2
$\begingroup$

Consider the infinite cartesian product $\Omega=\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ as a measurable space endowed with the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathscr{F}$ generated by the cylinder sets and $\sigma:\Omega\to\Omega$ the left shift map. Denote by $\sigma^n(\mathscr{F})$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the family of r.v. $\{X_i(\omega)=\omega_i: i\geq n\}$. Suppose that $\mu$ is a Borel probability measure such $\mu(E)\in \{0,1\}$ for any $E\in \cap_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sigma^i(\mathscr{F})$. I would like to know if $\mu(f|\cap_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sigma^i(\mathscr{F}))(x)=\mu(f|\cap_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sigma^i(\mathscr{F}))(\sigma x), \mu$ a.s. for any continuous function $f$.

In such generality I suspect that the answer is no, but I was not able to find a counter example. Of course, the answer is positive if $\mu(E)=\mu(\sigma^{-1}(E))$ for all $E\in \cap_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sigma^i(\mathscr{F})$ (which is the case of $\sigma$-invariant measures). I spent some time trying to prove that the triviality hypothesis of $\mu$ implies the shift invariance (for events on the tail $\sigma$-algebra). This would be true if either $E=\sigma^{-1}(E)$ or both set have zero $\mu$ measure. For all the tail events I know this is true, but this does not sound reasonable statement to me in such generality.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Are there some $i$ and $n$ mixed up in your notation? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 19 '16 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ I think there's some ambiguity in this question. The conditional expectation $\mu(f|\cap_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sigma^i(\mathscr{F}))$ is only well-defined up to $\mu$-null sets; it doesn't identify a function on $\Omega$ but only an equivalence class in $L^0(\mu)$. Each representative $g$ of this equivalence class potentially leads to a different set $\{x : g(x) = g(\sigma x)\}$; for some choices of $g$ it might have full measure and for others it might not. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 19 '16 at 23:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact, since the tail $\sigma$-algebra is assumed almost trivial, we can always choose a representative $g$ which is a constant, in which case $\{x : g(x) = g(\sigma x)\} = \Omega$. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 20 '16 at 0:00
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge I guess your last comment answer the question. But I need to digest it because it implies that any probability measure trivial on "this" tail $\sigma$-algebra is shift invariant (its restricition to the tail $\sigma$-algebra) which seems very strong claim. Anyway thanks a lot for this clarification. $\endgroup$ – Leandro Jan 20 '16 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ No, it doesn't imply that; in fact the latter is false. I'll post an answer. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 20 '16 at 1:57
2
$\begingroup$

As discussed in comments, the main question is not well-posed as it stands, since it depends on a choice of representative (mod $\mu$-a.e. equality) for the conditional expectation.

But as to your subsidiary question "Must $\mu$ be shift-invariant on tail events?", the answer is no.

Let $\nu$ be the probability measure on $\{0,1\}^2$ which assigns probability $1/2$ each to the outcomes $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$. Let $\mu = \prod_1^\infty \nu$ be the product of infinitely many $\nu$. So under $\mu$, the random variables $X_1, X_3, X_5, \dots$ are iid coin flips, and a.s. we have $X_1 = X_2$, $X_3 = X_4$, etc. (You can think of the "experiment" here as "flip infinitely many coins, but write down each flip twice".) Then the tail $\sigma$-algebra is $\mu$-almost trivial, by the Kolmogorov 0-1 law.

Let $E_i$ be the event $\{X_{2i-1} = X_{2i}\}$ and $E = \{E_i \text{ a.a.}\}= \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \bigcap_{i=n}^\infty E_i$ be the event that $X_{2i-1} = X_{2i}$ for all but finitely many $i$. Clearly $E$ is a tail event and $\mu(E) = 1$. But $\sigma^{-1}(E)$ is the event $F = \{F_i \text{ a.a.}\}$, where $F_i = \{X_{2i} = X_{2i+1}\}$. The $F_i$ are independent with $\mu(F_i) = \frac{1}{2}$, so $\mu(F) = 0$.

To highlight the issue in your question, if we write $\mathcal{T}$ for the tail $\sigma$-algebra and take $f$ to be the constant function $1$, it is correct to say $\mu(f \mid \mathcal{T}) = 1_E$ a.s. The statement "$1_E(x) = 1_E(\sigma x)$ a.s." is false. But it is also correct to say $\mu(f \mid \mathcal{T}) = 1$ a.s. The statement "$1(x) = 1(\sigma x)$ a.s." is true. The definition of conditional expectation says nothing about whether $1_E$ or $1$ is a "preferred" representative.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This construction is nice, but I did not understand why we can apply the zero-one law since the r.v. $(X_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ are not independent. Of course, the projections $Y_i\in \{0,1\}^2$ are independent and the theorem applies, but its tail $\sigma$-algebra is different from the tail $\sigma$-algebra generated by the $X_i$ variables (which seems richer). $\endgroup$ – Leandro Jan 20 '16 at 4:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Leandro: Actually, the tail $\sigma$-field of the $Y_i$ is identical to that of the $X_i$. Note $\sigma(Y_i : i \ge n) = \sigma^{2n-1}(\mathcal{F})$. Since the $\sigma$-algebras $\sigma^n(\mathcal{F})$ are decreasing, we have $\bigcap_n \sigma^n(\mathcal{F}) = \bigcap_n \sigma^{2n-1}(\mathcal{F})$. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 20 '16 at 4:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Leandro: Alternatively, just note that the proof of the Kolmogorov 0-1 law goes through for the $X_i$ almost without change, if you use a little care on the cases of odd and even indices. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jan 20 '16 at 5:03
  • $\begingroup$ I was just verifying that :) $\endgroup$ – Leandro Jan 20 '16 at 5:03

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.