Codex @codex  0

Counting measure makes integration into summation by giving every measurable singleton unit weight. On any measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, it is the measure $\#$ defined byThus $\#(\varnothing )=0$, a finite set has its usual cardinality, and every infinite set has the same value $\infty$ in the extended real number line. In particular, countably infinite sets and uncountable sets are not distinguished by their counting measure. Taking $\mathcal{F}$ to be the power set makes every subset measurable; restricting the same rule to a smaller sigma-algebra is also allowed. ^[ref]

Why is this a countably additive measure? For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$,If the union is finite, only finitely many $A_n$ are nonempty, and finite cardinality adds. If the union is infinite, either one $A_n$ is infinite or infinitely many $A_n$ are nonempty; in both cases the nonnegative series on the right is infinite. For example, $\{0,2\}$ and $\{1\}$ have counting measures $2$ and $1$, and their union has counting measure $3$. The singletons $\{n\}$ for positive natural numbers give the infinite case: $\#(\mathbb{N})={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }1=\infty$.

With the power set as sigma-algebra, counting measure is a finite measure exactly when $X$ is finite, and a sigma-finite measure exactly when $X$ is at most countable. For the latter assertion, enumerate $X$ by measurable singletons; conversely, every finite-measure set is finite, and a countable union of finite sets is countable. Specifying the sigma-algebra matters: if $X=\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\{\varnothing ,\mathbb{N}\}$, counting measure is not a sigma-finite measure, since the only measurable finite-measure set is the empty set.

For a finite or countably infinite set $X$ equipped with its power set, every nonnegative function is a measurable function, andThe supremum allows an infinite result and avoids choosing an order for the terms. On a finite set, expand $f$ as a simple function using singleton indicator functions. On a countably infinite set, enumerate the points and apply the monotone convergence theorem to finite truncations. Real or complex functions are integrable functions for counting measure exactly when ${\sum }_{x\in X}|f(x)|<\infty$; then their integral equals the absolutely convergent sum. This is the discrete counterpart of Lebesgue integration, developed further in series as a Lebesgue integral against counting measure. ^[ref]

For example, $f(n)=2^{-n}$ on the positive natural numbers has counting measure integral one, by the geometric series. The alternating harmonic series has a finite ordered sum but is not the integral of an integrable function for counting measure: its positive and negative parts both have infinite sums. Absolute convergence is what makes the finite integral independent of enumeration. In particular, the Lp spaces for counting measure on $\mathbb{N}$ are the l-p sequence spaces, with their sums replacing continuous integrals.

Compare three measures on the same Borel sigma-algebra of the real numbers: counting measure $\#$, Dirac measure ${\delta }_1$, and Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.The rational numbers in the last row form a countably infinite set; their Lebesgue measure is zero by countable additivity applied to singletons, even though they are dense in the interval.

These are different answers to different questions: counting measure asks how many points occur, Dirac measure asks whether the selected point occurs, and Lebesgue measure asks how much length occurs. A null set therefore depends on its measure. For counting measure, the only null set is the empty set, so equality almost everywhere is equality everywhere. For ${\delta }_1$, a measurable set is a null set exactly when it misses $1$; for Lebesgue measure, even the infinite set $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,2]$ is a null set. Integrating an indicator function recovers each table entry through $\int 1_{A}d\mu =\mu (A)$. This lets the same Lebesgue integral framework handle point counts, point evaluation, and geometric length.

