Denote $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ to be our probability space and $X:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ a random variable. Suppose we have a measurable convex function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$. From Jensen's inequality, we know that for all sub-sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{F}$: $$ E[f(X):\mathcal{G}] \geq f(E[X:\mathcal{G}]). $$ Now let us denote a partition of $\mathbb{R}$ by $\mathbb{R}^{(n)} = \{\mathbb{R}^{(n)}(k) \subset \mathbb{R}: k=1,..,n\}$ such that $P(X \in \mathbb{R}^{(n)}(k)) = 1/n$ for all $k =1,...,n$. Define a finer partition $\mathbb{R}^{(2n)} = \{\mathbb{R}^{(2n)}(k) \subset \mathbb{R}: k=1,..,2n\}$ such that each component in $\mathbb{R}^{(n)}$ is a proper superset of 2 components in $\mathbb{R}^{(2n)}$ and such that $P(X \in \mathbb{R}^{(2n)}(k)) = \frac{1}{2n}$ for all $k =1,...,2n$

Now define random variable $X^{(n)} = E[X:X\in\mathbb{R}^{(n)}]$. From Jensen's, we know that $$ E[f(X):X^{(n)}] \geq f(E[X:X^{(n)}]). $$ I want to show that as $n\to\infty$, the above holds with equality, i.e. I want to show that in the limit $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}E[f(X):X^{(2n)}] = \lim_{n\to\infty}f(E[X:X^{(2n)}]) = f(X) $$ almost surely. Is this possible??? Do I even need convexity?

Thank you.

  • $\begingroup$ This may seem like a silly question but you use some notation that is a bit different to what I am used to. By $E[f(X):\mathcal G]$ do you mean "the expectation of $f(X)$ conditioned on the sigma algebra $\mathcal G$"? $\endgroup$ – Therkel Oct 5 '17 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ Would it not be enough to show that $\mathbb R^{(n)} \to \mathbb R$ for $n\to \infty$? $\endgroup$ – Therkel Oct 5 '17 at 10:56
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Therkel. Yes. I meant the expectation of f(X) conditioned on the sigma algebra $\mathcal{G}$. $\endgroup$ – jerom Oct 5 '17 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding $\mathbb{R}^{(n)}\to\mathbb{R}$, what does that mean exactly? $\endgroup$ – jerom Oct 5 '17 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ Essentially what I want to prove is that the random variables $E[f(X):X^{(n)}]$ and $f(E[X:X^{(n)}])$ both converge almost surely to f(X). I'm not sure how to do this. $\endgroup$ – jerom Oct 5 '17 at 18:55

We may as well assume the first partition occurs for $n=1$, so we have partitions at $n=2^k$ for every $k\ge0$. Let $\mathcal F_k=\sigma\{[X\in A]:A\in\mathbb R^{(2^k)}\}$, the $\sigma$-field generated by these partitions. If we assume both $X$ and $f(X)$ are integrable, then $X^{(2^k)}=E[X|\mathcal F_k]$ and $Y^{(2^k)}=E[f(X)|\mathcal F_k]$ both define martingales. The martingale convergence theorem implies that $$X^{(2^k)}\to E[X|\mathcal F_\infty],\qquad Y^{(2^k)}\to E[f(X)|\mathcal F_\infty]$$ as $k\to\infty$ almost surely, where $\mathcal F_\infty:=\sigma\left(\bigcup_k\mathcal F_k\right)$. Thus, your desired result will follow for any continuous $f$ if we can show that $X$ is $\mathcal F_\infty$-measurable, no convexity required. (If $f$ is injective, this is if and only if.)

However, this isn't always true. Assume $X$ is uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$. Define $$\mathbb R^{(2^k)}(j)=\left[\frac{j-1}{2^{k+1}},\frac{j}{2^{k+1}}\right)\cup\left[\frac{j-1+2^k}{2^{k+1}},\frac{j+2^k}{2^{k+1}}\right)$$ for $2\le j\le2^k-1$, and $$\mathbb R^{(2^k)}(1)=(-\infty,2^{-{k+1}}),\qquad\mathbb R^{(2^k)}(2^k)=[1-2^{-(k+1)},\infty).$$ Note that $P(X\in\mathbb R^{(2^k)}(j))=2^{-k}$ for all $j$, so this partition meets your conditions. However, if $A\in\mathbb R^{(2^k)}$ for some $k$, then $A\cap[0,1)$ is closed under the map $\varphi:x\mapsto x+\frac12\mod1$, hence $[X\in B]\in\mathcal F_\infty$ implies $B\cap[0,1)$ is also closed under $\varphi$. In particular, this implies that $[\frac12\le X<1)\notin\mathcal F_\infty$, so $X$ is not $\mathcal F_\infty$-measurable.

  • $\begingroup$ OK I see but I still don't understand why $[\frac{1}{2}\leq X < 1] \not\in \mathcal{F}_\infty$? $\endgroup$ – jerom Oct 6 '17 at 14:46
  • $\begingroup$ Let $B=[\frac12,1)$. This set is clearly not closed under the map $\varphi$ (e.g. $\frac34\in B$ but $\frac14\notin B$). As discussed, if $B\subset[0,1)$ is such that $[X\in B]\in\mathcal F_\infty$, then $B$ is closed under $\varphi$. $\endgroup$ – Jason Oct 6 '17 at 17:14

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.