3
$\begingroup$

Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ be a measurable space, and let $P, P_1, P_2,...$ be probability measures on this space with $P = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n P_n$, where $a_n > 0$ and $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n = 1$.

I want to define a probability measure on the product space $\Omega \times \mathbb{N}$.

If $\Omega$ is countable, I can easily verify that $Q$ defined by $$Q(\omega, n) = a_nP_n(\omega)$$ is a probability on $\Omega \times \mathbb{N}$.

But now suppose $\Omega$ is not countable. As usual, we equip $\Omega \times \mathbb{N}$ with the sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F} \times \mathscr{P}(\mathbb{N})$ generated by the semi-algebra $\mathcal{S} = \{F \times N: F \in \mathcal{F}, N \in \mathscr{P}(\mathbb{N}) \}$ of measurable rectangles. I want to proceed as in the countable case and define $Q$ on $\mathcal{S}$ by $$Q(F \times N) = \sum_{n \in N}a_nP_n(F).$$ Now, in order to uniquely extend $Q$ to $\mathcal{F} \times \mathscr{P}(\mathbb{N})$, I just need to show that $Q$ is countably additive on $\mathcal{S}$ (or finitely additive and countably sub additive, but I was hoping I could just show countable additivity.)

Let $F \times N \in \mathcal{S}$ be a countable disjoint union $\cup_{j \in J} F_j \times N_j$ of measurable rectangles. We need to show that $$Q(F \times N) = \sum_{j \in J}Q(F_j \times N_j).$$

I have convinced myself that we can reduce to the case where each $N_j$ is a singleton $\{ n_j\}$. But now I find myself stuck. I've tried playing around with the indices, but I can't seem to make progress.

Question. Can you please give me a hint or a suggestion for how to proceed? My feeling is that this should be very easy and I'm missing something fairly obvious.


Somehow I think we can assume without loss of generality that $\cup_{j \in J}F_j \times N_j$ is of the form $\cup_{n \in N}F \times \{n\}$. If that's so, countable additivity follows by two applications of the definition of $Q$: $$Q(F \times N) = \sum_{n \in N}a_nP_n(F) = \sum_{n \in N}Q(F \times \{n\}).$$

Here's my idea for reducing the problem. First, as above, I think I can show that it's sufficient to assume that $N_j$ in $\cup_{j \in J}F_j \times N_j$ is a singleton $\{n_j\}$, with $n_j \in N$. Next, we can assume that each $n_j$ is unique. If not, and $n_j = n_k = n$, then we write $F_n = F_j \cup F_k$ where the union is disjoint. So we reduce to the case where $\cup_{j \in J}F_j \times N_j$ is of the form $\cup_{n \in N}F_n \times \{n\}$.

Finally, since by assumption $F \times N \in \mathcal{S}$, we have $F \times N = \cup_{n \in N} F \times \{n\}$. So by the previous paragraph $$\cup_{n \in N}F \times \{n\} = \cup_{n \in N} F_n \times \{n\},$$ which implies that $F_n = F$ for all $n \in N$ and completes the reduction.

Does this work?

1 Answers 1

2

There is no need to use something as strong as Caratheodory to prove the existence of such a $Q$.

For each $n \in \Bbb N$ there is a map $\gamma_n: \Omega \to \Omega \times \Bbb N$ given by $\omega \mapsto (\omega, n)$. This map is measurable since each component is measurable.

For each $n$ we define a measure $Q_n := \gamma_n^* P_n$. (This is a probability measure on $\Omega \times \Bbb N$ which is the pushforward of $P_n$ under the map $\gamma_n$. More precisely $Q_n(B) = P_n(\gamma_n^{-1}(B))$, for all $B \in \mathcal F \otimes \mathcal P(\Bbb N)$.)

Then define $Q = \sum_n a_n Q_n$ which is a probability measure on $\Omega \times \Bbb N$ since it is a convex combination of probability measures. And we have $Q(A \times F) = \sum_{n\in F} a_n P_n(A)$, since $\gamma_n^{-1}(A \times F) = A$ for all $n \in F$, and $\emptyset$ otherwise.

  • 0
    This is really nice, thank you. I am still curious to see if my approach works and to hear any further comments, so I'll leave the question open for a bit.2017-02-09
  • 0
    Can I ask a follow up question? How can you tell when Caratheodory is not needed? Your approach makes sense to me, reading it now. But I wouldn't have thought of it on my own, and that bothers me.2017-02-09
  • 0
    I can tell it's not needed because $\Omega \times \Bbb N$ is just a countable union of disjoint copies of $\Omega$, and any Borel set is therefore just a disjoint union of Borel sets in each of those. And disjoint countable unions are easy to define probabilities on, no advanced machinery is needed.2017-02-09
  • 0
    That makes sense. I sensed that it was somewhat elementary, but just didn't know how else to proceed. Now I do! Thanks again.2017-02-09
  • 0
    Another follow-up (thanks in advance for your time). Does the same idea work for uncountable mixtures (as [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/141744/generalized-notions-of-mixture))? It seems to me (assuming $\{ P_i\}$ has the cardinality of the continuum) that we can use the same construction with $\Omega \times \mathbb{R}$, but I thought I'd check with you since I'm still learning.2017-02-13
  • 0
    @aduh It can work for uncountable mixtures, sure. Specifically, see the answer given by "guy" in that link of yours. That's the most general form of this construction, but in the uncountable case there are measurability subtleties you need to take into account.2017-02-17