Let $\mu$ and $\mu^\prime$ be probability measures over the sigma algebra $\Sigma$ consisting of the Lebesgue measurable subsets of $[0,1]$. Suppose also that $\mu$ and $\mu^\prime$ assign measure $0$ to all and only null sets. (Notation: if $X$ is measurable, let $\mu_X$ denote the renormalized measure over measurable subsets of $X$: $\mu_X(Y)=\mu(Y)/\mu(X)$ (and similarly for $\mu^\prime$).)

Now suppose that we have a collection of functions:

$$\{f_X:X\rightarrow \overline{X} \mid X\in \Sigma, 0<\lambda(X)<1\}$$

such that for every way of partitioning $[0,1]$ into two sets, $X$ and $\overline{X}$, $f_X$ preserves the measure both between $\mu_X$ and $\mu_{\overline{X}}$ and between $\mu^\prime_X$ and $\mu^\prime_{\overline{X}}$. (In other words $\mu_X(f^{-1}(Y)) = \mu_{\overline{X}}(Y)$, and similarly for $\mu^\prime$.)

Does it follow that $\mu=\mu^\prime$?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Firstly, μ, μ′ and λ are absolutely continuous wrt one another. Its therefore okay to assume μ′=λ. From there, you've got some real problems. You could assume μ([0,1/2])=a<1/2, for instance, and then chase what that means about the measures of other sets, until you have enough information to determine μ. Then, telling if μ∼λ is actually tricky. The best result is $$\int\sqrt{ \frac{d\mu}{dm} \frac{d\lambda}{dm} } dm >0$$ iff μ∼λ where m=μ+λ. There's also a Haar measure thing going on maybe, related to $\langle f_X \ |\ \lambda(X)=1/2 \rangle$ but that's an ugly group. Great problem! $\endgroup$ – user24142 May 12 '15 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with the other commenter that this is a "great problem", but could you provide some motivation or context for your question? It might provide some insight into a solution. $\endgroup$ – Matt Rosenzweig May 14 '15 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ I can try! I'm a philosopher, not a mathematician so my motivations may not be that helpful for solving the problem... $\endgroup$ – Andrew Bacon May 14 '15 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ If you define a operation on propositions, written $A\rightarrow B$, by $AB \cup f_{\bar{A}}^{-1}(B)$ then this operation has the property that the probability of $A\rightarrow B$ is the conditional probability of $B$ on $A$. Here the probability is measured by $\mu$ or $\mu^\prime$, as given in the question. I suspect that for certain choices of families of functions there's an interesting class of measures that makes the probability of $A\rightarrow B$ the same as conditional probability. Connectives like $A\rightarrow B$ are potentially useful for modelling natural language conditionals. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Bacon May 14 '15 at 16:58

I assume that all $f_X$ are bijections (so that the inverse is measurable) - or at least I need the sets $f_X^{-1}(Y)$ to generate the $\sigma$-algebra on $X$. I suspect that a similar argument could somehow work in the arbitrary case, but just suspect at this point.

In the notations of the question, denote $p=d\mu/d\mu'$, then for a measurable $Y\subset \overline{X}$ \begin{multline*} \int_{f_X^{-1}(Y)}p(x)\mu'_X(dx)= \frac{\mu(X)}{\mu'(X)}\int_{f_X^{-1}(Y)}\mu_X(dx)= \frac{\mu(X)}{\mu'(X)}\int_Y \mu_\overline{X}(dx)=\\= \frac{\mu(X)\mu'(\overline{X})}{\mu'(X)\mu(\overline{X})} \int_Yp(x)\mu'_\overline{X}(dx) =\frac{\mu(X)\mu'(\overline{X})}{\mu'(X)\mu(\overline{X})} \int_{f_X^{-1}(Y)}p(f_X(x))\mu'_X(dx). \end{multline*}

Since $Y$ is arbitrary, we get that $\mu'$-a.s. on $X$ $$ p(x)=\frac{\mu(X)\mu'(\overline{X})}{\mu'(X)\mu(\overline{X})} p(f_X(x))=C_Xp(f_X(x)). $$ Suppose that $\mu'(p>1+\delta)>0$ for some $\delta$, then $\mu'(p<1)>0$, as $p$ is the Radon-Nikodim density between probability measures. Choose $1+\delta<a<b$ such that $\mu'(a<p<b)>0$ and $b-a<\delta$ (by dividing $(\delta,\infty)$ on the equal intervals of length less than $\delta$). Take $\overline{X}\subset \{a<p<b\}$ such that $\mu'(\overline{X})>0$ and $\mu'(X\cap \{a<p<b\})>0$ (it can be done since $\mu'$ is equivalent to Lebesgue measure).

