5
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sigma algebra over $\Omega$ and $M$ the set of all probability measures on $\mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be some collection of pairs $(A,B)$ with $ \ A,B\in\mathcal{F}$. Now I can declare the pairs in $\mathcal{C}$ independent by defining $M(\mathcal{C})$ to be the set of probability measures which satisfy my independence constraints, so that $P\in M(\mathcal{C})$ iff $P(A\cap B)=P(A)P(B)$ for every $(A,B)\in \mathcal{C}$. Note that it's probably enough for $\mathcal{F}$ to be a field by invoking Caratheodory extension.

Question: For what kind of $\mathcal{C}$ does $M(\mathcal{C})$ reduce to a "unique" (perhaps "unique" modulo some class of sets) measure on $\mathcal{F}$? In other words, when does an overabundance of independence induce a unique measure.

The point is that $\mathcal{C}$ gives a kind of functional equation. It seems that uniqueness will not be guaranteed on sets which do not contain any independent subsets. In particular, null sets could screw things up. However, what if for every $A\in\mathcal{F}$ with $P(A)>0$, I were to guarantee the existence of a $B\in\mathcal{F}$ with $0 < P(B) < 1$ such that $A$ and $B$ are independent?

For example, suppose $\Omega$ has cardinality $n$. Then there are $n$ points on which to define $P$ and one constraint: $P(\Omega)=1$. I would then need $n-1$ equations to determine $P$. So when $\Omega$ is finite, things are much easier.

My motivation for asking this is to better understand the concept of independence.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi, I am not sure to fully understand your notation, does $\mathcal{C}$ depends only one the measure $P$ ?(so we can write it \mathcal{C}(P)) If this is the case, does $M(\mathcal{C})$ is the set of all measure $Q$ such that $\mathcal{C}(Q)=\mathcal{C}(P)$ ? Regards $\endgroup$
    – The Bridge
    Feb 2, 2011 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ In "Note that it's probably enough for $\mathcal{F}$ to be a sigma field" did you mean to say "ring"? $\endgroup$ Feb 2, 2011 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @The Bridge: sorry for the confusion, corrected now $\endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    Feb 2, 2011 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ "Sigma field" and "sigma algebra" mean the same thing. I guess from your response above that in that sentence you may have meant just "algebra". $\endgroup$ Feb 2, 2011 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ Alex R, note that such events $B$ need not exist. (cf. my question from a few days ago: mathoverflow.net/questions/54033/… ) $\endgroup$ Feb 2, 2011 at 20:14

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.