ and $(F,\mathcal{F})$ be two measurable spaces. A random variable $X : E → F$ is called measurable (relative to $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{F}$) if $X^{−1}(\Lambda) \in \mathcal{E}$ for all $\Lambda \in \mathcal{F}$.

Now, here's my question: If some says "$X:(\Omega,\mathcal{A}) → (\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B})$" without defining $\mathcal{B}$, then I can assume $\mathcal{B}$ is just the image of $X$, right? But, with this assumption, wouldn't all random variables be measurable? It seems like all random variables would be measurable, then, unless $\mathcal{B}$ was constructed in such a way that $X$ would not map onto $\mathcal{B}$. Is that true? Can anyone give me an example of a meaningful scenario where we'd have non-measurable random variables?

The reason I ask is because I'm working on this homework problem:

Given $(\Omega,\mathcal{A}, P)$, let $\mathcal{A}'=\{A ∪ N:A ∈ \mathcal{A},N ∈ \mathcal{N}\}$, where $\mathcal{N}$ are the null sets (as in Theorem 6.4). Suppose $X = Y$ almost surely where $X$ and $Y$ are two real-valued functions on $Ω$. Show that $X: (Ω,\mathcal{A}') → (\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B})$ is measurable if and only if $Y : (Ω,\mathcal{A}') → (\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B})$ is measurable.

But, if these two $\mathcal{B}$'s are just defined as the images of the functions, isn't this trivial?

share|improve this question
3  
I guess that $\mathcal{B}$ is meant to be the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$. –  usul Apr 11 '13 at 21:51
    
I thought of that too... But, then this seems like a counterexample (and maybe here's where I'm wrong): Let $\Omega=\mathbb{R}$, and let $X$ be the identity mapping. Suppose P([0,1])=1. Then $Y$ could map every number not in [0,1] to 2. Doesn't this satisfy the conditions but violate the statement to be proved? –  random_forest_fanatic Apr 11 '13 at 21:58
    
Random variables are always measurable. This part of the definition is badly phrased. –  Did Apr 11 '13 at 23:07
    
Sorry, how is that a counterexample? Explaining it may help. –  Sharkos Apr 11 '13 at 23:09
    
In my "counterexample", $X$ is an onto function (any element in $\mathbb{R}$ is mapped to). Also, $X=Y$ almost surely because the two functions agree on all values with non-zero probability. But, $Y$ isn't measurable because no value is mapped to 1.5, for example. –  random_forest_fanatic Apr 11 '13 at 23:18

3 Answers 3

up vote 1 down vote accepted

First of all, if you have the same $\cal B$ in two places within the same context then they represent the same object. So it is probably safe to assume it is not something defined by $X$ itself (then $Y$ would have to define something slightly different, which would be weird).

Secondly in the context of probability and measure theory, it is usually the case that $\cal B$ denotes the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of the space, in this case $\Bbb R$.

Lastly it seems that you have taken this from some text somewhere. Look in the text preceding your quote and find out what does $\cal B$ stands for. If this was taken from a homework assignment, send an email to your TA or professor and ask for clarification.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the response! Here's my responses: 1. Sure, I'd agree that the two $\mathcal{B}$'s seem like they should be the same. 2. Yeah, that makes sense. But, I'm having a hard time believing this statement then, because I don't see a reason why $X$ or $Y$ would have to map onto all of $\mathcal{B}$, or why one mapping onto all of $\mathcal{B}$ implies the other does. 3. Yes, this is from a text. But, the problem doesn't clarify what $\mathcal{B}$ is, and I'm working through this textbook for my own education, not a course. So, I'm outta luck there :) –  random_forest_fanatic Apr 11 '13 at 23:23
    
Josh, let me work backwards. (3) if you are working through a textbook then you can definitely find the definition of $\cal B$ somewhere in there. Look for a symbol index at the end, or perhaps for "Borel" in the general index and look for a notational convention. (2) There is no need for $X$ to be surjective or anything. We just require that whenever we take a Borel set, its preimage is from the $\sigma$-algebra associated with the domain of $X$. –  Asaf Karagila Apr 11 '13 at 23:26
    
So, if I'm understanding correctly, $X$ being measurable basically means this: If $B \in \mathcal{B}$ and $X(A)=B$ for some $A \in 2^\Omega$, then $A \in \mathcal{A'}$. My confusion is that I had thought measurable meant that: For all $B \in \mathcal{B}$, there exists some $A \in \mathcal{A}$ such that $X(A)=B$. –  random_forest_fanatic Apr 12 '13 at 11:45
    
@Josh: No. This is not what this means. It is possible that there is some $A\notin\cal A'$ such that $X(A)\in\cal B$. What we do require that whenever $B\in\cal B$ then $\{a\mid X(a)\in B\}\in\cal A'$. If $X$ is not injective then there is a possible difference between the two notions. –  Asaf Karagila Apr 12 '13 at 11:46
    
Got it! Thanks so much! –  random_forest_fanatic Apr 12 '13 at 11:56

In your counterexample I guess you mean that the probability of the interval is one and the rest of the line has measure zero. If that is what you mean then X and Y are equal almost surely.

share|improve this answer

Definition(Measurable function): Let $f$ be a function from a measurable space $(\Omega , \mathcal F)$ into the real numbers. We say that the function $f$ is measurable if for each Borel set $B \in \mathcal B$ , the set $\{\omega; f(\omega) \in B\} ∈ \mathcal F$.

Definition( random variable): A random variable $X$ is a measurable function from a probability space $(\Omega , \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$ into $(\mathbb R, \mathcal B(\mathcal R), \lambda)$, where $\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure.

share|improve this answer
    
Please do not make your font size twice as big as everything else. –  Hurkyl 2 days ago

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.