Depending on the constant $C_X$, we have that $p$ has values in $(C_Xa,C_Xb)$ a.s. on $X$. Since $X$ contains $\{p<1\}$, $C_X<1/a$ and hence $p(X)\subset (-\infty, 1+\delta/a)$. But $X$ also contains a positive subset of $\{a<p<b\}$, thus, since $1+\delta/a<a$, we get a contradiction and it follows that $p\equiv 1$, hence $\mu=\mu'$.

EDIT (idea):

My idea is that if \begin{array}{ll} \nu_X=\nu_{\overline X}f^{-1},\\ \mu_X=\mu_{\overline X}f^{-1},\\ \nu=p\mu, \end{array} then, applying heuristically $f^{-1}$ two times with and without the density $p$, we get (up to normalizing constants): \begin{array}{ll} \nu_{\overline X}f^{-1}=(p\mu_{\overline X}) f^{-1}=(pf^{-1})(\mu_{\overline X}f^{-1}),\\ \nu_{\overline X}f^{-1}=\nu_X=p\mu_X=p(\mu_{\overline X}f^{-1}). \end{array} It means that $p=pf^{-1}$, up to a constant, which seems unlikely for a non-trivial $p$. Rigorously, after the corresponding sequence of integral equations above, we get $(p\circ f)\mu_{\overline X}= p\mu_{\overline X}$ only on the sets of the form $f^{-1}(Y)$, so I need the family of such sets to be rich enough to distinguish values of $p$ to get $p=p\circ f$ a.s. In particular, when $f$ is bijection, this family is the whole Borel $\sigma$-algebra and the idea works.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, this was the most helpful answer. I'm still a little bit unsure about the last of those integral identities. Is this where the bijectivity assumption is coming in? Do you know if it's possible to do without it? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Bacon May 20 '15 at 17:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I added the general idea and explanation on where the bijectivity is used. $\endgroup$ – Jorkug May 20 '15 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks -- that explanation was v. helpful! $\endgroup$ – Andrew Bacon May 20 '15 at 19:06

Your assumption about having a collection of functions satisfying ... holds for any pair of mutually absolutely continuous atomless probability measures on the unit interval. So every pair $\mu \neq \mu'$ is a counterexample. To show this it is enough to prove the following.

Claim 1: Let $X, Y$ be complete separable metric spaces. Let $\mu_1, \mu_2$ be two atomless Borel measures on $X$ and $\nu_1, \nu_2$ be atomless Borel measures on $Y$. Then there exists a mod-null bijection $f: X \to Y$ such that $f$ is measure preserving w.r.t. $\mu_i, \nu_i$ for $i = 1, 2$.

To show Claim 1 you should first show something like the following:

Claim 2: Let $f:[0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}$ be such that $\int_{[0, 1]} f = 0$ (lebesgue intergral). Then for every $\delta \in [0, 1]$ there is a subset $A \subseteq [0, 1]$ of lebesgue measure $\delta$ such that $\int_{A} f = 0$.

Using Claim 2 you can construct countably branching trees of compact subsets of $X, Y$ respectively such that the nodes agree in their respective measures. This helps you prove claim 1.

This is the rough idea. I think it should work.

  • $\begingroup$ Would you please flesh out your argument a little more? Is the idea to use the first claim to give the existence of the measure-preserving maps $f:X\rightarrow\overline{X}$, for any partition $X\cup\overline{X}=[0,1]$? Regarding the second claim, I don't see how to obtain a probability measure on $[0,1]$ that gives a counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Matt Rosenzweig May 16 '15 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ I added some more comments. I hope this helps. $\endgroup$ – hot_queen May 16 '15 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that for any measure of a certain sort on $[0,1]$, you can find a family of functions meeting the conditions stated in the question. But how does this show the possibility of two distinct measures, $\mu$ and $\mu^\prime$, satisfying those conditions relative to a single family of functions? As far as I can see, the family of functions you construct for $\mu$ might be different from the family constructed for $\mu^\prime$. Unless I'm missing something. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Bacon May 16 '15 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ That is the content of claim 1 which should follow from claim 2. The idea is to construct countably branching trees of compact subsets of $X, Y$ such that each node in the tree for $X$ has same $\mu_i$-measure and similarly on the $Y$ side. $\endgroup$ – hot_queen May 18 '15 at 19:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think I do get bijections (modulo null) in claim 1 - so my answer is incompatible with Jorkug's :P. I will try to check the details and post them if they work out. Sorry for the sktechiness. $\endgroup$ – hot_queen May 20 '15 at 17:30

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.