2
$\begingroup$

Motivation:

  1. I want to compute $$E[g(X)] := \int_{\Omega} g(X(\omega)) d\mathbb{P}(\omega) \tag{*}$$ without needing change of variable formula.

  2. I want to prove the change of variable formula (you know the one I don't want to use for #1) without 'standard machine' (indicator, simple, nonnegative, integrable).

That is, prove $$(*) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} g(x) d\mathcal{L}_X(x)$$

possibly by writing

$$g(X) = \int_{\mathbb R} g(x) 1_{\{x = X(\omega)\}}(\omega) dx$$


We are given $(\Omega, \mathscr F, \mathbb P)$, $n \in \mathbb N$, $i = 1, \dots, n$ and $A_i \in \mathscr F$.

Bernoulli: Let $X_i \sim Be(p)$ where and $p = \mathbb P (A_i)$.

Binomial: Let $X = \sum_i X_i \sim Binom(n,p)$ where $n \in \mathbb N$.

Thus, we can write the random variables explicitly in terms of indicator functions $X_i = 1_{A_i}$ and $X = \sum_i 1_{A_i}$.

Is there a way to do this for any random variable? Given the definition of Lebesgue integration, I think we can though we would have to use $\lim$, $\sup$, $\sum$, $X^+, X^-$, etc. Here's what I tried:

Discrete Uniform: Let $DU_i \sim Unif\{1,\cdots,6\}$. Can we write $DU=\sum_{d=1}^{6} d1_d dd$?

Continuous Uniform: Let $CU_i \sim Unif(0,1)$. Can we write $CU=\int_0^1 c 1_c dc$?

Normal: Let $Z \sim N(0,1)$. Can we write $Z = \int_{\mathbb R} z1_z dz$ ?

How about $$Z = \int_{\mathbb R} z \lim_n \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} dz$$ ?

I'm guessing that while $$\frac{\sum_i 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} \nrightarrow Z$$, $$\frac{\sum_i 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} \to 1_z$$

I guess we need some filtration $\{\mathscr F_0\} \cup \{\mathscr F_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ and possibly $\mathscr F_{\infty} := \sigma(\mathscr F_0 \cup \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb N} \mathscr F_n)$

Any: $Y = \int_{\mathbb R} y1_y dy$ ?

I guess there may be some integrability issue such as if $X \sim Cantor$. I guess there may be some integrability issue such as if $X \sim Cantor$. I recall $\mathscr L_X(B) = P(X \in B)$ is a probability measure on $(\mathbb R, \mathscr B)$, but I'm not sure how that would resolve any integrability issue.

Perhaps $Y = \int_{\mathbb R} y1_y d\mu(x)$, but I'm not sure what the measurable space would be.


Found this in class notes:

For any $X$, $g_n(X) = \min\{n, \frac{[[2^ng(x)]]}{2^n}\}$ is simple, nondecreasing and $\to X$.

Then

$$X = X^+-X^-$$

$$X^+ = \lim_n \min\{n, \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}\}$$

$$\min\{n, \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}\} = n*1_{n \le \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}} + \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}* 1_{n \ge \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}}$$

I guess that counts?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\E}{\operatorname{\mathsf E}} \newcommand{\PP}{\operatorname{\mathsf P}}$

For any random variable (r.v.) $X$, you can write $X=X_+-X_-$, where $X_+:=\max(0,X)$ and $X_-:=\max(0,-X)$. Then you can write $$X_+=\int_0^\infty I\{X>x\}dx,\quad X_-=\int_0^\infty I\{-X>x\}dx,$$ and hence \begin{equation} X=\int_0^\infty (I\{X>x\}-I\{-X>x\})dx,\tag{1} \end{equation} where $I\{\cdot\}$ is the indicator function.

Addition in response to the editing of the post: Suppose that $g\colon\R\to\R$ is a Borel-measurable function such that $\E g(X)$ exists. By (1), \begin{equation} g(X)=\int_0^\infty (I\{g(X)>u\}-I\{-g(X)>u\})du. \tag{2} \end{equation} So, introducing the distribution (law) $\mu_X=\PP X^{-1}$ of $X$, by the Fubini theorem we have \begin{align*} \E g(X)&=\int_0^\infty (\E I\{g(X)>u\}-\E I\{-g(X)>u\})du \\ &=\int_0^\infty (\PP\{g(X)>u\}-\PP\{-g(X)>u\})du \\ &=\int_0^\infty [\mu_X(\{x\in\R\colon g(x)>u\})-\mu_X(\{x\in\R\colon -g(x)>u\})]du \\ &=\int_0^\infty du \Big(\int_\R\mu_X(dx)(I\{g(x)>u\}-I\{-g(x)>u\})\Big) \\ &=\int_\R\mu_X(dx)\int_0^\infty du\, (I\{g(x)>u\}-I\{-g(x)>u\}) \\ &=\int_\R\mu_X(dx)g(x), \end{align*} which is what you wanted, I hope.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Iosif, thanks. Now, I edited. Anything to add please? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Mar 21 '18 at 14:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In response to your edit, I added hopefully what you wanted. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Mar 21 '18 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ Iosif, are the du's supposed to be there? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Mar 21 '18 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BCLC : I am not sure what your question about the du's means. Physicists usually write du right after the integral sign, and I sometimes find it convenient, especially dealing with iterated integrals. However, I have moved the du's to their usual "mathematical" positions. Does this change anything for you? $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Mar 22 '18 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ I got it after I re-discovered Skorokhod representation. I posted an answer of my own. Again, thanks! Happy 4th week of Easter! ^-^ $\endgroup$ – BCLC Apr 28 '18 at 14:26

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.