3
$\begingroup$

From Nate Eldredge's reply

Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ be a measurable space, and let $P,Q$ be two probability measures on $\mathcal{F}$. It is a good exercise to verify that $$\mathcal{L} := \{ A \in \mathcal{F} : P(A) = Q(A) \}$$ is a $\lambda$-system. (This is a common application of the $\pi$-$\lambda$ theorem : if one can show that $P$ and $Q$ agree on a $\pi$-system that generates $\mathcal{F}$, then $P$ and $Q$ must be the same.)

I can't see and therefore was wondering how $L$ being a $\lambda$ system is an application of $\pi$-$\lambda$ theorem, i.e. $L$ being a $\lambda$ system can be proved from $\pi$-$\lambda$ theorem?

In order for $L$ to be a $\lambda$ system, can $P$ and $Q$ be not necessarily probability measures, but $\sigma$-finite, or arbitrary?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $P,Q$ agree on a $\pi$ System $\mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{F}$, with $\sigma(\mathcal{C})=\mathcal{F}$. That means $P(C)=Q(C)\forall C\in\mathcal{C}$. You know that $\mathcal{L}$ is a $\lambda$-system and contains the $\pi$-system $C$. Hence by the $\lambda-\pi$ Theorem, $$P(B)=Q(B)\forall B\in \sigma(\mathcal{C})=\mathcal{F}$$ They agree on $\mathcal{F}$, i.e. they are the same.

To your second question: You must still guarantee that $\mathcal{L}$ is a $\lambda$ System, i.e.

  1. $\Omega\in \mathcal{L}$
  2. $A\in \mathcal{L} \Rightarrow A^c\in \mathcal{L}$
  3. For every sequence $(A_i)_{i\ge 1}$ of pairewise disjoint elements of $\mathcal{L}$, you have $(\bigcup_{i\ge 1}A_i)\in \mathcal{L}$

If you look at the proof for $\mathcal{L}$ being a $\lambda$-system:

  1. is true because $P(\Omega)=1=Q(\Omega)$. Generally, you must have two finite measures $P,Q$ with $P(\Omega)=Q(\Omega)$. Same for 2., since you are using $P(A^c)=P(\Omega)-P(A)$, which again forces $P,Q$ to be finite measures with $P(\Omega)=Q(\Omega)$. 3. is just the $\sigma$ additivity and is true for every measure.

This means that in general a $\sigma$-finite measure does not work.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! How do you know "You know that L is a λ-system"? $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 14 '13 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Tim Have you read my answer? See what I wrote after: "If you look at the proof for $\mathcal{L}$ being a $\lambda$-system". You see exactly why $\mathcal{L}$ is a $\lambda$ system in case of two probability measures. $\endgroup$ – math Jan 14 '13 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ My question is how $L$ being $\lambda$ system can be proved from $\lambda-\pi$ theorem? What follows "If you look at the proof for L being a λ-system" isn't a proof for $L$ being $\lambda$ system, is it? $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 14 '13 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Tim You did not understand what Nate Eldrege said / you wrote down! The statement, which Nate Eldrege refers to is: You know that $\mathcal{L}$ is $\lambda$ system. If $P,Q$ agree on a $\pi$ system, which generates $\mathcal{F}$, then the two measure coincide. Furthermore, I showed generally when $\mathcal{L}$ is a $\lambda$-system (just use, if $P,Q$ are prob. measure, $P(\Omega)=1=Q(\Omega), P(A^c)=1-P(A)=1-Q(A)=Q(A^c)$ and as I said, point 3. is jsut $\sigma$ additivity. $\endgroup$ – math Jan 14 '13 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ Nate said "It is a good exercise to verify that L is a λ-system. This is a common application of the π-λ theorem", which means it is a good exercise to verify L being a λ-system, by application of the π-λ theorem. In other words, given the π-λ theorem, L being a λ-system can be proved, but I don't know how, which is my question. $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 14 '13 at 18:32
4
$\begingroup$

The usual application is that if two probability measures agree on a $\pi$-system, then they agree on the $\sigma$-algebra generated by that $\pi$-system and the reason is that the family of sets where the measures agree form a $\lambda$-system as Nate mentioned.

It is not possible to weaken the assumption to $\sigma$-finiteness: Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ and twice Lebesgue measure $2\lambda$ agree on the sets of the form $(r,\infty)$ and these form a $\pi$-system.

$\endgroup$

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.