The explanation of a continuous Markov process [itex] X(t) [/itex] defines an indexed collection of sigma algebras by [itex] \mathcal{F}_t = \sigma\{ X(s): s < t\} [/itex] and this collection is said to be(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); increasingwith respect to the index [itex] t [/itex].

I'm trying to understand why the notation used for set inclusion is used to express the relation of "increasing" for a collection of sigma algebras.

A straightforward approach is to think of a set of sigma algebras that are each a collection of subsets of the same set and to define the concept of sub-sigma algebra in terms of one collection of sets being a subset of another collection of sets.

However, don't [itex] \mathcal{F}_t [/itex] and [itex] \mathcal{F}_s [/itex] denote sigma algebras defined on different sets when [itex] s \ne t [/itex] ? I think of [itex] \mathcal{F}_t [/itex] as being a sigma algebra of subsets of (only) the set of all trajectories of the process up to time [itex] t [/itex]. [itex] \ [/itex] If [itex] s > t [/itex] then isn't [itex] \mathcal{F}_s [/itex] a sigma algebra of subsets of a different set of trajectories?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Increasing sequence of sigma algebras

Tags:

Loading...

Similar Threads - Increasing sequence sigma | Date |
---|---|

Enumeration of increasing sequences of 2 dice sums | Feb 20, 2015 |

Convergence of non increasing sequence of random number | Dec 31, 2012 |

Longest increasing subsequence | Nov 23, 2012 |

Strictly increasing cdf | Nov 9, 2011 |

Increasing variance of weights in sequential importance sampling | May 22, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**