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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After several hours of struggling, I've been unable to solve the following problem

Let $X,Y: (\Omega, \mathcal{S}) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{R})$ where $\mathcal{R}$ are the Borel Sets for the Reals. Show that $Y$ is measurable with respect to $\sigma(X) = \{ X^{-1}(B) : B \in \mathcal{R} \}$ if and only if there exists a function $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $Y(\omega) = f(X(\omega))$ for all $\omega \in \Omega$.

Firstly, I am assuming that for $Y$ to be measurable with respect to $\sigma(X)$ means that $\forall B \in \mathcal{R} \quad Y^{-1}(B) \in \sigma(X)$. The text (Probability: Theory and Examples) failed to define the phrase.

The problem following it begins describing a constructive proof where we split $Y$'s range into segments of increasingly fine granularity ( i.e. $\left [\frac{m}{2^{n}}, \frac{m+1}{2^{n}}\right)$ for each $m \in \mathbb{N}$ ) and define a function between $X$'s range and $Y$'s for each level of granularity ( i.e. by noting that $Y^{-1}\left(\left[\frac{m}{2^{n}}, \frac{m+1}{2^{n}}\right)\right)$ = $X^{-1}(B_{n,m})$ for some $B_{n,m} \in \mathcal{R}$ and defining $f_{n}(x) = \frac{m}{2^{n}}$ when $x \in B_{n,m}$ ), then need to show that $Y$ is equal to this function in the limit.

Unfortunately I can't even make sense of how each of these functions are defined, much less use them. In particular, I don't see how each $x \in \mathbb{R}$ maps to a single $B_{n,m}$, which would mean we would need to define $f_{n}$ via the infimum of all available values. Take the example that $X(\omega) = 0$ for all $\omega$.

As this constructive proof is a separate problem, there must then exist a non-constructive one as well which is perhaps more concise. I have been unable to make any headway in that respect.

share|cite|improve this question
Of course it is important here that $\mathcal R$ is the algebra of Borel sets in the real line. – GEdgar Aug 31 '11 at 13:09
I assume more was said in your text, but under what topology are you taking the limit of the functions $f_n$? By construction, measurability of $Y$ relative to the function $X = 0$ implies that $Y = y$ for some $y\in\mathbb{R}$ (if $\mathcal{R}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra). Then any function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ with the property that $f:0\mapsto y$ satisfies the theorem, but I don't see how your "constructive" method picks out one specific one. – Willie Wong Aug 31 '11 at 13:22
The construction, however, can be made better, simply by requiring that the $B_{n,m}$ satisfy some sort of descending condition. Since $[2m/2^{n+1}, (2m+1)/2^{n+1}) \subset [m/2^n, (m+1)/2^n)$, you have that you can require $B_{n+1,2m} \subset B_{n,m}$. Then you just need to pick (arbitrarily) $B_{n,m}$ at each $n$, this way the functions $f_n$ will reasonably "converge" to some function $f$. – Willie Wong Aug 31 '11 at 13:31
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Here is my favorite proof.

You probably know the following fact:

If $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ is a measurable space and $Y : \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ is a measurable function, then there exist measurable simple functions $Y_n : \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ with $Y_n \to Y$ pointwise.

Recall that a simple function (or simple random variable) is one of the form $Z = \sum_{i=1}^m a_i 1_{A_i}$, where $A_i \in \mathcal{F}$.

Now apply this fact to the measurable space $(\Omega, \sigma(X))$. We get that $Y = \lim Y_n$, where $Y_n = \sum_{i=1}^{m_n} a_{i,n} 1_{A_{i,n}}$. But $A_{i,n} \in \sigma(X)$, which means $A_{i,n} = X^{-1}(B_{i,n})$ for some Borel sets $B_{i,n}$. So if we set $f_n = \sum a_{i,n} 1_{B_{i,n}}$, we actually have $Y_n = f_n(X)$.

We'd like to just say: let $f = \lim f_n$ and then $Y = f(X)$. There's a slight problem in that each $f_n$ could do something crazy with values that are not in the range of $X$, and they need not converge on those values. But there's a simple workaround: set $f = \limsup f_n$. Of course $f$ is measurable, and we have $f(X) = \limsup f_n(X) = \limsup Y_n = Y$.

share|cite|improve this answer
That's a nice direct proof. Obviously, I'm too fond of the Monotone Class Theorem! – Byron Schmuland Sep 1 '11 at 19:18
@NateEldredge Could you explain why each $f_n$ could od something crazy with values that are not in the range of $X$. I am a little confused. – john Mar 17 '15 at 14:53
FYI: – Did May 18 at 8:07

An abstract approach works in the opposite direction.

Start with all bounded, measurable functions of $X$, that is, let ${\cal K}={\cal H}=\{f(X): f\in b{\mathcal{R}}\}$ where $b{\mathcal{R}}$ refers to all bounded, Borel-measurable $f: (\mathbb{R},\mathcal{R}) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},\mathcal{R}).$

Clearly ${\cal K}$ is multiplicative, and ${\cal H}$ is a vector space that contains the constant function $1_\Omega$. To show that ${\cal H}$ is a monotone vector space, suppose $0\leq f_n(X)\uparrow Y\leq M$ for some constant $M$. Replace $f_n$ by $g_n:=(f_n)_+\wedge M$ and we still have $0\leq g_n(X)\uparrow Y\leq M$. Set $g=\limsup_n g_n$ so that $g\in b{\mathcal{R}}$ and $$Y(\omega)=\limsup_n\ g_n(X(\omega))=g(X(\omega)).$$

This shows that ${\cal H}$ is a monotone vector space so we can invoke the functional Monotone Class Theorem and conclude that ${\cal H}$ contains every bounded function measurable with respect to $\sigma({\cal K})=\sigma(X)$. That is, every bounded $Y$ that is measurable with respect to $\sigma(X)$ can be expressed as a measurable function of $X$.

It is now easy to extend this to non-bounded $Y$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.