Let $X$ be a random variable on a measurable space $(\Omega,\mathcal A)$ and $\mathcal F$, $\mathcal G$ two sub-$\sigma$-algebras of $\mathcal A$. Assume that $$Y:=\operatorname E\left[X\mid\mathcal G\right]$$ is $\mathcal F$-measurable. I'm curious whether or not $(\ast)$ in $$Y=\operatorname E\left[Y\mid\mathcal F\right]\stackrel{(\ast)}=\operatorname E\left[\operatorname E\left[X\mid\mathcal F\right]\mid\mathcal G\right]\tag 1$$

holds. I know, that if $\mathcal G\subseteq\mathcal F$, then $(1)$ is just the tower property of conditional expectation.

I've tried the following, but I'm not sure if I've made a mistake: Let $Z:=\operatorname E\left[Y\mid\mathcal F\right]$. Then, $$Z=\operatorname E\left[Z\mid\mathcal A\right]\stackrel{\text{tower property}}=\operatorname E\left[\operatorname E\left[Z\mid\mathcal A\right]\mid\mathcal G\right]\stackrel{\text{tower property}}=\operatorname E\left[Z\mid\mathcal G\right]\;.\tag 2$$ Why do I think that this might be wrong? Well, I don't understand why we should otherwise force $\mathcal G\subseteq\mathcal F$ in the statement of the tower property, since we could always switch to $\mathcal A$ in an intermediate steplike in $(2)$.



Suppose $X$ can have two states, state $A$ and state $B$, with values 0 and 1 respectively. Consider $\mathcal F$ and $\mathcal G$ to be related to $A$ and $B$. Try to make it as simple as possible, so you don't have to take some complicated expectation.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Do you think, that this is a counterexample? If so, could you say what in $(2)$ is wrong? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Sep 30 '15 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ I think the second use of the tower property? The first equality holds because $\mathcal G \subseteq \mathcal A$; ignoring the first equality, for the second to hold I think you'd need $\mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal G$ in the same way. (Note that $\{\mathcal G = \mathcal A\} \iff \{\mathcal G \subseteq \mathcal A, \mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal G\}$, and of course $(2)$ ignoring the left-hand equality clearly holds if $\mathcal A = \mathcal G$. $\endgroup$ – Sam T Sep 30 '15 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ The first equality is correct, since $Z$ is $\mathcal A$-measurable. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Sep 30 '15 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The second equality is wrong, since we would need $\mathcal A\subseteq\mathcal G$. So, you're right. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Sep 30 '15 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ Glad I could help! This topic isn't my forté, so ti's good practice for me too! $\endgroup$ – Sam T Sep 30 '15 at 18:03

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.