If $E[X|Y]=Y$ almost surely and $E[Y|X]=X$ almost surely then $X=Y$ almost surely
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables such that $Y=E[X|Y]$ almost surely and $X= E[Y|X]$ almost surely. Prove that $X=Y$ almost surely.
The hint I was given is to evaluate:
$$E[X-Y;X>a,Yleq a] + E[X-Y;Xleq a,Yleq a]$$
which I can write as: $$int_A(X-Y)dP +int_B(X-Y)dP$$ where $A={X>a, Yleq a}$ and $B={Xleq a,Yleq a}$.
But I need some more hints.
probability-theory conditional-expectation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables such that $Y=E[X|Y]$ almost surely and $X= E[Y|X]$ almost surely. Prove that $X=Y$ almost surely.
The hint I was given is to evaluate:
$$E[X-Y;X>a,Yleq a] + E[X-Y;Xleq a,Yleq a]$$
which I can write as: $$int_A(X-Y)dP +int_B(X-Y)dP$$ where $A={X>a, Yleq a}$ and $B={Xleq a,Yleq a}$.
But I need some more hints.
probability-theory conditional-expectation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables such that $Y=E[X|Y]$ almost surely and $X= E[Y|X]$ almost surely. Prove that $X=Y$ almost surely.
The hint I was given is to evaluate:
$$E[X-Y;X>a,Yleq a] + E[X-Y;Xleq a,Yleq a]$$
which I can write as: $$int_A(X-Y)dP +int_B(X-Y)dP$$ where $A={X>a, Yleq a}$ and $B={Xleq a,Yleq a}$.
But I need some more hints.
probability-theory conditional-expectation
$endgroup$
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables such that $Y=E[X|Y]$ almost surely and $X= E[Y|X]$ almost surely. Prove that $X=Y$ almost surely.
The hint I was given is to evaluate:
$$E[X-Y;X>a,Yleq a] + E[X-Y;Xleq a,Yleq a]$$
which I can write as: $$int_A(X-Y)dP +int_B(X-Y)dP$$ where $A={X>a, Yleq a}$ and $B={Xleq a,Yleq a}$.
But I need some more hints.
probability-theory conditional-expectation
probability-theory conditional-expectation
edited Nov 9 '15 at 7:10
Did
248k23226465
248k23226465
asked Feb 7 '14 at 1:45
PeterPeter
86211126
86211126
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=E(E(Xmid Y)-Y;Yleqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Yleqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Yleqslant c]$ and $[Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Yleqslant c).$$ Since $U_cgeqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Ymid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>cgeqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)mathbf 1_{X>cgeqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>cgeqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=bigcup_{cinmathbb Q}[X>cgeqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.
Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have
$$begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]] \
&= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y mid X] + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[-X^2 + Y^2]end{align*}$$
If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.
Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.
Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $h:{mathbb R}to{mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation
$$
E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].tag1
$$
But $E[Yh(X)]=Eleft[E(Yh(X)mid X)right]=E[h(X)E(Ymid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion
$$left{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0right}subsetleft{X=Yright}.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
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%2f666843%2fif-exy-y-almost-surely-and-eyx-x-almost-surely-then-x-y-almost-surel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=E(E(Xmid Y)-Y;Yleqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Yleqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Yleqslant c]$ and $[Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Yleqslant c).$$ Since $U_cgeqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Ymid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>cgeqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)mathbf 1_{X>cgeqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>cgeqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=bigcup_{cinmathbb Q}[X>cgeqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=E(E(Xmid Y)-Y;Yleqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Yleqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Yleqslant c]$ and $[Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Yleqslant c).$$ Since $U_cgeqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Ymid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>cgeqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)mathbf 1_{X>cgeqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>cgeqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=bigcup_{cinmathbb Q}[X>cgeqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=E(E(Xmid Y)-Y;Yleqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Yleqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Yleqslant c]$ and $[Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Yleqslant c).$$ Since $U_cgeqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Ymid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>cgeqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)mathbf 1_{X>cgeqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>cgeqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=bigcup_{cinmathbb Q}[X>cgeqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.
$endgroup$
Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=E(E(Xmid Y)-Y;Yleqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Yleqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Yleqslant c]$ and $[Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Yleqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Yleqslant c).$$ Since $U_cgeqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Ymid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(Xmid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;Xleqslant c,Yleqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>cgeqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)mathbf 1_{X>cgeqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>cgeqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=bigcup_{cinmathbb Q}[X>cgeqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.
edited Nov 9 '15 at 14:15
community wiki
2 revs
Did
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler.
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 7:58
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
@NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that).
$endgroup$
– Did
Nov 9 '15 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
$begingroup$
Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case?
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 9 '15 at 14:14
1
1
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
$begingroup$
Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Yle c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Yle c]$
$endgroup$
– bunny
Dec 8 '17 at 19:55
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.
Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have
$$begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]] \
&= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y mid X] + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[-X^2 + Y^2]end{align*}$$
If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.
Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.
Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.
Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have
$$begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]] \
&= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y mid X] + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[-X^2 + Y^2]end{align*}$$
If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.
Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.
Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.
Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have
$$begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]] \
&= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y mid X] + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[-X^2 + Y^2]end{align*}$$
If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.
Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.
Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.
$endgroup$
If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.
Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have
$$begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]] \
&= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y mid X] + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 mid X]] \
&= E[-X^2 + Y^2]end{align*}$$
If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.
Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.
Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
answered Nov 9 '15 at 7:30
Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge
64.2k682174
64.2k682174
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
$begingroup$
Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 mid X]]$?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 3:50
1
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
@user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z mid mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 4:32
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
$begingroup$
I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof?
$endgroup$
– user428487
Mar 21 '18 at 10:55
1
1
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
$begingroup$
@user428487: It's the fact that if $Z ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(bigcup_n {Z ge 1/n}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
Mar 21 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $h:{mathbb R}to{mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation
$$
E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].tag1
$$
But $E[Yh(X)]=Eleft[E(Yh(X)mid X)right]=E[h(X)E(Ymid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion
$$left{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0right}subsetleft{X=Yright}.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $h:{mathbb R}to{mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation
$$
E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].tag1
$$
But $E[Yh(X)]=Eleft[E(Yh(X)mid X)right]=E[h(X)E(Ymid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion
$$left{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0right}subsetleft{X=Yright}.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $h:{mathbb R}to{mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation
$$
E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].tag1
$$
But $E[Yh(X)]=Eleft[E(Yh(X)mid X)right]=E[h(X)E(Ymid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion
$$left{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0right}subsetleft{X=Yright}.
$$
$endgroup$
Let $h:{mathbb R}to{mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation
$$
E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].tag1
$$
But $E[Yh(X)]=Eleft[E(Yh(X)mid X)right]=E[h(X)E(Ymid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion
$$left{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0right}subsetleft{X=Yright}.
$$
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:04
grand_chatgrand_chat
20.4k11327
20.4k11327
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
$begingroup$
Yep, this is the other way.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 18:15
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.
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%2f666843%2fif-exy-y-almost-surely-and-eyx-x-almost-surely-then-x-y-almost-surel%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