How to Interpret P(dw) in Probability Measure Integrals?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on interpreting the notation P(dw) in the context of probability measure integrals. Participants express confusion about whether P(dw) represents a probability density function or a distribution function, with some suggesting it relates to the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral. Clarifications indicate that P(dw) can be understood as the measure associated with a probability distribution, and the integral \int f(w) P(dw) is equivalent to the expectation of the function f with respect to the probability measure. The conversation also touches on the nuances of differentiability in probability measures and the distinction between Lebesgue and Stieltjes integrals. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of measure theory and its application in probability.
David1234
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
What does it mean by
\int f(w) P (dw)

I don't really understand P (dw) here. Does it mean P (x: x \in B(x, \delta)) for infinitely small \delta?

For example, with P(x)=1/10 for x=1, 2, ..., 10. How can we interpret this in term of the above integral

Thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I never took measure theory. Therefor my totally naive answer would be P(dw) is just a distribution function. Of course I'm probably completely wrong given I don't even know what a measure is.
 
P(dw) is like a distribution fuction... may be. I am confused about P(dw), is it probability of dw? Then what is dw? Following the above example, say, we have f(w)=1 for w=1 and 0 otherwise. What is the meaning of dw here and hence value of P(dw) at w=1? I guess the above integral would give value = 1/10.
 
I have never seen "P(dw)". I think you mean what I would call dP(w)= P'(w)dw- the derivative of the cumulative probability distribution and so the probability density function. In that case, \int F(w)dP= \int F(w)P'(w)dw is the expected value of F.
 
I guess if P(w) has a derivative we can write it that way. I got the expression from a textbook by Patrick Billingsley. Generally, when P(w) is not differentiable (as shown in the example), we can not write the expression in that form.
 
The notation
<br /> \int_\Omega X(\omega}) \, \mathcal{P}(dw)<br />

is used in probability to indicate the expectation of the random variable X
with respect tot the probability measure (distribution) \mathcal{P} over the probability space \Omega.

If \Lambda is any measurable set, then

<br /> \int_\Lambda X(\omega) \, \mathcal{P}(dw) = E[X \cdot 1_{\Lambda}]<br />

If the probability space is the real line with measure \mu, then

<br /> \int_\Lambda X(\omega) \, \mathcal{P}(dw) = \int_\Lambda f(x) \, \mu(dx)<br />

is the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral of f with respect to the
probability measure \mu.

In more traditional form, if F is the distribution function of \mu, and \Lambda is an interval (a,b), then

<br /> \int_\Lambda X(\omega) \, \mathcal{P}(dw) = \int_\Lambda f(x) \, \mu(dx) = \int_{(a,b)} f(x) \, dF(x)<br />

If the probability measure doesn't have any atoms, the final integral is just a Lebesgue integral. If there are atoms, you need to take care to specify the interval according to whether the endpoints are or are not included - e.g.

<br /> \int_{a+0}^{b+0} f(x) \,dF(x), \quad \int_{a-0}^{b-0} f(x) \, dF(x)<br />

and so on.

Billingsley is one of the "classic" probability texts. Chang's "A Course in Probability Theory" is another - I studied from it many years ago, and have the second edition. His writing is a little terse, but there is a lot packed into his book.
 
Thanks a lot for the detail answer. I guess by Chang you mean Kai Lai Chung... :)
 
Yes, I did mean Kai Lai Chung - I would give a general description of my typing ability, but the description wouldn't be "safe for work".
Sorry for the confusion - glad the answer helped.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I have never seen "P(dw)". I think you mean what I would call dP(w)= P'(w)dw- the derivative of the cumulative probability distribution and so the probability density function. In that case, \int F(w)dP= \int F(w)P&#039;(w)dw is the expected value of F.

This isn't really correct. P may not be differentiable. When you say \int_B f(x) P(dx), you are referring to the Lebesgue integral of f with respect to P. It is the same as saying \int_B f dP. You are just telling where the arguments lie so there is no confusion. I have to disagree with statdad in that it is not the Stieltjes integral, it is just the plain old Lebesgue integral. For Stieltjes you want to take a distribution function F of P and then you work it out as \int_B f(x) dF(x)=\int_B f(x) P(dx).

Billingsley is a nice textbook and also I would recommend Ash, Real Analysis and Probability.
 
  • #10
Thanks...

I will have a look at "Real Analysis and Probability" by Ash.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K