1
$\begingroup$

First question: Suppose that I know $P(x\in A|\;y)>0$ where $y$ is a realization of some random variable. Then, in general can I infer using the conditional probability formula $P(x\in A|\; y)=\frac{P(x\in A,y)}{P(y)}$ that $P(y)>0$? This seems obvious but I am still note sure.

Second question: If I know $P(x\in A,y\in B)>0$ is it true that there exists a measureable set $B_{1}\subset B$ such that $y\in B_{1}$ implies that $P(x\in A|y)>0$? My proof follows as:

Let $B_{0}=\{y\in B:P(x\in A|\;y)=0\}$ and $B_{1}=\{y\in B:P(x\in A|\; y)>0\}$. Then $B=B_{0}\sqcup B_{1}$ and therefore, $$ P(x\in A, y\in B)=\int_{y\in B} P(x\in A|y)dP=\int_{y\in B_{0}} 0\cdot dP+\int_{y\in B_{1}} P(x\in A |y)\cdot dP=\int_{y\in B_{1}} P(x\in A| y)dP>0 $$ and the last inequality implies that $B_{1}$ is measurable.

I am dealing with an uncountable probability space, say $\Omega=[0,1)$, with the Borel $\sigma-$algebra, and the Lebesgue measure. If you don't know the answer but some references it would be much appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't studied advanced probability and am just now learning measure theory, so I don't know/could be totally misinterpreting the notation. But, what if your random variables are drawn from $[0, 1]$ and, say (again, I could be totally botching notation), $A = \{.5\}$, $y = .5$? Then I think $P(y) = 0$, but $P(x \in A \, | \, y) = 1 > 0$. $\endgroup$ – XtremeCurling Mar 21 '14 at 14:39
1
$\begingroup$

First question

No. If $y\in A$ then clearly $P(X\in A|X=y)=1$, also if $P(X=y)=0$. Here $y$ is a realization of r.v $X$ and in that sense you are dealing with a special case, however it is not hard to find other counterexamples. You always have $P(X\in \mathbb R|Y=y)=1$ but not necessarily $P(Y=y)>0$. So the answer on your edit is again: no.

Second question

Yes. In general if $f$ is nonnegative then $\int fd\lambda>0$ can only be true if $f>0$ on some measurable set $C$ that satisfies $\lambda(C)>0$.

So $0>P\left\{ X\in A\wedge Y\in B\right\} =\int_{B}P\left\{ X\in A|Y=y\right\} P\left(dy\right)$ implies the existence of a measurable set $B_{1}\subset B$ with $P\left(B_{1}\right)>0$ and $P\left\{ X\in A|Y=y\right\} >0$ for $y\in B_{1}$. Note here that $P\left(B_{1}\right)>0$ implies $B_{1}\neq\emptyset$. The empty set satisfies your condition vacuously, but is not interesting.


Further explanation:

$\int fd\lambda=\sup\left\{ \int td\lambda\mid0\leq t\leq f\wedge t\text{ has a finite image and is measurable}\right\} $. Then $\int fd\lambda>0$ implies $\int td\lambda>0$ for some $t$ that has finite image and is measurable. Here $t$ can be written as $t=\sum_{i\in I}r_{i}\chi_{A_{i}}$ where $I$ is finite and $r_{i}>0$ and the $\chi_{A_{i}}$ are characteristic functions of measurable sets $A_i$.

So $0>\int td\lambda=\sum_{i\in I}r_{i}\lambda\left(A_{i}\right)$ leading to $\lambda\left(A_{i_{0}}\right)>0$ for some index $i_{0}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If I assuming $X$ and $Y$ are two continuous random variables and therefore I am looking at $P(X\in A|Y=y)>0$ does this still hold $\endgroup$ – h4nusGT Mar 21 '14 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ Always $P(X\in \mathbb R|Y=y)=1$ but if $Y$ is continuously random then $P(Y=y)=0$ for every $y$. $\endgroup$ – drhab Mar 21 '14 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ I added an answer on your second question. $\endgroup$ – drhab Mar 21 '14 at 15:25

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.