3
$\begingroup$

Let $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ be a probability space, $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\mathcal F_1,\ldots,\mathcal F_k\subseteq\mathcal A$. Remember the following terminology

  1. $(\mathcal F_1,\ldots,\mathcal F_k)$ is called independent if $$\operatorname P\left[\bigcap_{i\in I}A_i\right]=\prod_{i\in I}\operatorname P\left[A_i\right]\tag1$$ for all $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and $A_i\in\mathcal F_i$ for all $i\in I$.
  2. $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_2$ are called independent (or $\mathcal F_1$ is called independent of $\mathcal F_2$) if $(\mathcal F_1,\mathcal F_2)$ is independent.

Moreover, remember the following basic results:

  1. Let $K\subseteq\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and $(I_k)_{k\in K}$ be a disjoint subdivision of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$. If $(\mathcal F_1,\ldots,\mathcal F_k)$ is independent, then $\left(\bigcup_{i\in I_k}\mathcal F_i\right)_{k\in K}$ is independent.
  2. If $\mathcal F_i\cup\{\emptyset\}$ is closed under finite intersections for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, then $(\mathcal F_1,\ldots,\mathcal F_k)$ is independent if and only if $(\sigma(\mathcal F_1),\ldots,\sigma(\mathcal F_k))$ is independent.

Question: (a) Are we able to show $(\mathcal F_1,\ldots,\mathcal F_k)$ is independent if and only if $\mathcal F_i$ is independent of $\mathcal F_1\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal F_{i-1}$ for all $i\in\{2,\ldots,k\}$?

(b) Or do we need to replace $\mathcal F_1\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal F_{i-1}$ by $\sigma(\mathcal F_1\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal F_{i-1})$ and/or assume that each $\mathcal F_i$ is a $\sigma$-algebra?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ $1$ and $2$ are equivalent because $A_i$ is independent of $A_j$ is the same as $A_j$ is independent of $A_i$. Further, if you write $A_i$ and $A_j$ in a pairwise matrix form you will notice that the matrix is a symmetric matrix. Moreover, at least for me, $A_i$ is independent of $A_i$ doesn't make sense vis-a-vis the diagonal entries of the matrix are not contributing to the counting process. $\endgroup$
    – Kumar
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ Also, note that pairwise independence is a strong result than $A_1\cup A_2 \cup \cdots\cup A_{i-1}$ and $A_i$ are independent. $\endgroup$
    – Kumar
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Kumar If you take three events $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that any two of them are independent, but they are not jointly independent. Isn't then $\mathcal A_i:=\sigma(A_i)$ a counter-example for "(2.) implies (1.)"? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't get what you mean by " jointly independent "? If $A_1\cap A_2=\phi$, $A_2\cap A_3=\phi$, and $A_1\cap A_3=\phi$, then $(A_1\cup A_2)\cap A_3=\phi$ $\endgroup$
    – Kumar
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Kumar It means that (4.) holds. If each $\mathcal A_i$ is a $\sigma$-algebra, then this reduce to the following: $\mathcal A_1,\ldots,\mathcal A_n$ are (jointly) independent if $\text P[\bigcap_{i=1}^nA_n]=\prod_{i=1}^n\text P[A_i]$ for all $A_1\in\mathcal A_1,\ldots,A_n\in\mathcal A_n$. They are pairwise independent if $\text P[A\cap B]=\text P[A]\text P[B]$ for all $A\in\mathcal A_i,B\in\mathcal A_j$ for all $i\ne j$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Nov 2, 2020 at 18:55

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

$\mathcal{A}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_n$ are independent if and only if $\mathcal{A}_i$ is independent of each $\mathcal{A}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_{i-1}$, for all $i=2,\ldots,n$

$(\Rightarrow)$ It follows from the definition of independence that $$\Bbb{P}[X_1 \in A_1, \ldots , X_{i-1} \in A_{i-1}, X_i \in A_i] =\\ \Bbb{P}[X_1 \in A_1, \ldots , X_{i-1} \in A_{i-1}, X_i \in A_i, X_{i+1} \in \Bbb{R}\ldots X_n \in \Bbb{R}] = \\ \Bbb{P}[X_1 \in A_1]\ldots \Bbb{P}[ X_{i-1} \in A_{i-1}]\Bbb{P}[ X_i \in A_i]\Bbb{P}[ X_{i+1} \in \Bbb{R}]\ldots\Bbb{P}[ X_n \in \Bbb{R}] = \\ \Bbb{P}[X_1 \in A_1]\ldots \Bbb{P}[ X_{i-1} \in A_{i-1}]\Bbb{P}[ X_i \in A_i] $$

$(\Leftarrow)$ $$\Bbb{P} [X_1 \in A_1, \ldots X_n \in A_n] = \Bbb{P} [X_1 \in A_1, \ldots X_{n-1} \in A_{n-1}] \Bbb{P} [X_n \in A_n] \\ = \cdots = \Bbb{P}[X_1 \in A_1]\ldots \Bbb{P}[ X_{n-1} \in A_{n-1}]\Bbb{P}[ X_n \in A_n]$$

which is the condition of independence

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Is it important, that we are considering $\sigma$-algebras? Or would the same argumentation hold, if the $A_i$ would be families of sets? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Jul 2, 2015 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ the recursion in the last step still works fine even if the family is not a sigma algebra. But this might not give you independence if the family is not a generating class, closed for intersections $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2015 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ What are the $X_i$'s? Random variables? Are the $A_i$'s elements of the $\sigma$-algebras? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Commented Nov 29, 2015 at 21:04
0
$\begingroup$

For (a) we have the following simple counterexample. Let $\Omega=\{0,1,2,3\}$, $\mathcal A$ be the family of all subsets of $\Omega$ and $P(A)=|A|/|\Omega|$ for each $A\in\mathcal A$. Let $k=3$. For each integer $i$ from $1$ to $k$ put $A_i=\{0,i\}$ and $\mathcal F_i=\{A_i\}$. Since $$P(A_i\cap A_j)=\frac 14=\left(\frac 12\right)^2=P(A_i)P(A_j)$$ for each distinct integers $i,j$ from $1$ to $k$, we see that $\mathcal F_2$ is independent from $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_3$ is independent from $\mathcal F_1\cup \mathcal F_2$. On the other hand, $(\mathcal F_1, \mathcal F_2, \mathcal F_3)$ is not independent, because $$P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3)=\frac 14\ne \left(\frac 12\right)^3=P(A_1)P(A_2)P(A_3).$$

Concerning (b) we can prove that $(\mathcal F_1, \mathcal F_2,\dots, \mathcal F_k)$ is independent under weaker assumptions, which are sufficient to justify the following sequence of equalities for any choice $A_i\in\mathcal F_i$ for each $i$
$$P(A_1\cap \dots \cap A_k)=$$ $$P(A_1\cap \dots \cap A_{k-1})P(A_k)=$$ $$P(A_1\cap \dots \cap A_{k-2})P(A_{k-1})P(A_k)=$$ $$\dots$$ $$P(A_1)\cdots P(A_k).$$

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .