1
$\begingroup$

Is there a measurable function $g:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $g(\sum_{i=1}^nx_i)=(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)$ a.e.?

Due to the papers [1], [2], and [3] I'm obtaining a result that I think it's false. I posted a question in stats.exchange in order to find where the mistake is, but I didn't receive any answer. Below I'll describe the result I found.

For all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ let $P_\theta:\mathfrak{B}_\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be the probability measure induced by the density $f_\theta (x):=(2\pi)^{-1/2}e^{-\frac{(x-\theta)^2}{2}}$ (normal distribution).

Let $n\in\mathbb{N}^\times$. We denote by $P_\theta^{\otimes n}$ the product measure $\underbrace{P_\theta\otimes \cdots \otimes P_\theta}_{n\text{ times}}$.

The result I obtained says that there's a measurable function $g:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ there's $N_\theta\in\mathfrak{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ with $P_{\theta}^{\otimes n}(N_\theta)=0$ and $g(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i)=(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)$ for all $(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus N_\theta$.

This result sounds absurd but I don't know how to prove that this can’t happen.

My question: is this result indeed false?

I tried to find different elements $(x_1,\dotsc,x_n),(y_1,\dotsc,y_n)\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus N_\theta $ with $\sum _{i=1}^n x_i=\sum_{i=1}^ny_i$, but I failed.


Below is how I obtained the result.

Consider the statistical model $(\mathbb{R},\mathfrak{B}_\mathbb{R},\{P_\theta\}_{\theta\in\mathbb{R}})$.

It's easy to see that $T:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x):=x$ is a minimal sufficient statistic, therefore, using Theorem 1 of [3] (or Theorems 4 and 1 of [1] and [2], respectively), we can conclude that $S:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^n$ given by $S(x_1,\dotsc,x_n):=(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)$ is a minimal sufficient statistics w.r.t. the model $(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathfrak{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n},\{P_\theta^{\otimes n}\}_{\theta\in\mathbb{R}})$.

It's easy to see that $R:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ given by $R(x_1,\dotsc,x_n):=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i$ is sufficient statistic w.r.t. $(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathfrak{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n},\{P_\theta^{\otimes n}\}_{\theta\in\mathbb{R}})$ which implies, by the minimality of $S$, that there's a measurable function $g:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ there's $N_\theta\in\mathfrak{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ with $P_{\theta}^{\otimes n}(N_\theta)=0$ and $S(x)=g(R(x))$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus N_\theta$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

This indeed cannot happen. For an element $v\in\mathbb R^n$, let $\sum v$ be the sum of its coefficients.

Let $A=\mathbb R^n\setminus N_\theta$. For any nonzero vector $v\in\mathbb R^n$ with $\sum v=0$, and any $a\in A$, we have $a+v\neq a=g(\sum a)=g(\sum(a+v))$, hence $a+v\not\in A$. Therefore $A$ has uncountably many pairwise disjoint translates, all of the same (Lebesgue) measure, which imples $A$ is necessarily null, so $N_\theta$ cannot be null.

I'm afraid I cannot comment on your argument proving the contrary and how it fails.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could please explain why $A$ is necessarily null? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9, 2024 at 1:16
  • $\begingroup$ The set of all $v\in\mathbb{R}^n$ with $\sum v=0$ has measure zero. Are you certain that what you wrote is in fact true? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9, 2024 at 3:40
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If $A$ is not null, it contains a bounded subset $A_1$ which is not null. If you consider only translates of $A_1$ on vectors of length at most 1,you can not have more then finitely if them which are disjoint, by pigeonhole principle $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9, 2024 at 5:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.