I am reading A Second Course in Probability by Ross and Peköz. I came across the following question:

1.10.4. Show that if $X$ and $Y$ are real-valued random variables measurable with respect to some given sigma field, then so is $XY$ with respect to the same sigma field.

My attempt was to first show that:

(i) $X+Y$ is measurable

(ii) $cX$ is measurable for any $c\in\mathbb R$

(iii) $X^2$ is measurable.

Then, since $XY = \frac14[(X+Y)^2-(X-Y)^2]$, we just use the above properties.

Property (i) was proven in Chapter 1. However, I am having a bit of trouble showing property (ii) in the case that $c < 0$. From the problem setup, we know that for any $x\in\mathbb R$, $\{X\leq x\}\equiv\{\omega\in\Omega:X(\omega)\leq x\}\in \mathcal F$.

So $\{-X\leq x\}=\{X\geq -x\} = \{X<-x\}^c$, but I don't know if $\{X<-x\}\in\mathcal F$. If I expand a little more, it seems I essentially need to show that $\{X=x\}\in\mathcal F$, but I don't see how that is necessarily true.

I have seen the question Product of two random variables, though in the answers, they assume knowledge of the fact that $cX$ is measurable, and they also seem to be working with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra.

I have also seen these notes, but they omit the case where $c < 0$.

My Question: How do we show that $\{-X\leq x\}\in\mathcal F$ if we already know that $\{X\leq x\}\in\mathcal F$? Do we need to assume something about the sigma field in order to show this for real-valued random variables (e.g. Borel sigma field)?

  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean that you want to prove this for an arbitrary sigma field on $\mathbb{R}$? Rather than simply the Borel sigma field? $\endgroup$
    – Dasherman
    Jun 7, 2020 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint: write $\lbrace X <-x \rbrace = \bigcup_{n} \lbrace X \leq -x-1/n\rbrace$ $\endgroup$
    – Michh
    Jun 7, 2020 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Dasherman Maybe that is what I am failing to recognize. The question never states anything about the Borel sigma field, so I assume that I should prove it for an arbitrary sigma field. $\endgroup$ Jun 7, 2020 at 22:00

1 Answer 1


Note that $\{X<x\}=\cup_{n=1}^\infty \{X\leq x-\frac{1}{n}\}$. Since a Sigma field is closed under countable unions this implies $\{X<x\}\in\mathcal{F}$ for every $x\in\mathbb{R}$.

A general note: If $X:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ is a random variable then we have $X^{-1}(B)\in\mathcal{F}$ for every Borel set $B\subseteq\mathbb{R}$. In many books this is actually the definition of a random variable. The definition you are using, that is $\{X\leq x\}\in\mathcal{F}$ for every $x\in\mathbb{R}$, is an equivalent definition. It is good to know both definitions. To prove the equivalence note that the collection of sets $\{B\subseteq\mathbb{R}: X^{-1}(B)\in\mathcal{F}\}$ is a Sigma field on $\mathbb{R}$, and from your definition it is not too hard to show it contains all open subsets of $\mathbb{R}$, hence must contain the whole Borel sigma field.


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.