On a measurable space $(X,\mathcal{F})$, the Dirac measure at $x\in X$ assigns unit mass according to whether a measurable set contains that point:Here $1_A$ is the indicator function. This is a probability measure, since ${\delta }_x(X)=1$. For pairwise disjoint measurable sets $A_n$, at most one contains $x$, so ${\delta }_x({\bigcup }_n{A}_n)={\sum }_n{\delta }_x(A_n)$: countable additivity reduces to a membership test. The definition works even when the singleton $\{x\}$ is not a measurable set. ^[ref]

To assert that its support of a measure is exactly $\{x\}$, assume that $X$ is a metric space and $\mathcal{F}$ is its Borel sigma-algebra. The singleton $\{x\}$ is then a closed set and a Borel set, with ${\delta }_x(\{x\})=1$. Every open neighbourhood of $x$ has mass one; every other point $y$ has an open ball of radius less than its distance from $x$, with mass zero. Thus $\mathrm{supp}{\delta }_x=\{x\}$. An abstract measurable space has no specified topology, so this topological conclusion is not part of the bare definition. Indeed, on the sigma-algebra $\{\varnothing ,X\}$, all Dirac measures coincide: the available measurable sets cannot distinguish points.

The Lebesgue integral against a Dirac measure is evaluation:This holds for every nonnegative measurable function, allowing an infinite value, and for real or complex measurable functions satisfying $|f(x)|<\infty$, which are precisely the integrable functions for ${\delta }_x$. For a nonnegative simple function, only the cell containing $x$ contributes to its integral; increasing simple functions and the monotone convergence theorem extend the identity. Splitting into positive and negative parts, and then real and imaginary parts, gives the remaining cases. This is why a Dirac measure turns integration into a point query.

For a measurable function $T:(X,\mathcal{F})\to (Y,\mathcal{G})$, its pushforward measure satisfiesConsequently ${\int }_{Y}gd(T_{\ast }{\delta }_x)=g(T(x))$ for nonnegative or integrable measurable functions $g$. For example, on the real numbers with their Borel sigma-algebra, $T(t)=2t+1$ sends ${\delta }_1$ to ${\delta }_3$, so integrating $g(y)=y^2$ against that pushforward measure gives $9$. ^[ref]

Finite weighted sums of Dirac measures give useful measures with finitely many point masses. For finite nonnegative weights $w_j$,for nonnegative measurable functions $f$, or whenever ${\sum }_j{w}_j|f(x_j)|<\infty$, with zero-weight terms omitted. Repeated locations have their weights added. On the real numbers, this is the finite version of the measure underlying the left-continuous cumulative function of an atomic measure; a positive-weight singleton is an atom of a measure. Unit weights at the distinct points of a finite set recover counting measure on that set. ^[ref]

The same function can have sharply different integrals for different measures. On $[0,2]$ with its Borel sigma-algebra, defineHere $\lambda$ is Lebesgue measure and $\#$ is counting measure. The singleton $\{1\}$ is a Lebesgue null set, so its changed value leaves the Lebesgue integral equal to ${\int }_0^2(t+1)dt=4$. For counting measure on the whole interval, $f\ge 1$ on an infinite set, forcing an infinite integral. On the smaller measure space $D=\{0,1,2\}$ with its power set and counting measure, the restricted function instead has integral $1+5+3=9$.

This also explains the almost everywhere convention in Lp spaces: equality almost everywhere for ${\delta }_x$ requires equality at $x$, whereas equality almost everywhere for Lebesgue measure allows different values at that singleton. A point value therefore cannot be read unambiguously from an equivalence class in an Lp space formed using Lebesgue measure.

On the real numbers, a Dirac measure gives the Dirac delta distribution by $⟨{\delta }_x,\phi ⟩=\int \phi d{\delta }_x=\phi (x)$ for every test function. The name Dirac delta function does not mean an ordinary function that is zero away from $x$ and infinitely high at $x$. Such a nonnegative measurable function still has Lebesgue integral zero, because its nonzero values occur on a Lebesgue null set. More generally, no nonnegative density $h$ with respect to Lebesgue measure can represent ${\delta }_x$: it would give ${\delta }_x(\{x\})={\int }_{\{x\}}hd\lambda =0$, contradicting unit mass. The measure and its associated distribution act on different kinds of inputs, namely measurable sets and test functions, but express the same point evaluation. ^[ref]

The Kolmogorov axioms describe a consistent way to assign probabilities to events. Start with a sample space $\Omega$ and an event sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$: it contains $\Omega$ and is closed under complements and countable unions, hence also countable intersections. The probability measure is a function $\mathbb{P}:\mathcal{F}\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfyingThe triple $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ is a probability space. The third axiom is countable additivity; the infinite series means the limit of a sequence of nonnegative partial sums. It applies to pairwise disjoint events, not to overlapping events and not to arbitrary uncountable unions.^[ref]

The sigma-algebra specifies which questions have probabilities, while the axioms specify how those probabilities fit together. For a finite sample space one can take the entire power set; a continuous model commonly uses a Borel sigma-algebra. Nonnegativity and normalization do not require equally likely outcomes or independence: those are additional modelling choices.

For an exact six-outcome model, take $\Omega =\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$, $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P}(\Omega )$, and assign $\mathbb{P}(\{k\})=k/21$. The total is one because $1+2+3+4+5+6=21$. Define the probability of an event by summing the weights of its outcomes. The disjoint events $A=\{1,2\}$, $B=\{3,4\}$ and $C=\{5,6\}$ form a partition of a set withThis is a specified mathematical model, not measured die frequencies. The figure makes probability literal area: each region has the same height and a width proportional to its assigned mass. Regrouping disjoint events preserves their total area.

Several familiar rules are consequences, not further axioms. Finite additivity of a set function follows by appending empty events to the sequence in countable additivity; $\mathbb{P}(\varnothing )=0$ follows already by writing $\Omega =\Omega \cup \varnothing$ as a disjoint union. The complement rule of probability gives $\mathbb{P}(A^c)=1-\mathbb{P}(A)$ and therefore $0\le \mathbb{P}(A)\le 1$. Splitting larger events into a smaller event and a set difference shows $A\subseteq B\Rightarrow \mathbb{P}(A)\le \mathbb{P}(B)$.

For overlapping events, the inclusion-exclusion principle corrects double counting:In the six-outcome model, $D=\{2,3\}$ and $E=\{3,4\}$ give $5/21+7/21-3/21=9/21$, agreeing with the weight of $\{2,3,4\}$. This decomposition is useful because a complicated event can be assembled from simpler questions with known probabilities.

On a finite sample space, a family of pairwise disjoint events has only finitely many nonempty members, so finite additivity of a set function already handles every countable disjoint union. On an infinite sample space, the countable axiom additionally controls what is left beyond every finite stage. In the fair-coin waiting model of continuity of probability, the finite-stage calculations $\mathbb{P}(\text{first head at toss }j)=2^{-j}$ sum to $1-2^{-n}$ through toss $n$. Countable additivity makes the probability of a head at some finite toss equal to ${\sum }_{j\ge 1}{2}^{-j}=1$; finite-stage sums alone do not justify that passage. For the continuous uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, each singleton instead has probability zero, while their uncountable union has probability one. Countable, rather than unrestricted, additivity accommodates both models.

Historically, Kolmogorov's 1933 book Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung established the influential axiomatic framework connecting probability theory with measure theory. The three conditions above are the modern presentation on a sigma-algebra. Shafer and Vovk's historical study explains that the original presentation began with finite additivity on an algebra of sets and added continuity for decreasing events with empty intersection, which supplies the countable extension.^[ref]

Lebesgue measure on the real numbers extends interval length: $\lambda ([a,b])=b-a$ for $a\le b$. Its restriction to the Borel sigma-algebra is the unique translation-invariant sigma-finite measure on that sigma-algebra normalized by $\lambda ((0,1])=1$. The full Lebesgue measure is the completion of a measure of this restriction; its domain is the Lebesgue measurable sets. Translation invariance follows by comparing a translated Borel measure on half-open intervals and applying the uniqueness theorem for measures. For the construction and interval properties, see MIT lecture 8.

Every singleton has Lebesgue measure zero: $\{x\}\subseteq [x-\epsilon ,x+\epsilon ]$ gives $0\le \lambda (\{x\})\le 2\epsilon$ for every $\epsilon >0$. Enumerating the countable set $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,1]$ and applying countable additivity yieldsThus a dense set can be a null set, and a union of null sets indexed by an uncountable set can have positive Lebesgue measure. The distinction explains both the Dirichlet function example and why almost everywhere is weaker than everywhere.

Observing $X_s$ reveals exactly whether $\omega <s$. Thus the natural filtration isEvery generating set either contains the entire tail $[t,\infty )$ or avoids it, so this tail remains one indistinguishable atom. Conversely, these initial intervals generate the full relative Borel sigma-algebra on $(0,t)$: use rational endpoints below $t$, together with $(0,t)$ itself. Therefore every Borel set contained in $(0,t)$, and its complement, belongs to ${\mathcal{F}}_t$. We obtainThe strict endpoint is essential: the value at $\omega =t$ is still $X_t=1$, so it cannot be distinguished from a later lifetime.

Standard one-dimensional Brownian motion is a real process with $B_0=0$, continuous paths almost surely, and increments $B_t-B_s\sim N(0,t-s)$ independent of the past at time $s$, for $0\le s<t$. These conditions determine its entire finite-dimensional distribution family.

The Wiener theorem asserts that such a process exists, equivalently that there is a unique Wiener measure on $C_0([0,\infty ),\mathbb{R})$ under which the coordinate process has these properties. To construct it, prescribe centered multivariate normal laws with covariance $\mathbb{E}{B}_s{B}_t=\min (s,t)$. This covariance is positive semidefinite becauseThe laws are consistent under removing coordinates, so the Kolmogorov extension theorem constructs the process. Normal increments have fourth moment $\mathbb{E}|B_t-B_s{|}^4=3|t-s{|}^2$. The Kolmogorov continuity theorem therefore supplies a continuous modification, retaining all the prescribed finite-dimensional laws and hence the independent normal increments. Apply this on every compact time interval, taking consistent versions; continuity and equality at rational times make them agree on overlaps. The resulting law on continuous-path space is unique because evaluations at rational times generate its Borel sigma-algebra. This is a proof sketch of the existence theorem, independent of the random-walk limit in Question 5.

Take $\Omega =[0,1)$ with its Borel sigma-algebra and Lebesgue measure of total mass one. Let ${\mathcal{F}}_n$ be the finite sigma-algebra generated by the half-open dyadic intervals of length $2^{-n}$. Set $X_0=f(1)-f(0)$ if the indexing begins at one. Each $X_n$ is adapted to this filtration, and if $L$ is a Lipschitz constant of $f$, then $|X_n|\le L$, so every coordinate is integrable.

On a parent interval $[u,u+2^{-n})$, conditional expectation averages the two equally likely child values. Their average isThus $\mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]=X_n$, establishing the dyadic slope martingale. One can equivalently include $1$ as a separate null atom without changing any probability law.

Write a finite binary word as $s=(s_1,\dots ,s_n)$ and denote its prefix cylinder set byMore generally, a cylinder set fixes finitely many coordinates, or prescribes a subset of their finite coordinate product, leaving all other coordinates free. Each coordinate factor is discrete, so finite-coordinate inverse images are both open and closed. Thus cylinders are clopen. The basic open sets of the product topology restrict only finitely many coordinates, so cylinders form a base. Any finite-coordinate cylinder is a finite union of prefix cylinders of one sufficiently long common length; the prefix cylinders therefore also form a base.

The Bernoulli space here is Cantor space, with compatible metricIt is a compact metric space: from any sequence, choose successively subsequences constant in the first, second and subsequent coordinates, and take the diagonal subsequence. Agreement on the first $n$ coordinates bounds the distance by $2^{-n}$, proving convergence. Compactness also follows from Tychonoff theorem.

Every cylinder indicator function is continuous because the cylinder is clopen. Hence $S(\Omega )$ is a vector subspace of the space of continuous functions on a compact space. To prove density, fix $f\in C_{\mathbb{R}}(\Omega )$ and $\epsilon >0$. By uniform continuity, choose $n$ so that $d(x,y)\le 2^{-n}$ implies $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$. Choose a point ${\omega }_s$ in each length-$n$ prefix cylinder and putThen $f_n\in S(\Omega )$ and $\Vert f-f_n{\Vert }_{\infty }<\epsilon$. This proves cylinder-function density in Cantor space:

Positivity of $\varphi$ implies monotonicity. The pointwise bounds $-\Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }1\le f\le \Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }1$ therefore giveEvaluation on $1$ attains equality, so $\varphi$ is continuous and has norm one. This is the norm of a positive functional on C(K).

The object extended to open sets is the set function $\ell (C)=\varphi (1_C)$, rather than the functional $\varphi$ itself. Positivity gives $\ell (C)\ge 0$, and linearity gives finite additivity on disjoint cylinders. To construct its extension directly, use the disjoint cylinder decomposition of open subsets of Cantor space. For an open $U$, take the shortest prefixes $s$ for which $[s]\subset U$. They are prefix-free, their cylinders are disjoint, and their union is $U$. DefineFor $U=\Omega$, use the empty prefix; for $U=\varnothing$, use the empty sum.

This value is independent of the chosen disjoint prefix-cylinder decomposition. Indeed, compare two such decompositions $(C_i)$ and $(D_j)$. For each fixed $C_i$, its intersections with the $D_j$ give a disjoint open cover of the compact cylinder $C_i$. Compactness reduces this to finitely many nonempty intersections. Each intersection is a prefix cylinder or is empty, so finite additivity gives $\ell (C_i)={\sum }_j\ell (C_i\cap D_j)$. Sum over $i$ and rearrange the nonnegative double sum. Doing the same with each $D_j$ proves equality of the two totals.

For disjoint open sets $U_k$, combine their disjoint cylinder decompositions to obtain one for ${\bigcup }_k{U}_k$. Rearrangement of nonnegative sums proves countable additivity on this family of open sets. The extension is unique because any countably additive extension must have the prescribed sum on every disjoint cylinder decomposition. Open sets are not themselves a sigma-algebra; countable additivity here concerns disjoint open families and their open union.

For the Borel probability measure, let $\mathcal{A}$ be the algebra of finite unions of prefix cylinders. It is also the algebra of clopen sets, because every clopen set is compact and has a finite cylinder cover. Define $\ell (A)=\varphi (1_A)$ on $\mathcal{A}$. If $A={⨆}_{k\ge 1}{A}_k$ with all sets in $\mathcal{A}$, compactness of $A$ gives a finite subcover by the $A_k$. Disjointness makes all remaining members empty. Thus finite additivity already establishes the premeasure condition.

The Caratheodory extension theorem gives a unique measure $P$ on $\sigma (\mathcal{A})$. This is the Borel sigma-algebra, since the cylinders are a countable base; $P(\Omega )=1$. Its values on open sets agree with the extension above. For cylinder simple functions,Both sides are continuous in the supremum norm, so cylinder-function density in Cantor space givesAny other Borel probability measure with this property agrees on every cylinder indicator function, hence on $\mathcal{A}$, and uniqueness in the Caratheodory extension theorem makes it equal to $P$. This proves the Cantor-space representation of positive functionals without assuming the general representation theorem.

Now let $h:\Omega \to X$ be the supplied continuous surjection. The pullbackis a unital isometric embedding: surjectivity gives $\Vert f\circ h{\Vert }_{\infty }=\Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }$. On the vector subspace $J(C_{\mathbb{R}}(X))$, define $L(Jf)=\varphi (f)$. This is well-defined, has norm one and satisfies $L(1)=1$.

The real Hahn-Banach theorem extends $L$ to $\tilde{L}$ on all of $C_{\mathbb{R}}(\Omega )$ with the same norm. Norm preservation alone does not automatically mean positivity, so verify it. If $0\le g\le 1$, then $\Vert 1-g{\Vert }_{\infty }\le 1$ andScaling proves positivity for every nonnegative $g$. This is the unital contraction positivity criterion, giving a positive extension from a unital subspace of C(K).

Represent $\tilde{L}$ by the already constructed Borel probability measure $P$ on $\Omega$ and take the pushforward measure $Q=h_{\ast }P$. Continuity of $h$ makes its Borel inverse images measurable, and $Q(X)=1$. The pushforward integral identity givesThis is compact-metric representation by Cantor-space pullback. The hypothesis $\varphi (1)=1$ already excludes an empty $X$. The measure is on the Borel sets; no uniqueness claim on an unspecified larger collection of subsets is needed.

Relative to a filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_t)$, progressive measurability means that, for every $T<\infty$, the mapis measurable for the product sigma-algebra $\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes {\mathcal{F}}_T$ and the Borel sigma-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$.

Fix $T>0$ and divide $[0,T]$ into $2^m$ equal subintervals with mesh $h_m=T/2^m$. DefineSince $X$ is adapted, every random variable $X_{k{h}_m}$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{k{h}_m}$-measurable, hence ${\mathcal{F}}_T$-measurable. Each approximation is consequently $\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes {\mathcal{F}}_T$-measurable. For $t<T$, its sampling time lies strictly to the right of $t$, tends to $t$, and never exceeds $T$. Right continuity implies $X_t^{(m)}\to X_t$; at $T$ equality is exact. Thus $X$ is the pointwise limit of measurable functions on this product space. As $T$ was arbitrary, $X$ is progressively measurable. This is the theorem that right-continuous adapted processes are progressively measurable.

The right-endpoint approximations need not themselves be adapted at their intermediate times. What the proof requires is their joint measurability with respect to the single terminal sigma-algebra ${\mathcal{F}}_T$. The proof uses the pathwise càdlàg convention. If path regularity is assumed only almost surely, under a completed filtration setting the stochastic process to zero on its common exceptional null event gives an indistinguishable progressively measurable version. Arbitrary values on that null event need not make the original stochastic process progressively measurable: even with a complete filtration, a null sample point may be assigned a non-Borel time function. This is why almost sure path regularity does not ensure progressive measurability.

Use a filtered probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},({\mathcal{F}}_t),\mathbb{P})$, and put ${\mathcal{F}}_{0-}={\mathcal{F}}_0$. The predictable sigma-algebra on $\Omega \times [0,\infty )$ isEquivalently it is generated by left-continuous adapted processes. A real-valued previsible process is a function $(\omega ,t)\mapsto H_t(\omega )$ that is measurable for $\mathcal{P}$ and the Borel sigma-algebra of $\mathbb{R}$.

A simple predictable process has the formwhere $h_{-1}$ is bounded and ${\mathcal{F}}_0$-measurable, and each $h_i$ is bounded and ${\mathcal{F}}_{t_i}$-measurable. Set $H=0$ after $t_n$; allowing a final infinite interval gives an equivalent dense class. The values may be restricted to finitely many values if desired, by approximating bounded measurable functions by simple functions. The initial-time term matters for arbitrary finite measures on $\mathcal{P}$: a measure can charge time zero, even though the stochastic integral against a continuous martingale does not.

The Borel sigma-algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ is the smallest sigma-algebra containing all open subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. A real-valued Borel measurable function on $(E,\mathcal{E})$ is a map $f$ with $f^{-1}(B)\in \mathcal{E}$ for every $B\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$. It suffices to test the sets $(a,\infty )$ for rational $a$, because these generate the Borel sigma-algebra.

Here “Borel function” describes measurability into the Borel structure of the target; the domain need not itself be a topological space.

Let $f_n$ be Borel measurable and converge pointwise to the finite real value $f$. For every real $a$,If $f(x)>a$, choose a rational $r$ strictly between them; convergence puts $f_n(x)>r$ eventually. Conversely eventual strict inequality $f_n(x)>r>a$ implies $f(x)\ge r>a$. The right side belongs to $\mathcal{E}$ by its countable union/intersection operations. Since these half-lines generate the Borel sigma-algebra, $f$ is a Borel measurable function.

