I have problems in understanding a small part in a proof, which is, however, a really important part.
Given:
- $X,Y,Z$ are random variables such that $\sigma(X,Y)$ and $\sigma(Z)$ are independent
- $h: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is a Borel function which we assume to be bounded
- (*) By the uniqueness theorem of probability measures, we know that for all $A \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$, $\mathbb{E}[h(X)\mathbb{I}_{\{(Y,Z)\in A\}}] = \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid Y]\mathbb{I}_{\{(Y,Z)\in A\}}] $ holds
What the proof states (not relevant for the question, only if someone is interested :-) ):
$\mathbb{P}$ a. s. $\mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid\sigma(Y,Z)] = \mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid Y]$
My question:
After (*), it is stated that by the uniqueness of the conditional expectation$^1$, $$\mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid\sigma(Y,Z)] = \mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid Y] \hspace{2cm} \tag 1$$ is implied $\mathbb{P}$ a.s.. I don't understand where the equation (1) comes from...
My attempt of explanation:
If I look at (*) and consider the uniqueness theorem of conditional expectation, I would say that $$\mathbb{E}[h(X)\mid Y] \mbox{ is a version of the conditional expectation of } h(X) \hspace{2cm} \tag 2$$ $\mathbb{P}$ a.s.. Now, I try to come from $(2)$ to $(1).$ But that does not really work. So, I think I miss something?
A further question (not so important)
Does someone may have an intuitive explanation about why $h$ maps to $\mathbb{R}^+$ and not $\mathbb{R}$? I don't see why this general case should not hold. (But this is not my main worry :-) )
Thanks a million in advance for your help!
$^1$The uniqueness theorem of conditional expectations sates that if (*) holds for two random variables $X_0$ and $\tilde X_0$, then $X_0$ = $\tilde X_0$ $\mathbb{P}$ a.s.