Rasalhague said:
First, just to avoid confusion, I gather random variable has two senses: (1) a measurable function; (2) a real-valued measurable function; and I think you're using it in sense 2.
Yes, because this is the most cases you only need case number 2. The most general case is the domain being a probability space and the codomain being a measurable space. In practice, even if the domain is not the reals, it will be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_space" , and the "measurable set" will be the intuitive sets.
Second, is there some special, distinguished probability space, [itex](\Omega, \Sigma, P)[/itex], associated with every model of a discrete probabalistic scenario, namely a probability space such that for every [itex]\omega \in \Omega[/itex], we have
[tex]P(\left \{ \omega \right \})=\frac{1}{|\Omega|},[/tex]
and does this probability space have a name to distinguish it from all of the other probability spaces that might be used in talking about this same scenario?
Unless you specify something else, this is taken as default. Uniform distribution.
In Permuter's example, could we just as well not mention any random variable and say: we have this probability space, [itex]\Omega = \left \{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \right \}[/itex]; its events are the power set of [itex]\Omega[/itex]; its measure is the probability measure specified as above. And then define entropy directly as a property of a probability measure, regardless of what random variables - if any - it may be the distribution of?
Haven't read the PDF. But it's probably not a good idea to ignore random variables all together, considering it's so common in the literature.
Third, you use a LaTeX symbol \Rset with doesn't display in my browser (Firefox). Does this denote the same as [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex], the set of real numbers? Does this mean that a random variable needn't be onto? If it's the case that the range of a random variable can be a proper subset of its codomain, does such a random variable fail to induce a probability measure on all of its codomain?
My bad, \Rset is a LaTeX macro I use at work. And yes it means the reals.
As for the last question the answer is no. Because a random variable is measurable, the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushforward_measure" always exists. Let's continue the example above.
First I need a probability measure on Ω, let's take the uniform and call it μ. The random variable has range [itex]\{-1,0,1\}[/itex]. I want a measure on the reals induced by μ. Let's call this ν.
Now let's calculate
[tex]\nu(\{1\}) = \mu(X^{-1}(\{1\}))=\mu(\{+_1\}\cup\{+_2\}) = \mu(\{+_1\})+\mu(\{+_2\})= \frac16+\frac16=\frac13[/tex]
Similar calculation gives [itex]\nu(0)=\nu(-1)=\frac13[/itex] as well.
To see that ν is defined elsewhere observe
[tex]\nu(\{2\}) = \mu(X^{-1}(\{2\})) = \mu(\emptyset) = 0[/tex]
This is true for any set which does not contain -1,0, or 1. It is just a trivial extension.
Lastly, we have distinguished μ and ν. But that was because I chose to distinguish the two pluses right at the start. It I didn't do this, we wouldn't need to distinguish the measures either.