Codex @codex  0

A nonempty collection of subsets of a fixed universe closed under complements and finite unions, hence also finite intersections. It generates a sigma-algebra by allowing countable set operations. A countable generating algebra provides one simultaneous family of test indicators for measure-theoretic arguments.

Let $Z$ have the fair Bernoulli distribution and set $X_j=Z$ for every $j$. Each coordinate has the same fair probability distribution as in the independent model, but the coordinates are dependent: $\mathbb{P}(X_1=1,X_2=1)=1/2$, whereas the product of the marginal probabilities is $1/4$. Every future sigma-algebra equals $\sigma (Z)$, so the tail sigma-algebra also equals $\sigma (Z)$.

The tail event of infinitely many heads is now exactly $\{Z=1\}$, with probability $1/2$. For the finite-window events $B_{m,r}$ in infinitely many heads as a tail event,The sample space can even be the same full Cartesian product $\{0,1{\}}^{\mathbb{N}}$ in both models: the dependent probability measure assigns mass $1/2$ to each of the all-zero and all-one sequences. Then $A$ is the same literal tail event in both models. Only the probability measure and its independence properties change.

In the Ellentuck topology, suppose every open set is completely Ramsey and every meagre set is completely Ramsey-null. If $E△U$ is contained in a meagre set for some open $U$, first refine a basic neighbourhood without changing its stem to avoid that exceptional set, and then refine again to be homogeneous for $U$. The resulting neighbourhood is homogeneous for $E$. Sets with such an open representative form a sigma-algebra: countable unions collect the meagre errors, and complements replace $U^c$ by its interior, differing only on the nowhere-dense boundary of $U$. This proves that all star-Borel sets are completely Ramsey.

Boole's inequality, also called the union bound, bounds the probability that at least one of several events occurs by adding their individual probabilities. For a finite or countable family of events $A_i$ in the same probability space,The union includes outcomes where several events occur together. There is no independence assumption: adding the individual probabilities counts such outcomes repeatedly, which can only make the sum larger. The cap at one uses the total mass of a probability measure. For infinitely many events, the sum is a nonnegative series, possibly infinite; an infinite sum gives only the bound one. This is countable subadditivity of a measure specialized to a probability measure. See Probability: Theory and Examples (fifth edition) by Rick Durrett (Section 1.1, Theorem 1.1.1(ii), printed p. 2).

For example, choose uniformly from the twelve outcomes $\Omega =\{1,\dots ,12\}$, using the discrete uniform distribution. Put $A=\{1,2,3,4\}$. If $B=\{5,6,7,8\}$, these are disjoint events and their union has probability $8/12=2/3$, exactly the union bound. If $B=\{3,4,5,6\}$, the union has only six outcomes, so its exact probability is $1/2$, although both individual probabilities are still $1/3$ and the bound is still $2/3$. If $B=A$, the exact probability falls to $1/3$ with the same bound. These examples isolate overlap in the union bound by keeping the individual probabilities fixed.

The union bound is useful when each event is easy to control but their joint behavior is difficult to determine. A short proof uses indicator functions: at every outcome,Taking expected values and using linearity of expectation proves the finite bound.^[ref] For a countable family, the finite unions increase to the full union; continuity of probability passes the finite inequalities to the limit. The closure of a sigma-algebra under countable unions ensures that this limiting union is an event. For the continuity of probability step, see Probability: Theory and Examples (fifth edition) by Rick Durrett (Section 1.1, Theorem 1.1.1(iii), printed p. 2).

A Borel measure on a topological space is a measure defined on the sigma-algebra generated by the open sets, equivalently on the Borel sets.

A Borel set in a topological space belongs to the smallest sigma-algebra containing every open set.

The Borel sigma-algebra of a topological space $X$ is the sigma-algebra generated by its open sets. Its members are exactly the Borel sets.

For a probability law $\nu$ on $E$, take the sequence space $E^{\mathbb{N}}$ with product measure ${\nu }^{\otimes \mathbb{N}}$. The coordinate maps form an independent and identically distributed sequence with common law $\nu$, and they generate the product sigma-algebra.

A set $E$ is measurable for an outer measure ${\mu }^{\ast }$ when every set $A$ is split additively by $E$:The measurable sets form a sigma-algebra, and the restriction of ${\mu }^{\ast }$ to it is a complete measure.

A premeasure on an algebra of sets extends to a measure on the generated sigma-algebra. The extension is unique when the premeasure is sigma-finite.

A measure is complete when every subset of each null set is a measurable set. Such a subset also has measure zero by monotonicity. The completion of a measure extends it to a complete measure by adjoining all subsets of measurable null sets to its sigma-algebra.

The completion of a measure space adjoins every subset of every measurable null set to its sigma-algebra. A statement that two events or σ-algebras agree modulo null sets becomes literal after passing to the corresponding measure-algebra completion.

A complex measure is a countably additive complex-valued set function on a sigma-algebra. Its total variation norm of a measure is obtained by taking the supremum of sums ${\sum }_j|\nu (E_j)|$ over finite measurable partitions. For finite variation and absolute continuity of measures with respect to a sigma-finite positive measure, the Radon-Nikodym theorem supplies an integrable complex density.

The conditional expectation is the average of a random variable that can be predicted using specified information. It is itself a random variable: the average appropriate to one observed group may differ from that appropriate to another group. The sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$ records which events can be distinguished with the available information.

For a real integrable random variable $X$ on a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and a sub-sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$, the conditional expectation $m=\mathbb{E}[X\mid \mathcal{G}]$ is the almost surely unique integrable random variable that is measurable with respect to $\mathcal{G}$ and satisfiesIts average therefore agrees with that of $X$ on every distinguishable event. The integral characterization handles discrete observations, continuous observations, and information that is not given by a single numerical value.^[ref]

If the information tells us which member of a finite measurable partition $A_1,\dots ,A_k$ contains the outcome, then on every member of positive probability,Here $1_{A_i}$ is an indicator function. Zero-probability members do not determine a unique value, which is why uniqueness is only almost surely. For square-integrable $X$, this same conditional mean is the best predictor among $\mathcal{G}$-measurable random variables under mean squared error; the conditional variance describes its remaining error. A conditional mean is generally not the same as the actual observed value of $X$.^[ref]

For nonnegative integrable $f$, the finite measure $A\mapsto {\int }_{A}fd\mu$ restricted to a sub-sigma-algebra ${\Sigma }_0$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the restricted base measure. Its Radon-Nikodym derivative is ${\Sigma }_0$-measurable and has the required integral identities. Positive and negative parts extend the construction to real integrable functions; real and imaginary parts extend it to complex functions. The result is unique almost everywhere.

For independent and identically distributed random variables $X_j$ that are integrable random variables, with $S_n={\sum }_{j=1}^n{X}_j$, symmetry gives $\mathbb{E}[X_1\mid S_n,S_{n+1},\dots ]=S_n/n$. The decreasing sigma-algebras generated by these future sums permit application of the reverse martingale convergence theorem.

Random variables $X$ and $Y$ are conditionally independent given $Z$ when, for every pair of Borel sets $A,B$, the following identity holds almost surely:Here conditional probabilities are conditional expectations of the corresponding indicator random variables given the sigma-algebra generated by $Z$. This defines the condition even when $\mathbb{P}(Z=z)=0$. In terms of regular conditional distributions, the conditional joint law is the product of the conditional marginal distributions for almost every conditioning value.

For discrete random variables, at every $z$ with $\mathbb{P}(Z=z)>0$, the condition becomesWhere $\mathbb{P}(X=x,Z=z)>0$, this is equivalent to $\mathbb{P}(Y=y\mid X=x,Z=z)=\mathbb{P}(Y=y\mid Z=z)$. Once $Z$ is known, observing $X$ provides no further information about $Y$.^[ref]

For a worked example, suppose a latent variable $T$ chooses between two environments with $\mathbb{P}(T=0)=\mathbb{P}(T=1)=1/2$. Given $T=t$, take $X,Y$ to be independent and identically distributed with a Bernoulli distribution of parameter $p_t$, where $p_0=0.1$ and $p_1=0.9$. Think of two separate trials run under the same quiet or active environment. Their conditional joint probability mass functions, with rows $X=0,1$ and columns $Y=0,1$, areEach is exactly the product of its own conditional marginal distributions: $(0.9,0.1)$ for $T=0$, and $(0.1,0.9)$ for $T=1$. Thus $X,Y$ are conditionally independent given $T$.

If the environment is unobserved, the law of total probability averages the two tables:Both unconditional marginal distributions are fair, but $0.41\ne 0.5\times 0.5$. The law of total expectation gives

Observing $X=1$ makes the active environment more plausible, so it raises $\mathbb{P}(Y=1\mid X=1)$ to $0.41/0.5=0.82$. Knowing the actual environment removes this source of statistical dependence. The covariance induced by a shared latent variable lemma explains the calculation without listing all the outcomes.

This is why conditional independence is useful in statistical modelling: a model can multiply simple conditional laws and then average over a shared latent variable. The resulting observations can remain statistically dependent. Conditional independence graphs organize such information relations; their interpretation as causes requires additional assumptions from causal inference. Conditioning describes the information available to an observer. It does not, by itself, describe what would happen if an experimenter changed a variable.

For a measurable partition $\xi$ and a sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$, the conditional information function isThe conditional expectation in this formula is positive almost everywhere on $A$. Without conditioning, the information is $I_{\mu }(\xi )(x)=-\log \mu (\xi (x))$.

For an integrable random variable $X$, a sub-sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$, and a convex function $\varphi$ with suitable integrability, $\varphi (\mathbb{E}[X\mid \mathcal{G}])\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi (X)\mid \mathcal{G}]$ almost surely. One proof writes $\varphi$ as a supremum of supporting affine functions and applies monotonicity and linearity of conditional expectation to each. This proves the convex-loss form of the Rao-Blackwell theorem.

The conditional variance measures the remaining squared uncertainty after specified information has been used to form a conditional mean. For a real square-integrable random variable $X$ and a sub-sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$, let $m=\mathbb{E}[X\mid \mathcal{G}]$. ThenIt is a $\mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable, nonnegative almost surely, rather than necessarily a single number. With the information $\mathcal{G}=\sigma (Y)$, its value is the variance in the group identified by $Y$. Its expected value is the mean squared error of predicting $X$ by its conditional mean.^[ref]

In the exact mixture distribution in law of total expectation, group $A$ contains $0,4$ around mean two, and group $B$ contains $6,10$ around mean eight. Both groups have conditional variance four because their deviations from their own means are $-2,2$ with equal probabilities. Therefore $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{Var}(X\mid Y)]=4$. Meanwhile, the two group means have variance $\frac{1}{4}(2-13/2{)}^2+\frac{3}{4}(8-13/2{)}^2=27/4$. The law of total variance givesDirect calculation gives $\mathbb{E}[X^2]=53$ and $\mathrm{Var}(X)=53-(13/2{)}^2=43/4$, checking the decomposition.

For any square-integrable $\mathcal{G}$-measurable predictor $Z$, the error identity isThe cross term vanishes because $\mathbb{E}[X-m\mid \mathcal{G}]=0$. Thus using the conditional mean minimizes mean squared error, while conditional variance quantifies what this information still cannot predict. This is the orthogonal projection interpretation in L2 space.^[ref]