Taken from Real Analysis and Probability by R.M. Dudley.
For a sequence of repeated, independent trials of an experiment, some probability distributions and variables converge as
tends to infinity. In proving such limit theorems, it is useful to be able to construct a probability space on which a sequence of independent random variables is defined in a natural way; specifically, as coordinates for a countable Cartesian product.
The Cartesian product of finitely many -finite measure spaces gives a
-finite measure space. For example, Cartesian products of Lesbesgue measure on the line give Lesbesgue measure on finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces. But suppose we take a measure space
with two points each having measure
,
, and form a countable Cartesian product of copies of this space, so that the measure of any countable product of sets equals the product of their measures. Then we would get an uncountable space in which all singletons have measure
, giving the measure usually called counting measure. An uncountable set with counting measure is not a
-finite space, although in this example it was a countable product of finite measure spaces. By contrast, the the countable product of probability measures will again be a probability space. Here are some definitions.
For each let
be a probability space. Let
be the Cartesian product
, that is, the set of all sequences
with
for all
. Let
be the natural projection of
onto
for each
:
for all
. Let
be the smallest
-algebra of subsets of
such that for all
,
is measurable from
to
. In other words,
is the smallest
-algebra containing all sets
for all
and all
.
Let be the collection of all sets
where
for all
and
except for at most finitely many values of
. Elements of
will be called rectangles. Now recall the notion of semiring.
has this property.
Definition
For any set , a collection
is called a semiring if
and for any
and
in
, we have
and
for some finite
and disjoint
.
Proposition
The collection if rectangles in the infinite product
is a semiring. The algebra
generated by
is the collection of finite disjoint unions of elements of
.
Proof : If and
are any two rectangles, then clearly
is a rectangle (
). In a product of two spaces, the collection of rectangles is a semiring (p.95, Proposition 3.2.2). Specifically, a difference of two rectangles is a union of two disjoint rectangles:
.
It follows by induction that in any finite Cartesian product, any difference of rectangles is a finite disjoint union of rectangles. Thus
is a semiring. We have
, so the ring generated by
is an algebra (p.96, Proposition 3.2.3). Since every algebra is a ring,
is the algebra generated by
. By Proposition 3.2.3,
consists of all finite disjoint unions of elements of
Now for , let
. The product converges since all but finitely many factors are
. Here is the main theorem to be proved in the rest of this section:
Theorem: Existence Theorem for Infinite Product Probabilities
on
extends uniquely to a (countably additive) probability measure on
.
Proof : For each , write
as a finite disjoint union of sets in
, say
,
and define
.
Let us first show that is well-defined and finitely additive on finite disjoint unions. Each
is a product of sets
with
for all
for some finite
. Let
be the maximum of the
for
. Then since all the
equal
for
, properties of
on such sets are equivalent to properties of the finite product measure on
. To show that
is well-defined, if a set of two different finite disjoint union of sets in
, we can take the maximum of the values of
for the two unions and still have a finite product. So
is well-defined and finitely additive on
by the finite product measure theorem (p.139 , Theorem 4.4.6).
If us countably additive on
, then it has a unique countably additive extension to
by the Carathéodory Extension Theorem. So it’s enough to prove countable additivity on
. Equivalently, if
,
, and
we want to prove
(“
is continuous at
” — p.86, Theorem 3.1.1). In other words, if
is a decreasing sequence of sets in
and for some
,
for all
, we must show
.
Let on
. For each
, let
.
Let and
be defined on
just as
and
were on
. For each
and
,
, let
.
For a set in a product space
and
, let
. If
is in a product
-algebra
then
(due to the proof of Theorem 4.4.3, p. 135). For any
there is an
large enough so that
for some
.
Since is a finite union of rectangles with this property, take the maximum of the values of
for the rectangles. Then
where
for some ,
,
. Now for any
, and
,
,
where
is the union of those sets
such that
for all
.
Thus , so
of it is defined. Then by the Tonelli-Fubini theorem in
,
we have
.
For with
for all
, let
.
For each , apply the formula for
to
,
. Then
.
Thus for all
. As
increases, the sets
decrease; thus, so do the
and the
.
Since is countably additive,
by monotone convergence of indicator functions, so . Take any
. Let
and
. Then
decreases as
increases,
for al
,
and for all
, so the intersection of all the
is non-empty in
and we can choose
in it.
Inductively, by the same argument there are for all
such that
for all
and
. Let
. To prove that
for each
, choose
large enough (depending on
) so that for all
,
or
. This is possible since
. Then
, so
. Hence
Actually, this theorem holds for arbitrary (not necessarily countable) products of probability spaces. The proof needs no major change, since each set in the -algebra
depends only on countably many coordinates. In other words, given a product
, where
is a possibly uncountable index set, for each set
there is a countable subset
of
and a set
such that
.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
July 5, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Infinite product probability « unmappingproperty
[…] post I’d like to introduce the notion of infinite product of probability spaces, following this. This result (their existence, uniqueness is standard) is attributed, as far as I know, to Ulam, […]