Register to reply

Why are sigma fields significant in probability theory?

by rukawakaede
Tags: fields, probability, sigma, theory
Share this thread:
rukawakaede
#1
May30-11, 01:47 AM
P: 59
As the title.

Why are sigma fields important in probability?

The only one reason I can think of is that sigma fields are used as domain, e.g. borel fields uses sigma fields instead of power set. However, are there any other significances of sigma fields in probability theory?

Thanks for your response.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Pilot sites in energy from coffee waste show good results
Startups offer banking for smartphone users
Factor in naked mole rat's cells enhances protein integrity
Lajka
#2
May30-11, 03:17 AM
P: 68
Well, the probability, as any other measure, is defined over sigma-fields primarily because of the existence of sets which are unmeasurable. We need to exclude those somehow, so this is the best way to do it.
As far as I know, all those unmeasurable sets are pretty pathological in their nature, and any subset that you can think of is most likely measurable. So, from a practical POV, this is just a formality which needed to be done for consistency's sake.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
mathman
#3
May30-11, 03:15 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 6,071
Probabilities can be added as long as the number of terms is countable. Sigma fields insure that if you have a countable number of events the union is also an event, so the calculation of its probability is meaningful.

disregardthat
#4
May30-11, 04:14 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,807
Why are sigma fields significant in probability theory?

Quote Quote by Lajka View Post
Well, the probability, as any other measure, is defined over sigma-fields primarily because of the existence of sets which are unmeasurable. We need to exclude those somehow, so this is the best way to do it.
As far as I know, all those unmeasurable sets are pretty pathological in their nature, and any subset that you can think of is most likely measurable. So, from a practical POV, this is just a formality which needed to be done for consistency's sake.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
The proof of their existence actually provides the mathematical means of calculating the measure (which is necessary for a measure to be of any use) of any sigma-measurable set. In the lebesgue-measure, we are sure that by approximating with for example unions of disjoint n-dimensional boxes (such as [a_1,b_1)x[a_2,b_2) x ... x [a_n,b_n)) that converge (as sets) to our measurable set, the corresponding approximation of (easily calculated) measures will also converge. E.g: we know that closed sets (in the standard topology of R^n) are lebesgue-measurable, so we can calculate their measure by making covers of disjoint unions of such boxes that converges as sets to the closed set.

For general sigma-algebras with corresponding measures, we can approximate by disjoint unions of some generating semi-ring. We could use the boxes in the lebesgue-measure case since the set of boxes is a generating semi-ring for the set of lebesgue-measurable sets.

If we do not know that the set is contained in our sigma-algebra (that is, being measurable), we can't use this method.

In fact, sigma-algebras have no use in consistency. Not using them, and still applying a measure to some set would be meaningless as we would have no method of calculating it. Applying a measure does mean that we have such a method (and generating semi-rings provide in many cases a constructive method!). We could try by e.g. approximating with some arbitrary method-such as by disjoint union of boxes-but we don't know that this will converge uniquely. And this is exactly what the existence+uniqueness of measures proves for sigma-algebras.

Similarly for probability theory; P(A) does not makes sense unless A is contained in a set where the measure P can be meaningfully applied.
bpet
#5
May30-11, 10:27 PM
P: 523
Further to the above comments, the use of sigma fields simply puts probability theory on a common foundation with measure theory, i.e. general integration.

It is possible to define versions of probability theory based on finite additivity rather than sigma-additivity, with various implications, for example densities of sets on the natural numbers such as [itex]d(A)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\#(A\cap\{1,...,n\})[/itex] are finitely additive but not sigma additive because all singletons have zero density.
disregardthat
#6
Jun2-11, 03:00 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,807
Quote Quote by bpet View Post
Further to the above comments, the use of sigma fields simply puts probability theory on a common foundation with measure theory, i.e. general integration.

It is possible to define versions of probability theory based on finite additivity rather than sigma-additivity, with various implications, for example densities of sets on the natural numbers such as [itex]d(A)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\#(A\cap\{1,...,n\})[/itex] are finitely additive but not sigma additive because all singletons have zero density.
This is not a measure on P(N) though. An example of a set for which d(A) is ill-defined is the set A of integers starting with the digit 1 in base 10.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Sigma algebra proof in measure theory Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Probability sigma field Calculus & Beyond Homework 0
Competitiveness of various fields of theory Academic Guidance 7
[probability theory] simple question about conditional probability Precalculus Mathematics Homework 1
Fields and probability clouds Quantum Physics 2