Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

4

2

The environment:

Suppose that $X$ is a Polish space and $\Delta(X)$ the set of Borel probability measures over $X$ (given the topology of weak convergence, with the Prohorov metric).

Let $p_1,\dots,p_N\in\Delta(X)$.

Let $S=\lbrace \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k p_k \in\Delta(X):\forall k(\alpha_k \in\mathbb{R})\rbrace$. That is, $S$ is the set of probability measures that are linear combinations of $p_1,\dots,p_N$. In some sense, $S$ is like the span of $p_1,\dots,p_N$. $S$ should be a closed set.

Let us endow $T=\Delta(X) \setminus S$ with the subspace topology. It is also Polish.

Now define an equivalence relation (which maybe also be viewed as a partition) $\Pi$ on $T$.

Def: Let $q \Pi r$ if and only if $\exists \alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{N+1}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\alpha_{N+1} > 0$ and $q = (\sum_{k=1}^{N} \alpha_k p_k)+\alpha_{N+1}r$.

Main Question: Does $\Pi$ admit a Borel selector?

Related Questions that may help resolve the main question:

1) Is the saturation of every open set in $T$ with respect to $\Pi$ a Borel set? A saturation of an open set $U \subseteq T$ is $U^*=\bigcup_{u\in U} \lbrace t\in T : u \Pi t \rbrace$.

1') Equivalently, we might think of all open balls (using the Prohorov distance) $U\subseteq \Delta(X)$ such that $U\cap S=\emptyset$. Is $U^*$ a Borel set?

2) Is $\Pi$ a closed relation? That is, is it a closed set in $T \times T$? If $\forall n(q_n \Pi r_n)$ and $q_n\to q$ and $r_n\to r$, then is it the case that $q\Pi r$?

flag	asked Feb 8 2011 at 20:34 BSL 105●5

1

I cannot understand the reason to exclude $S$ from $\Delta(X)$. Why don't you take simply $T=\Delta(X)$. – zhoraster Feb 9 2011 at 15:59

The reason for excluding $S$ from $\Delta(X)$ is to make Related Question 2 easier to deal with. If $\forall n(q_n,r\in T)$ and $q\in S$ and $q_n\to q$ and $\forall n(q_n\Pi r)$ and $\forall n(r_n=r)$ then $\neg(q\Pi r)$. Perhaps a better way to think about it is to define $\Pi$ on $\Delta(X)$ and consider whether $\Pi \cap T\times T$ is closed. – BSL Feb 10 2011 at 0:14

How does one prove that $\Pi$ is an equivalence relation? A first consequence of $q\Pi r$ as it is written is $r = (\sum_{k=1}^{N} \beta_k p_k)+\alpha_{N+1}^{-1}q$ with $\beta _ k :=-\alpha_k/\alpha_{N+1}$, but I can't see why should the new linear combination of the $p_k$ belong to $\Delta(X)$ as required. Is there a more subtle reason ? – Pietro Majer Oct 6 2011 at 14:42

The equivalence relation is defined over $\Delta(X)$. To be more precise, the definition should begin with the phrase "Let $q,r\in\Delta(X)$. We will say that $q\Pi r$ if and only if..." – BSL Oct 6 2011 at 20:39

Er, sorry. I meant to write "Let $q,r\in\Delta(X)\setminus S$..." – BSL Oct 6 2011 at 20:41

Borel selections of partitions of the space of probability measures

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.