The map swaps each adjacent pair of binary digits: $({\omega }_1,{\omega }_2,{\omega }_3,{\omega }_4,\dots )\mapsto ({\omega }_2,{\omega }_1,{\omega }_4,{\omega }_3,\dots )$. Canonical expansions with no eventual all-ones tail remain canonical under this swap, and ${\theta }^2=\mathrm{id}$.

Under Lebesgue measure, any specified values of $m$ distinct binary digits have probability $2^{-m}$. Indeed they describe a union of dyadic intervals at the largest of the specified positions, with that total length. The preimage of a cylinder prescribing its first $m$ output digits prescribes $m$ distinct input digits and therefore has the same measure. The half-open dyadic intervals, with the empty set, form a pi-system generating the Borel sigma-algebra. Apply the preceding uniqueness result to obtainThe choice of binary expansion matters at dyadic endpoints for the map's pointwise definition; the chosen convention removes that ambiguity and those endpoints are null in the measure calculation.

Use the usual unital-subalgebra convention $I_H\in A$. The spectral theorem for a commutative operator algebra states that the character space ${\Phi }_A$, equipped with the Gelfand topology, is a compact Hausdorff space, and there is a unique regular projection-valued measure $E$ on its Borel sigma-algebra satisfyingwhere $\hat{a}(\chi )=\chi (a)$ is the Gelfand transform. The map $a\mapsto \hat{a}$ is an isometric unital star-isomorphism from $A$ onto $C({\Phi }_A)$ by the Commutative Gelfand--Naimark theorem.

More explicitly, every $E(B)$ is an orthogonal projection, $E(\varnothing )=0$, $E(B\cap C)=E(B)E(C)$, and for disjoint Borel sets $B_n$,with convergence in the norm of the Hilbert space. Regularity means that each scalar spectral measure $B\mapsto ⟨E(B)v,w⟩$ is a regular Borel measure. The integral identity then implies $\Vert a\Vert ={\sup }_{\chi \in {\Phi }_A}|\hat{a}(\chi )|$. No separability assumption on $H$ is needed.

A subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is a Borel set when it belongs to the Borel sigma-algebra, the smallest sigma-algebra containing every open set of $\mathbb{R}$.

Take the unit circle $X=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ with its Borel sigma-algebra and normalized Lebesgue measure, and letThis is the doubling map. Its two inverse branches halve length, so Lebesgue invariance of the doubling map gives $\mu (T^{-1}A)=\mu (A)$. Moreoverfor every point of the circle.

The event $\{X_n=1\}$ is $T^{-n}(0,1/2)$. Since $T^n$ has $2^n$ affine branches of slope magnitude $2^n$, this preimage is, up to endpoints, a disjoint union of $2^n$ intervals of length $2^{-(n+1)}$ and has measure $1/2$.

More generally, for every binary word $(a_0,\dots ,a_{N-1})$, its itinerary cylinderis, up to finitely many endpoints, one monotonicity interval of $T^N$ and has measure $2^{-N}$. Thereforeso the $X_n$ are independent and identically distributed random variables, each with the Bernoulli distribution of parameter $1/2$.

The finite itinerary cylinders have diameters at most $2^{-N}$. Their endpoints form a dense set, so their unions generate the Borel sigma-algebra after completion by null sets. Thusin the standard probability-space convention that σ-algebras are identified modulo null sets.

There is a small literal endpoint defect in the uncompleted formulation of the question: $0$, $1$, and $2/3$ all have the all-zero itinerary, so $\sigma (X_0,X_1,\dots )$ cannot separate these Borel singletons. Consequently the displayed equality is false as an equality of raw Borel σ-algebras with the stated open interval, but it is true after completion and modulo null sets, which is the version used in the ergodicity argument.

A point process records random locations by a random measure that counts them. Examples include arrival times of a queue, positions of stars, and the finite eigenvalue configuration of a random matrix. The count in an observation window is a random variable; its expected value is supplied by the intensity measure of a point process, while its fluctuations and relationships with other windows require more information.

