Folland Exercise 3.17
Let $(X, mathcal M, mu)$ be a finite measure space, $mathcal N$ a sub-$sigma$-algebra of $mathcal M$, and $nu = mu|mathcal N$. If $f in L^1(mu)$, there exists $g in L^1(nu)$ (thus $g$ is $mathcal N$-measurable) such that $int_E f dmu = int_E g dnu$ for all $E in mathcal N$; if $g'$ is another such function then $g = g'$ $nu$-a.e. (In probability theory, $g$ is called the conditional expectation of $f$ on $scr{N}$.)
I have managed to prove this statement to be true by defining a measure $lambda$ such that $dlambda = gdnu$ and then using Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem. Now as an extension of the problem, I want to characterize $g$ in terms of $f$ when $mathcal N = {emptyset, X}$, and when $mathcal N={emptyset, X, E, E^c}$ for some $Einmathcal M$. Now I'm not sure how to do the last bit, and completely stuck here.
I would like to get some help on how to tackle the last part.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
add a comment |
Let $(X, mathcal M, mu)$ be a finite measure space, $mathcal N$ a sub-$sigma$-algebra of $mathcal M$, and $nu = mu|mathcal N$. If $f in L^1(mu)$, there exists $g in L^1(nu)$ (thus $g$ is $mathcal N$-measurable) such that $int_E f dmu = int_E g dnu$ for all $E in mathcal N$; if $g'$ is another such function then $g = g'$ $nu$-a.e. (In probability theory, $g$ is called the conditional expectation of $f$ on $scr{N}$.)
I have managed to prove this statement to be true by defining a measure $lambda$ such that $dlambda = gdnu$ and then using Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem. Now as an extension of the problem, I want to characterize $g$ in terms of $f$ when $mathcal N = {emptyset, X}$, and when $mathcal N={emptyset, X, E, E^c}$ for some $Einmathcal M$. Now I'm not sure how to do the last bit, and completely stuck here.
I would like to get some help on how to tackle the last part.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
Let $(X, mathcal M, mu)$ be a finite measure space, $mathcal N$ a sub-$sigma$-algebra of $mathcal M$, and $nu = mu|mathcal N$. If $f in L^1(mu)$, there exists $g in L^1(nu)$ (thus $g$ is $mathcal N$-measurable) such that $int_E f dmu = int_E g dnu$ for all $E in mathcal N$; if $g'$ is another such function then $g = g'$ $nu$-a.e. (In probability theory, $g$ is called the conditional expectation of $f$ on $scr{N}$.)
I have managed to prove this statement to be true by defining a measure $lambda$ such that $dlambda = gdnu$ and then using Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem. Now as an extension of the problem, I want to characterize $g$ in terms of $f$ when $mathcal N = {emptyset, X}$, and when $mathcal N={emptyset, X, E, E^c}$ for some $Einmathcal M$. Now I'm not sure how to do the last bit, and completely stuck here.
I would like to get some help on how to tackle the last part.
real-analysis measure-theory
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
Let $(X, mathcal M, mu)$ be a finite measure space, $mathcal N$ a sub-$sigma$-algebra of $mathcal M$, and $nu = mu|mathcal N$. If $f in L^1(mu)$, there exists $g in L^1(nu)$ (thus $g$ is $mathcal N$-measurable) such that $int_E f dmu = int_E g dnu$ for all $E in mathcal N$; if $g'$ is another such function then $g = g'$ $nu$-a.e. (In probability theory, $g$ is called the conditional expectation of $f$ on $scr{N}$.)
I have managed to prove this statement to be true by defining a measure $lambda$ such that $dlambda = gdnu$ and then using Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem. Now as an extension of the problem, I want to characterize $g$ in terms of $f$ when $mathcal N = {emptyset, X}$, and when $mathcal N={emptyset, X, E, E^c}$ for some $Einmathcal M$. Now I'm not sure how to do the last bit, and completely stuck here.
I would like to get some help on how to tackle the last part.
real-analysis measure-theory
real-analysis measure-theory
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
edited Nov 23 '18 at 2:33
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
asked Nov 23 '18 at 2:20
Sank
16511
16511
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,X}$, you can check that
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(X)}int_X f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_X$$ (i.e., a constant function) does the job.
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,E,E^c,X}$,
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(E)}int_E f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_E + left( frac{1}{mu(E^c)}int_{E^c} f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_{E^c}$$
does the same thing.
To understand the construction we can think of a concrete example which parallels your problem: let's say you are a video game designer building a virtual world with 7 billion humans. You want them to approximate real-world humans in terms of their physical heights. The absolute best you could do is to match every human in the world to a video game human and make their heights correspond (this corresponds to taking $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M})$. The worst you could do is to make every video game human the same height, with that height being the average real human height (what else would it be?) A slight improvement is to divide the virtual humans into male and female, then make all females have the average real female height, and all males have the average real male height. These last two cases correspond to your question.
By the way, to make sure you understand the construction you should try it for the case when $mathcal{N}$ is generated by a countable partition of $X$ (i.e. when $X = sqcup E_i$ for $E_i$ measurable).
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009900%2ffolland-exercise-3-17%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,X}$, you can check that
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(X)}int_X f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_X$$ (i.e., a constant function) does the job.
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,E,E^c,X}$,
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(E)}int_E f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_E + left( frac{1}{mu(E^c)}int_{E^c} f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_{E^c}$$
does the same thing.
To understand the construction we can think of a concrete example which parallels your problem: let's say you are a video game designer building a virtual world with 7 billion humans. You want them to approximate real-world humans in terms of their physical heights. The absolute best you could do is to match every human in the world to a video game human and make their heights correspond (this corresponds to taking $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M})$. The worst you could do is to make every video game human the same height, with that height being the average real human height (what else would it be?) A slight improvement is to divide the virtual humans into male and female, then make all females have the average real female height, and all males have the average real male height. These last two cases correspond to your question.
By the way, to make sure you understand the construction you should try it for the case when $mathcal{N}$ is generated by a countable partition of $X$ (i.e. when $X = sqcup E_i$ for $E_i$ measurable).
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
add a comment |
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,X}$, you can check that
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(X)}int_X f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_X$$ (i.e., a constant function) does the job.
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,E,E^c,X}$,
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(E)}int_E f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_E + left( frac{1}{mu(E^c)}int_{E^c} f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_{E^c}$$
does the same thing.
To understand the construction we can think of a concrete example which parallels your problem: let's say you are a video game designer building a virtual world with 7 billion humans. You want them to approximate real-world humans in terms of their physical heights. The absolute best you could do is to match every human in the world to a video game human and make their heights correspond (this corresponds to taking $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M})$. The worst you could do is to make every video game human the same height, with that height being the average real human height (what else would it be?) A slight improvement is to divide the virtual humans into male and female, then make all females have the average real female height, and all males have the average real male height. These last two cases correspond to your question.
By the way, to make sure you understand the construction you should try it for the case when $mathcal{N}$ is generated by a countable partition of $X$ (i.e. when $X = sqcup E_i$ for $E_i$ measurable).
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
add a comment |
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,X}$, you can check that
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(X)}int_X f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_X$$ (i.e., a constant function) does the job.
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,E,E^c,X}$,
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(E)}int_E f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_E + left( frac{1}{mu(E^c)}int_{E^c} f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_{E^c}$$
does the same thing.
To understand the construction we can think of a concrete example which parallels your problem: let's say you are a video game designer building a virtual world with 7 billion humans. You want them to approximate real-world humans in terms of their physical heights. The absolute best you could do is to match every human in the world to a video game human and make their heights correspond (this corresponds to taking $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M})$. The worst you could do is to make every video game human the same height, with that height being the average real human height (what else would it be?) A slight improvement is to divide the virtual humans into male and female, then make all females have the average real female height, and all males have the average real male height. These last two cases correspond to your question.
By the way, to make sure you understand the construction you should try it for the case when $mathcal{N}$ is generated by a countable partition of $X$ (i.e. when $X = sqcup E_i$ for $E_i$ measurable).
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,X}$, you can check that
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(X)}int_X f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_X$$ (i.e., a constant function) does the job.
When $mathcal{N} = {emptyset,E,E^c,X}$,
$$g = left( frac{1}{mu(E)}int_E f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_E + left( frac{1}{mu(E^c)}int_{E^c} f , dmu right) mathbb{I}_{E^c}$$
does the same thing.
To understand the construction we can think of a concrete example which parallels your problem: let's say you are a video game designer building a virtual world with 7 billion humans. You want them to approximate real-world humans in terms of their physical heights. The absolute best you could do is to match every human in the world to a video game human and make their heights correspond (this corresponds to taking $mathcal{N}=mathcal{M})$. The worst you could do is to make every video game human the same height, with that height being the average real human height (what else would it be?) A slight improvement is to divide the virtual humans into male and female, then make all females have the average real female height, and all males have the average real male height. These last two cases correspond to your question.
By the way, to make sure you understand the construction you should try it for the case when $mathcal{N}$ is generated by a countable partition of $X$ (i.e. when $X = sqcup E_i$ for $E_i$ measurable).
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
edited Nov 23 '18 at 2:55
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
answered Nov 23 '18 at 2:35
user25959
1,573816
1,573816
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
add a comment |
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
thank you for your answer. $mathbb{I}_{X}$ what does this notation mean? Also, could you elaborate just a bit more on what you mean by"coarsening"? I'm having a hard time seeing how these constructions arose :/
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:44
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
That is the indicator function on $X$. It equals 1 everywhere. The indicator function on $E$ equals 1 for points in $E$, and 0 elsewhere.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:46
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
If I may paraphrase, since we know the area under $g$ and $f$ are equal on certain sets, we are constructing $g$ from that information right - letting $g$ equal to the average value over the set that it equals $f$, right? Also, do we need to worry about measurability at all here?
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:51
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Right. and measurability of these functions is a given - the indicator functions over measurable sets are basically by definition measurable functions, and scalar multiples and sums of measurable functions are measurable.
– user25959
Nov 23 '18 at 2:53
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
Thank you, this was so helpful!
– Sank
Nov 23 '18 at 2:54
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009900%2ffolland-exercise-3-17%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Relate math.stackexchange.com/questions/1003666
– Nosrati
Nov 23 '18 at 2:34