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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter David1234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Probability
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
9 replies · 3K views
David1234
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
What does it mean by
[tex]\int f(w) P (dw)[/tex]

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

For example, with [tex]P(x)=1/10[/tex] for [tex]x=1, 2, ..., 10[/tex]. 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 [tex]f(w)=1[/tex] 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, [itex]\int F(w)dP= \int F(w)P'(w)dw[/itex] 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
[tex] \int_\Omega X(\omega}) \, \mathcal{P}(dw)[/tex]

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

If [tex]\Lambda[/tex] is any measurable set, then

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

If the probability space is the real line with measure [tex]\mu[/tex], then

[tex] \int_\Lambda X(\omega) \, \mathcal{P}(dw) = \int_\Lambda f(x) \, \mu(dx)[/tex]

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

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

[tex] \int_\Lambda X(\omega) \, \mathcal{P}(dw) = \int_\Lambda f(x) \, \mu(dx) = \int_{(a,b)} f(x) \, dF(x)[/tex]

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.

[tex] \int_{a+0}^{b+0} f(x) \,dF(x), \quad \int_{a-0}^{b-0} f(x) \, dF(x)[/tex]

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, [itex]\int F(w)dP= \int F(w)P'(w)dw[/itex] is the expected value of F.

This isn't really correct. P may not be differentiable. When you say [itex]\int_B f(x) P(dx)[/itex], you are referring to the Lebesgue integral of f with respect to P. It is the same as saying [itex]\int_B f dP[/itex]. 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 [itex]\int_B f(x) dF(x)=\int_B f(x) P(dx)[/itex].

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

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