Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 3 at 17:10 answer added Michael Hardy timeline score: 1
Jul 24, 2021 at 7:43 comment added BCLC Related? Why do we consider Borel sets instead of measurable sets?
Jul 14, 2019 at 16:43 answer added Rick Taylor timeline score: 9
Feb 19, 2017 at 16:15 comment added Hemanta K. Baruah I would like to add a comment. 'The notion of probability does not enter into the definition of a random variable.' (Ref.: Page 43, V. K. Rohatgi and A. K. Md. E. Saleh, An Introduction to Probability and Statistics, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Singapore, 2001.) Indeed, measure theoretically, anything probabilistic is necessarily random, but not everything random are probabilistic.
Nov 14, 2015 at 1:47 answer added Michael Hardy timeline score: 8
Jul 17, 2010 at 4:50 answer added Yuval Peres timeline score: 67
Jul 13, 2010 at 15:58 answer added Dmitri Pavlov timeline score: 11
Jul 12, 2010 at 21:41 comment added Mark Completion of a measure is always applicable, and this is the way I think of Lebesgue measure on R^n.
Jul 12, 2010 at 21:20 vote accept Mark
Jul 12, 2010 at 20:26 answer added Benoît Kloeckner timeline score: 10
Jul 12, 2010 at 20:02 answer added Nate Eldredge timeline score: 193
Jul 12, 2010 at 19:45 comment added babubba +1 for the question. I've always wondered why the opposite never happened! I've always wanted the composition of two measurable functions between two measure spaces to be measurable (and that was before I knew what a category was...). This does NOT hold with the definition I'd been given when studying measure theory as an undergrad. And I'm still unsure what you gain from completeness of the measure (but I seriously do not understand anything in analysis...).
Jul 12, 2010 at 19:44 answer added Michael Greinecker timeline score: 24
Jul 12, 2010 at 19:21 history asked Mark CC BY-SA 2.5