4
$\begingroup$

Let $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},P)$ be a probability space and $\mathscr{G}\subset\mathscr{F}$ a $\sigma$-field contained in $\mathscr{F}$. If we define the finite measure v on $\mathscr{G}$ by

$\text{v}(G)=P(A\cap G)$ for all $G\in\mathscr{G}$,

then my question concerns the role of the Radon-Nikodym theorem in the definition of conditional probabilities used by Patrick Billingsley (1995) in his textbook "Probability and Measure", which he denotes by $P[A\|\mathscr{G}]$, and defines by;

i) $P[A\|\mathscr{G}]$ being measurable $\mathscr{G}$,

ii) $\int_G P[A\|\mathscr{G}] \, dP=P(A\cap G):=\operatorname{v}(A\cap G)$ for all $G\in\mathscr{G}$.

If $P_0$ is $P$ restricted to $\mathscr{G}$, then since $\operatorname{v}\ll P_0$ for $P_0<\infty$, and therefore $\operatorname{v}<\infty$, I think I can see that the Radon-Nikodym theorem guarantees the existence of a real-valued, non-negative and $\mathscr{G}$-measurable function $f$, integrable w.r.t $P_0$ and hence $P$, satisfying i) and ii). Billingsley then labels $f:=P[A\|\mathscr{G}]$ (note: the definition above uses $P$ not $P_0$ I think since $\operatorname{v}(G)=\int_G f \, dP=\int_G f \, dP_0$ for all $G\in\mathscr{G}$).

My question is why does the Radon-Nikodym theorem guarantee that $f$ is a probability, since as far as I can tell it only guarantees it is non-negative? I can see that $f$ is a random variable with source probability space $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},P_0)$ and target space $(\mathbb{R},\mathscr{R},\mu)$ where $\mu$ is the distribution of $f$ satisfying $\mu(A)=P_0[f\in A]$ for all $A\in\mathscr{R}$, but that doesn't mean $f$ always lies in $[0,1]$ and so can be considered a probability?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need to write $a<<b$; you can write $a\ll b$. I edited accordingly. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 2 '16 at 21:24
1
$\begingroup$

Consider the event $B_n:=\{f\ge 1+1/n\}$, where $n$ is a positive integer. Clearly $B_n\in\mathscr G$, and $$ P_0(B_n)\ge P_0(A\cap B_n)=\int_{B_n}f\,dP_0\ge\int_{B_n}(1+1/n)\,dP_0=(1+1/n)P_0(B_n). $$ The only value of $P_0(B_n)$ consistent with this inequality is $P_0(B_n)=0$. Consequently $$ P_0(f > 1)=P_0\left(\cup_{n=1}^\infty B_n\right)\le\sum_{n=1}^\infty P_0(B_n)=0. $$ This shows that $f\le 1$, $P_0$-a.s.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Brilliant, thank you so much! I was going to try show this myself but I could never have come up with that. I wonder though why my textbook doesn't include something like this since it wasn't obvious to me. I sensed it doesn't follow immediately from the Radon-Nikodym theorem but depends on the measures involved - i.e. if $P_{0}$ is a general rather than a probability measure then $P_{0}(B_{n})=\infty$ might hold which means your proof wouldn't work then? Hmm.. maybe it is obvious now! $\endgroup$ – dandar Aug 3 '16 at 17:46

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.