MHB Conditional expected value (using measure theory)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the property that the expected value of the conditional expectation equals the expected value of the original random variable, specifically that E(E(X|G)) = E(X). The user attempts to utilize the definition of conditional expected value through the relationship E(I_hE(X|G)) = E(I_hX) for every h in G. They establish that if Z = E(X|G), then Z is G-measurable, leading to the conclusion that E[Z] = E[X]. The proof confirms the validity of the property using measure theory principles.
Barioth
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm trying to show that
Givien a probability triplet $$(\theta,F,P)$$
with $$G\in F$$ a sub sigma algebra
$$E(E(X|G))=E(X)$$

Now I want to use $$E(I_hE(X|G))=E(I_hX)$$
for every $$h\in G $$

since that's pretty much all I've for the definition of conditional expected value.

I know this property should use the definition of expected value, but I can't get it to work.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let $\mathcal{G} \subset \mathcal{F}$ be a sub $\sigma$-algebra of $\mathcal{F}$ then we have to prove:
$$\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[X|\mathcal{G}]] = \mathbb{E}[X]$$

Set $Z = \mathbb{E}[X|\mathcal{G}]$ then by definition $Z$ is $\mathcal{G}$-measurable and $\forall G \in \mathcal{G}: \mathbb{E}[ZI_G] = \mathbb{E}[XI_G]$. Since $\mathcal{G}$ is a sub $\sigma$-algebra it has to contain $\Omega$ thus in particular $\mathbb{E}[ZI_{\Omega}] = \mathbb{E}[XI_{\Omega}]$ which means $\mathbb{E}[Z] = \mathbb{E}[X]$. Hence $\mathbb{E}[Z] = \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[X|\mathcal{G}]] = \mathbb{E}[X]$.
 
Thanks, very clean!
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.