Is independence indpendent on measure?

AI Thread Summary
Two sigma-algebras can indeed be independent under one measure while being dependent under another. Independence is defined in the context of a probability measure, where two sigma-algebras are independent if the probability of their intersection equals the product of their individual probabilities. The measure used is crucial, as demonstrated by an example involving two different measures on the same probability space. In this case, certain sets can be independent under one measure but dependent under another. This highlights the importance of the measure in determining the independence of sigma-algebras.
tunaaa
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Is it possible that 2 sigma-algebras could be independent under one measure but not independent under another?

Many thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tunaaa said:
Is it possible that 2 sigma-algebras could be independent under one measure but not independent under another?

Many thanks.

Hey tunaaa and welcome to the forums.

I don't know much about measure theory so maybe you could give us the definition of independence for a measure. I've heard about decomposing measures into orthogonal parts but I don't think this is what you are asking about.
 
chiro said:
Hey tunaaa and welcome to the forums.

I don't know much about measure theory so maybe you could give us the definition of independence for a measure. I've heard about decomposing measures into orthogonal parts but I don't think this is what you are asking about.

He probably means independence wrt a probability measure. This is defined as follows: take a probability space (\Omega,\mathcal{F},P) and take \mathcal{B}_1 and \mathcal{B}_2 sigma-algebra's which are part of \mathcal{F}. They are independent if for every B_1\in \mathcal{B}_1 and B_2\in \mathcal{B}_2 holds that

P(B_1\cap B_2)=P(B_1)P(B_2)

Like the definition suggests, the measure P is critical here. If we have another measure on (\Omega,\mathcal{F}, then independence must not hold.

For example, look at (\Omega,\mathcal{F})=(\mathbb{N},\mathcal{P} (\mathbb{N})) and take P_1 uniquely defined by P_1(\{0\})=1. Further, take P_2 uniquely define by P_2(\{0\})=P_2(\{1\})=1/2.

Then {0} and {1} (which generate sigma-algebras) are independent for P_1, but dependent for P_2.
 
Many thanks
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top