2
$\begingroup$

Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{A}, \mathbb{P})$ be a probability space and $(A_n)_n$ a sequence in $\mathcal{A}$.

If $\mathbb{P}(\bigcup_n A_n) = \sum\limits_{n} \mathbb{P}(A_n)$, then $\mathbb{P}(A_i \cap A_j) = 0$ for all $i,j \in \mathbb{N}, i \not= j$.

I have to prove that the $\sigma-$additivity of the probability measure implies that the events are pairwise disjoint.

It is clear that I could construct a disjoint sequence $B_n := A_n \setminus \bigcup_{k = 1}^{n-1} A_k$ that would satisfy the condition but that doesn't really help with this excercise.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you tried contradiction? $\endgroup$ – Camille Nov 26 '16 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Camille I'll try. Let's suppose that $\mathbb{P}(A_i \cap A_j) > 0$ for all $i,j \in \mathbb{N}, i \not= j$. Then obviously $A_i \cap A_j \not= \emptyset$. Therefore $\mathbb{P}(\bigcup_n A_n) < \sum_{n}\mathbb{P}(A_n)$, delivering the contradiction. $\endgroup$ – PeterMcCoy Nov 26 '16 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ If you're looking for a brief answer that's alright I think, but your assumption for contradiction should read for some $i,j\in\mathbb{N},i\neq j$, not for all. $\endgroup$ – Camille Nov 26 '16 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Camille Surely, you're right. I just used copy/paste at the wrong place, "for all" negates into "exist". $\endgroup$ – PeterMcCoy Nov 26 '16 at 12:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very good! Now can you show that $P(\bigcup A_n)\le \sum_n P(A_n) - P(A_i\cap A_j)$ for any $i\neq j$? $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Nov 26 '16 at 15:10
0
$\begingroup$

Define $f:=\sum_n \mathbf 1_{A_n}-\mathbf 1_{\bigcup_n A_n}$. This function is non-negative and its integral is zero, so $f=0$ almost surely. Therefore, the function $\sum_n \mathbf 1_{A_n}$ can take only the values $0$ and $1$.

$\endgroup$

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.