For a precise spatial convention, take $E={\mathbb{R}}^d$ with its Borel sigma-algebra and a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$. A locally finite point process $\Pi$ is a measurable function from $\Omega$ to the space ${\mathcal{N}}_{\mathrm{lf}}(E)$ of locally finite point measures, equipped with the sigma-algebra generated by evaluations $\nu \mapsto \nu (A)$ for Borel sets $A$. Each realization has the formwhere $J(\omega )$ is finite or countable and repeated locations are allowed; ${\delta }_x$ is a Dirac measure. Here a point measure is a counting measure with possible multiplicities, rather than the counting measure of a set of distinct locations.^[ref]

Local finiteness means ${\Pi }_{\omega }(B)<\infty$ for every bounded Borel set $B$, on a single almost sure event. In ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ it suffices to check the countable collection of balls of integer radius centered at the origin, and this is equivalent to finiteness on every compact set. On a general measurable space there is no notion of boundedness without additional structure: state a metric or an explicit family of observation windows. Another convention on locally compact spaces requires finiteness on compact sets; this need not coincide with finiteness on all bounded sets outside ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Local finiteness does not require finitely many points in all of $E$.^[ref]

A random element is a measurable function from a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ to a measurable space $(E,\mathcal{E})$. Its law is the pushforward measure ${\mathbb{P}}_X(A)=\mathbb{P}(X^{-1}(A))$ for $A\in \mathcal{E}$. Real-valued random variables and vector-valued random variables are examples; a stochastic sample path can also be a random element when its path-space sigma-algebra is specified. For a Polish space $E$, the usual choice is its Borel sigma-algebra. A large deviation principle concerns the laws of a family of such random elements.

A real-valued random variable is a measurable function $X$ from a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ to the real numbers with their Borel sigma-algebra. More general targets give random elements. For every Borel set $A$, measurability ensures that $\{\omega :X(\omega )\in A\}$ is an event, so the question "does the observed value lie in $A$?" has a defined probability.

The function $X$ is fixed; its input outcome is uncertain. This separates what we measure from how the uncertainty is modeled. A probability distribution is the resulting pushforward measure, ${\mathbb{P}}_X(A)=\mathbb{P}(X\in A)$. A cumulative distribution function, probability mass function, or probability density function describes that measure in an appropriate setting. The random variable and its probability distribution are different objects: the former also retains its relationship to other measurements on the same sample space.

For two independent uniform dice, let $U,V$ record their results and define $S=U+V$ and $M=\max (U,V)$. The 36 ordered pairs are equally likely, but the resulting probability mass functions differ:For the sum, count the diagonal of the outcome grid having total $s$. For the maximum, subtract the $(m-1{)}^2$ pairs with both results below $m$ from the $m^2$ pairs with both results at most $m$. These examples show how a deterministic function transforms a simple input probability distribution into a nonuniform output one.

The corresponding expected values are $\mathbb{E}S=7$ and $\mathbb{E}M=161/36$. The first follows immediately from linearity of expectation; the second follows from ${\sum }_{m=1}^{6}m(2m-1)/36$. Neither number must be an attainable result. An expected value describes an average under the probability measure, not a prediction that the next observation will equal it.

The distinction between a random variable and its probability distribution matters for dependence. $U$ and $V$ have the same discrete uniform distribution and are independent random variables. $U$ and a second copy of $U$ also have that same marginal probability distribution, but they always agree. Their joint probability distribution is concentrated on the diagonal; the marginals alone cannot say which relationship holds. This is why a model for several measurements must specify their joint law or an appropriate independence assumption.

Indicator random variables turn events into numbers: $1_A$ equals one on $A$ and zero elsewhere, and $\mathbb{E}{1}_A=\mathbb{P}(A)$. This connects event counting with expected value and variance, and lets tools for random variables answer questions about probabilities. More complicated functions of observations can describe totals, waiting times, or estimation errors using the same framework.