3
$\begingroup$

In the lecture about probability theory, we had the following defintion for independence of a finite number of sub-sigma-algebras on the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{A},P)$:

The sub-sigma-algebras $\mathcal{B}_1, \dotsc, \mathcal{B}_n \subseteq \mathcal{A}$ are independent if

$$P[B_1 \cap \dotsb \cap B_n] = P[B_1 ] \dotsb P[B_n]$$

for all $B_i \in \mathcal{B_i}, 1 \leq i \leq n$.

I know from an other basic course about probability, that one says that a finite set of events $A_1, \dotsc, A_n$ is independent for all $I \subseteq \{1, \dotsc, n\}$ we have that

$$P[\bigcap_{i \in I} A_i]=\prod_{i \in I} P[A_i].$$

This above definition is for events in the same sigma-algebra, so $A_i \in \mathcal{A}$ for all $i$?

Now I wonder why one would not define sigma-algebras to be independent if for any subset of sigma-algebras the above property (of factorization of the intersection of the events) holds. In particular, the following confuses me: We had a remark that says each subsequence of independent sigma-algebras is independent. Why is this the case? Is it thus obvious that

$$P[B_1 \cap B_2 \cap B_3] = P[B_1] P[B_2]P[B_3]$$

implies

$$P[B_1 \cap B_2] = P[B_1] P[B_2]?$$

Moreover, here I could find a different definition of independence of events based on independence of sigma-algebras. Are both definitions correct (hence equivalent) or am I missing something with the above definition for independence of events? Does one define independence of events with help of independence of sigma-algebras or vice versa?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To check the independence of sigma-algebras, the "intersection-product" property for $n$ events suffices since one can choose $\Omega$ for some $B_i$s (because $\Omega$ is in every sub-sigma-algebra), say, for every $i$ not in $I$, and then one is left with the "intersection-product" property over $I$. In other words, if $$P[B_1 \cap \dotsb \cap B_n] = P[B_1 ] \dotsb P[B_n]$$ for all $B_i \in \mathcal{B_i}$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, then, for all $I \subseteq \{1, \dotsc, n\}$ and all $B_i \in \mathcal{B_i}$, $i$ in $I$, $$P[\bigcap_{i \in I} B_i]=\prod_{i \in I} P[B_i].$$ $\endgroup$ – Did Oct 30 '15 at 7:41
  • $\begingroup$ Related? Mutual Independence Definition Clarification, Mutual Independence Definition Clarification $\endgroup$ – BCLC Dec 6 '16 at 13:29
4
$\begingroup$

Events $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_n$ are mutually independent provided $$ P[\cap_{k=1}^n B_k^*]=\prod_{k=1}^n P[B^*_k] $$ for all possible choices of each $B_k^*$ as either $B_k$ or $B_k^c$. This entail $2^n$ identities that must hold.

Notice that if $B_1,B_2,B_3$ are independent in this sense, then

$\begin{align*}P[B_1\cap B_2] &=P[B_1\cap B_2\cap B_3]+P[B_1\cap B_2\cap B_3^c]\\ &=P[B_1]P[B_2]P[B_3]+P[B_1]P[B_2]P[B_3^c]\\ &=P[B_1]P[B_2]\left\{P[B_3]+ P[B_3^c]\right\}\\ &=P[B_1]P[B_2]\end{align*} $

etc., so that $B_1$ and $B_2$ are independent, yielding the subsequence property you mention.

Also, events $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_n$ are mutually independent in the above sense if and only if the $\sigma$-algebras $\mathcal B_1,\ldots,\mathcal B_n$ are independent, where $\mathcal B_k=\{\emptyset,\Omega,B_k,B_k^c\}$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Note that thet sub $\sigma$-algebras of $\mathscr F$ all contain $\Omega$. Hence

$$P(B_1, ..., B_n) = P(B_1) ... P(B_n )$$

is equivalent to

$$P(B_{i_1}, ..., B_{i_j}) = P(B_{i_1}) ... P(B_{i_j})$$

where $\{i_1,i_2,...,i_j\} \subseteq \{1,2,...,n\}$

by setting $$B_{k}= \Omega \ \forall k \in \{1,2,...,n\} \cap \{i_1,i_2,...,i_j\}^C$$

$\endgroup$

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.