# examples of random variable X independent to each of A and B, but not to (A,B) [closed]

What are some examples of random variables X, A, B such that X is independent to A, and to B, but not to A and B jointly, i.e., X is not independent to (A,B). In other words, $X \perp A$ and $X \perp B$ but not $X \perp A, B$

I got curious while reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_independence

It is enough to find examples such that $X \perp A$ and $X \perp B$ but not $X \perp A \mid B$.

-

## closed as too localized by Yemon Choi, Bill Johnson, Noah Stein, Mark Meckes, Michael Greinecker Sep 27 '12 at 14:49

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Welcome to MathOverflow! Unfortunately, this question isn't appropriate for this web site. Please read the FAQ. – Mark Meckes Sep 27 '12 at 14:06

Let $A$ and $B$ be independent random variables with $P(A=1)=P(A=-1)=P(B=1)=P(B=-1)=1/2$. Let $X = AB$. Then any two of $A$, $B$ and $X$ are independent, but the three are not. It's easy to generalize this to generate a sequence of $n$ random variables, any $n-1$ of which are independent, but where they aren't all independent.
Let $A$ and $B$ be indipendent and uniformly distributed in $S^1$ (for example you can take $\Omega = S^1 \times S^1$ with the uniform probability and $A$ and $B$ as the two projection); then it is clear that $X=A+B$ is indipendent of $A$, it is indipendent of $B$, but it isn't indipendent of $(A,B)$.
In this reasoning it's crucial that the uniform law on $S^1$ is traslation invariant.
...where $S^1 = \mathbf{R}/\mathbf{Z}$ and not $\lbrace z\in\mathbf{C}: |z|=1\rbrace$. (In the latter case $X=A+B$ is not what you mean.) – Sean Eberhard Sep 27 '12 at 15:22
Sure... By the way, also this method could be generalized to $n$ variables. It seems to be true also for countable many variables... Think of this example: take $\{ X_i \}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ i.i.d. variables which take values in $\mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}$ uniformly. Then consider $Y_n = \sum_{ i \leq n} X_i$ (where the sum is also in $\mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}$), and then take $Z$ as the limit of the $Y_i$s along some non-principal ultrafilter. Then $Z$ is indipendent of any $A$ proper subset of $\{ X_i \}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ but clearly not indipendent from all of them. – Simo_the_Wolf Sep 27 '12 at 18:17
I've always taken a set of rvs to be independent iff every finite subset is independent. Also, I think that by the Kolmogorov 0-1 law, $Z$ isn't going to be measurable (since if $Z$ is measurable, then by symmetry $P(Z=1) = P(Z=0) = 1/2$). – Alexander Pruss Mar 19 '13 at 15:36