Given the question: $$\text{Show that}\ F_X(x\mid A) = \dfrac{\Pr(A\mid X\leq x)}{\Pr(A)}\cdot F_X(x)$$

I have seen the solution via probabilities 'directly'.

My question is whether the following method was (unnecessary extra work, but nonetheless) valid:

\begin{align} & F_X(x\mid A) = \int_{-\infty}^x f_X(t\mid A)\, dt \\[8pt] = {} & \int_{-\infty}^x \dfrac{\Pr(A\mid X=t)}{\Pr(A)} f_X(t)\, dt \\[8pt] = {} & \dfrac{\Pr(A\mid X\leq x)}{\Pr(A)} \int_{-\infty}^x f_X(t)\, dt \\[8pt] = {} & \dfrac{\Pr(A\mid X\leq x)}{\Pr(A)}\cdot F_X(x) \end{align}

I suppose my doubts lie in the original formulation as integral of $f_X(x\mid A)$, and also the extraction of $\Pr(X=x)$ to be $\Pr(X\leq x)$ outside the integral - which seems to intuitively make sense, but I'm not sure that's actually sound?

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the edit @michael-hardy - you ask a math question, and learn some better tex for free! :) $\endgroup$
    – OJFord
    May 17, 2015 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ I see you are trying to use Bayes rule on the conditional PDF. Some quick thoughts on this: 1. What's your definition of $f_X(t~|~A)$? I would think of something like: $\frac{f_X(t)\mathbf{1}_A(t)}{\int_{A}f(\tau)d\tau}$. 2. Since $Pr(X=t)=0$, what is the definition of $Pr(A~|~X=t)$? $\endgroup$
    – Aprilius
    May 17, 2015 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Aprilius : I would not take that to be a definition. The conditional density (which I prefer to denote as $x\mapsto f_{X\mid A}(x)$) is characterized by the fact that $\displaystyle \Pr(X\in S\mid A) = \int_S f_{X \mid A}(x)\,dx$ for every Borel set $S$. It is also characterized by the seemingly-but-demonstrably-not-really-weaker statement that for every number $x_0$, $\displaystyle\Pr(X\le x_0\mid A) = \int_{-\infty}^{x_0} f_{X\mid A}(x)\,dx$. Those can be taken to be a definition. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ May 17, 2015 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ The more substantial question is what one means by $\Pr(A\mid X=x)$. One cannot define it as a quotient $\Pr(A\ \&\ X=x)/\Pr(X=x)$ when $X$ has a continuous distribution because that amounts to zero over zero. Nonetheless there is a reasonable way to define it. Maybe I'll post an answer below. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ May 17, 2015 at 22:57

1 Answer 1


@Michael Hardy, you are definitely correct. Also, I found this question interesting since it kind of connects the undergraduate notions of conditional probability with the measure theoretical definitions. This is too long for a comment so I just posted it as an answer. See if I got this correct:

Given a probability space $(\Omega,~\mathcal{F},P)$, define the sub-$\sigma$ algebra of $\mathcal{F}$ as

$$ \mathcal{G}=\{\emptyset,~A,~A^c,~\Omega\}, $$ for some set $A\in\mathcal{F}$. Then, we have $E[1_B~|~\mathcal{G}]$ satisfies $$ E[1_B~|~\mathcal{G}]\int_Af_X(t)dt =\int_A1_B(t)f_X(t)dt,~\textrm{on}~A,~~~~(1) $$ where $1_B(\cdot)$ is the indicator function. We didn't take quotient for the reason which is commented by @Michael Hardy above. This can be readily verified by computing

$$ E[E[1_B~|~\mathcal{G}];~A]=\int_AE[1_B~|~\mathcal{G}]f_X(t)dt =\int_A1_B(t)f_X(t)dt=E[1_B;~A]. $$ For simplicity, we will denote $E[1_B~|~\mathcal{G}]$ on $A$ as $E[1_B~|~A]$.

Similarly, it can be verified that $E[1_A~|~X\leq x]$ satisfies

$$ E[1_A~|~X\leq x]\int_{-\infty}^xf_X(t)dt =\int_{-\infty}^x 1_A(t)f_X(t)dt.~~~~(2) $$

With these preparations, I can work out a similar proof as OP but in a more strict way: \begin{align} F_X(x~|~A)=&E[1_{\{X\leq x\}}~|~A]\\ =&\frac{\int_A1_{\{X\leq x\}}(t)f_X(t)dt}{\int_Af_X(t)dt}\\ =&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x1_{A}(t)f_X(t)dt}{\int_Af_X(t)dt}\\ =&\frac{E[1_A~|~X\leq x]\int_{-\infty}^xf_X(t)dt}{\int_Af_X(t)dt}\\ =&\frac{Pr(A~|~X\leq x)F_X(x)}{Pr(A)}, \end{align}
where the second equality follows from $Pr(A)>0$ and (1), and the fourth equality follows from (2).


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.