2
$\begingroup$

Motivation:

  1. I want to compute $$E[g(X)] := \int_{\Omega} g(X(\omega)) d\mathbb{P}(\omega) \tag{*}$$ without needing change of variable formula.

  2. I want to prove the change of variable formula (you know the one I don't want to use for #1) without 'standard machine' (indicator, simple, nonnegative, integrable).

That is, prove $$(*) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} g(x) d\mathcal{L}_X(x)$$

possibly by writing

$$g(X) = \int_{\mathbb R} g(x) 1_{\{x = X(\omega)\}}(\omega) dx$$


We are given $(\Omega, \mathscr F, \mathbb P)$, $n \in \mathbb N$, $i = 1, \dots, n$ and $A_i \in \mathscr F$.

Bernoulli: Let $X_i \sim Be(p)$ where and $p = \mathbb P (A_i)$.

Binomial: Let $X = \sum_i X_i \sim Binom(n,p)$ where $n \in \mathbb N$.

Thus, we can write the random variables explicitly in terms of indicator functions $X_i = 1_{A_i}$ and $X = \sum_i 1_{A_i}$.

Is there a way to do this for any random variable? Given the definition of Lebesgue integration, I think we can though we would have to use $\lim$, $\sup$, $\sum$, $X^+, X^-$, etc. Here's what I tried:

Discrete Uniform: Let $DU_i \sim Unif\{1,\cdots,6\}$. Can we write $DU=\sum_{d=1}^{6} d1_d dd$?

Continuous Uniform: Let $CU_i \sim Unif(0,1)$. Can we write $CU=\int_0^1 c 1_c dc$?

Normal: Let $Z \sim N(0,1)$. Can we write $Z = \int_{\mathbb R} z1_z dz$ ?

How about $$Z = \int_{\mathbb R} z \lim_n \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} dz$$ ?

I'm guessing that while $$\frac{\sum_i 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} \nrightarrow Z$$, $$\frac{\sum_i 1_{A_i} - np}{\sqrt{np(1-p)}} \to 1_z$$

I guess we need some filtration $\{\mathscr F_0\} \cup \{\mathscr F_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ and possibly $\mathscr F_{\infty} := \sigma(\mathscr F_0 \cup \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb N} \mathscr F_n)$

Any: $Y = \int_{\mathbb R} y1_y dy$ ?

I guess there may be some integrability issue such as if $X \sim Cantor$. I guess there may be some integrability issue such as if $X \sim Cantor$. I recall $\mathscr L_X(B) = P(X \in B)$ is a probability measure on $(\mathbb R, \mathscr B)$, but I'm not sure how that would resolve any integrability issue.

Perhaps $Y = \int_{\mathbb R} y1_y d\mu(x)$, but I'm not sure what the measurable space would be.


Found this in class notes:

For any $X$, $g_n(X) = \min\{n, \frac{[[2^ng(x)]]}{2^n}\}$ is simple, nondecreasing and $\to X$.

Then

$$X = X^+-X^-$$

$$X^+ = \lim_n \min\{n, \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}\}$$

$$\min\{n, \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}\} = n*1_{n \le \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}} + \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}* 1_{n \ge \frac{[[2^nx^+]]}{2^n}}$$

I guess that counts?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\E}{\operatorname{\mathsf E}} \newcommand{\PP}{\operatorname{\mathsf P}}$

For any random variable (r.v.) $X$, you can write $X=X_+-X_-$, where $X_+:=\max(0,X)$ and $X_-:=\max(0,-X)$. Then you can write $$X_+=\int_0^\infty I\{X>x\}dx,\quad X_-=\int_0^\infty I\{-X>x\}dx,$$ and hence \begin{equation} X=\int_0^\infty (I\{X>x\}-I\{-X>x\})dx,\tag{1} \end{equation} where $I\{\cdot\}$ is the indicator function.

Addition in response to the editing of the post: Suppose that $g\colon\R\to\R$ is a Borel-measurable function such that $\E g(X)$ exists. By (1), \begin{equation} g(X)=\int_0^\infty (I\{g(X)>u\}-I\{-g(X)>u\})du. \tag{2} \end{equation} So, introducing the distribution (law) $\mu_X=\PP X^{-1}$ of $X$, by the Fubini theorem we have \begin{align*} \E g(X)&=\int_0^\infty (\E I\{g(X)>u\}-\E I\{-g(X)>u\})du \\ &=\int_0^\infty (\PP\{g(X)>u\}-\PP\{-g(X)>u\})du \\ &=\int_0^\infty [\mu_X(\{x\in\R\colon g(x)>u\})-\mu_X(\{x\in\R\colon -g(x)>u\})]du \\ &=\int_0^\infty du \Big(\int_\R\mu_X(dx)(I\{g(x)>u\}-I\{-g(x)>u\})\Big) \\ &=\int_\R\mu_X(dx)\int_0^\infty du\, (I\{g(x)>u\}-I\{-g(x)>u\}) \\ &=\int_\R\mu_X(dx)g(x), \end{align*} which is what you wanted, I hope.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Iosif, thanks. Now, I edited. Anything to add please? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 14:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In response to your edit, I added hopefully what you wanted. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ Iosif, are the du's supposed to be there? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BCLC : I am not sure what your question about the du's means. Physicists usually write du right after the integral sign, and I sometimes find it convenient, especially dealing with iterated integrals. However, I have moved the du's to their usual "mathematical" positions. Does this change anything for you? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 22, 2018 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ I got it after I re-discovered Skorokhod representation. I posted an answer of my own. Again, thanks! Happy 4th week of Easter! ^-^ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2018 at 14:26

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.