i read that sigma field is used to make a measurable space .


why don’t we define the measure on the whole omega (sample space) (set of all possible out comes) ?

Wikipedia says “In general, if one wants to associate a consistent size to each subset of a given set while satisfying the other axioms of a measure, one only finds trivial examples like the counting measure. This problem was resolved by defining measure only on a sub-collection of all subsets; the so-called measurable subsets, which are required to form a σ-algebra”

what other kinds of useful measures do we have in probability ? ( i mean non_theoretical ones ) that we cannot have if we define the measure over the whole omega?


The Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ is an important example for a (probability) measure which cannot be defined on the power set $\mathcal{P}([0,1])$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ could you explain more. what is Lebesgue measure and why it cannot be defined on the power set. $\endgroup$ – kiyarash Dec 28 '14 at 17:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you aren't familiar with Lebesgue measure and integration then you should probably study a bit of that before trying to dive into measure-theoretic probability. Terence Tao has a free introductory text on his website: terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/measure-book1.pdf $\endgroup$ – Math1000 Dec 28 '14 at 22:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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