0
$\begingroup$

Consider a probabilty space $(\Omega ,\mathcal F, \mathbb P$) and two measurable random variables $X,Y:\Omega \rightarrow S$.

Define $\mathcal A :=\sigma(Y)\subset \mathcal F$ and $\mathcal B :=\sigma(X)\subset \mathcal F$.

Question: How are the conditional probabilities $\mathbb P \{X\in B|\mathcal A\}=\mathbb P \{X\in B|Y\}$ and $\mathbb P \{X\in B|Y=s\}$ connected?

My idea is, that for $A,B\subset S$ measurable, we have $\int_A \mathbb P \{X\in B|Y=y\}\mathbb P\{Y^{-1}(dy)\}=\mathbb P \{X\in B|Y\in A\}$, but how do we know there exists some (measurable?) $\mathbb P \{X\in B|Y=y\}$ as function of $y$? And how do I know how it looks (if I have $\mathbb P \{X \in B|\mathcal A\}$)?

Usually there is the connection $\mathbb P \{X\in B|Y \in A\}=\frac{\mathbb P \{X \in B,Y\in A\}}{\mathbb P \{Y\in A\}}$, but this doesn't help if $A=\{y\}$ with $\mathbb P \{Y=y\}=0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{P}(X \mid \mathcal{A})$ doesn't make sense since $X$ is not an event. You probably mean $\mathbb{E}[X \mid \mathcal{A}]$? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Apr 21 '15 at 14:46
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge I see the problems, I will think I have to edit the question... $\endgroup$ – Paul Apr 21 '15 at 14:54
1
$\begingroup$

If $\mathbb{P}(Y=s) > 0$ then $\mathbb{P}(X \in B \mid Y)(\omega) = \mathbb{P}(X \in B \mid Y = s) = \frac{\mathbb{P}(X \in B, Y = s)}{\mathbb{P}(Y=s)}$ for $\mathbb{P}$-almost every $\omega \in \{Y = s\}$. If $\mathbb{P}(Y=s) = 0$ then $\mathbb{P}(X \in B \mid Y = s)$ is undefined so the question has no meaning.

One statement that may be helpful is the Doob-Dynkin lemma, which says that for every random variable $Z$ which is $\sigma(Y)$ measurable, there exists a Borel function $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $Z = f(Y)$. (It's easy to prove: start with $Z = 1_A$ where $A = \{Y \in B\}$ for $B$ Borel, then extend to simple functions by linearity, and extend to measurable functions by monotone limits.) So there exists $f$ such that $\mathbb{P}(X \in B \mid Y) = f(Y)$ almost surely. You might then think of defining "$\mathbb{P}(X \in B \mid Y=y)$" as $f(y)$. However, the function $f$ is typically not unique, so for each real number $y$ the value might depend on which $f$ you choose, and so this "definition" is not well defined.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, as I see it, $f$ is well defined up to sets of $\mathbb P \{Y^{-1}\}$-measure zero, which is what I was looking for. $\endgroup$ – Paul Apr 21 '15 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Paul: Yes, that is true. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Apr 21 '15 at 15:58

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.