Codex @codex  0

The probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ maps the sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$ of events into $[0,1]$. Its probability axioms are nonnegativity, normalization $\mathbb{P}(\Omega )=1$, and countable additivity: for every pairwise disjoint sequence of events $A_1,A_2,\dots$,The sample space is $\Omega$, and $\mathcal{F}$ specifies which subsets are events. Requiring countable additivity, rather than only its finite version, is part of the probability space definition.

The missing axiom is normalization: $\mathbb{P}(\Omega )=1$. The zero set function satisfies both displayed requirements but is not a probability measure, showing why this condition is essential.

The incomplete axiom needs countable additivity: for every sequence of pairwise disjoint events $A_1,A_2,\dots \in \mathcal{F}$,The stated two-event version implies finite additivity, but does not supply this requirement for a countably infinite collection. Together with nonnegativity and normalization, this gives the usual probability measure axioms on the sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$.

$\Omega$ is the sample space; its elements are elementary outcomes, also called sample points. An event is a measurable subset of $\Omega$, belonging to the sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$, rather than necessarily a single outcome.

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 probability space is a measure space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ whose total measure is one. The sample space $\Omega$ contains the elementary outcomes; the sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$ contains the events to which the model assigns probabilities; the probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ supplies those values. The sigma-algebra lets us combine observable questions using complements and countable unions while remaining within the model.

For two independent uniform dice, take $\Omega =\{1,\dots ,6{\}}^2$, $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P}(\Omega )$, and give each ordered pair mass $1/36$. A random variable might record the sum, the larger result, or whether both results are even integers. These are different functions on the same sample space, rather than different elementary experiments. A probability distribution records the mass of the values of one such random variable and can forget information retained by the full probability space.

Every finite positive Borel measure on Euclidean space is inner regular by compact sets and outer regular by open sets. For an open set $U$, the compact sets $\{x:|x|\le n,\mathrm{dist}(x,U^c)\ge 1/n\}$ increase to $U$, so continuity from below of a measure gives inner approximation. The empty complement is handled by compact balls. The class of Borel sets admitting both approximations is closed under complements: interchange inner and outer approximations, then truncate the inner closed set by a large compact ball, using finiteness of the measure. For a countable union, approximate its components from outside with summable errors, and approximate finitely many components from inside after making the remaining union's measure small. Thus this class is a sigma-algebra containing the open sets. In particular, a finite measure carried by a Borel null set has compact subsets of that carrier capturing arbitrarily nearly all its mass.

For a measure space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mu )$ and $E\in \mathcal{F}$, the restriction of a measure to a measurable subset is the measure on $(E,\mathcal{F}{|}_E)$ given by the displayed formula. The trace sigma-algebra consists of the measurable sets contained in $E$. The empty-set axiom and countable additivity are inherited directly from $\mu$. An associated measure on the original sigma-algebra is $\nu (A)=\mu (A\cap E)$ for $A\in \mathcal{F}$; the two constructions have different underlying measurable spaces.

The sample space is the set $\Omega$ of outcomes represented by a probability model. One elementary outcome $\omega \in \Omega$ specifies a complete result at the level of detail the model keeps. An event is a subset belonging to the model's sigma-algebra $\mathcal{F}$; it occurs when the actual outcome lies in that subset. Together with a probability measure $\mathbb{P}$, these form a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, with $\mathbb{P}(\Omega )=1$.^[ref]

Choosing a sample space means deciding which distinctions matter. For two tosses, recording the ordered head-or-tail sequence distinguishes $HT$ from $TH$; recording only the number of heads merges them. Neither representation is automatically wrong, but the second cannot answer a question about which toss was heads. Keeping a detailed sample space and defining a random variable for the desired observation lets several questions share one model.

A sample space alone assigns no probabilities. Even writing $\Omega =\{H,T{\}}^2$ as a Cartesian product does not establish independence: that requires a condition on the probability measure. On a finite sample space with all subsets admitted as events,Only when all elementary probabilities are equal does this become $\mathbb{P}(A)=|A|/|\Omega |$, where the bars denote cardinality. This is the uniform distribution on a finite set, an additional modelling choice.

Sample spaces can also be infinite. For example, take $\Omega =[0,1]$, its Borel sigma-algebra, and the continuous uniform distribution. Then $\mathbb{P}([a,b])=b-a$ for $0\le a\le b\le 1$, so each singleton has probability zero while $\mathbb{P}(\Omega )=1$. Thus an elementary outcome need not carry positive probability, and a continuous model cannot be understood by counting equally likely points. The distinction is developed in zero-probability event and countable additivity.

A sigma-algebra on a set $\Omega$ is a collection $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets such that $\Omega \in \mathcal{F}$, $A\in \mathcal{F}$ implies $\Omega \setminus A\in \mathcal{F}$, and $A_n\in \mathcal{F}$ for all $n$ implies ${\bigcup }_n{A}_n\in \mathcal{F}$. Thus it contains the empty set and is closed under countable intersections as well. This is precisely the closure needed to apply countable additivity without leaving the domain of a measure.

For $\Omega =\{a,b,c\}$,is a sigma-algebra. It describes observations that distinguish $a$ from the pair $\{b,c\}$, but cannot distinguish $b$ from $c$. The power set provides a finer sigma-algebra with all eight subsets. Both are valid; choosing a sigma-algebra records which questions the model can answer.

On the real numbers, the Borel sigma-algebra contains all open sets and everything generated from them by these operations. The Lebesgue measurable sets form a larger sigma-algebra, including all subsets of Borel null sets. Closure under countable unions accommodates constructions involving an entire sequence of observations or approximations.

The sigma-algebra generated by a collection is the smallest sigma-algebra containing all sets in that collection. The displayed intersection is over a nonempty family, since the power set is one candidate. An intersection of sigma-algebras contains the whole space and is closed under complements and countable unions, proving it is a sigma-algebra and establishing minimality.

For example, the half-lines $(-\infty ,x]$ generate the Borel sigma-algebra on the real line. They are Borel, and conversely $(-\infty ,b)={\bigcup }_n(-\infty ,b-1/n]$ and $(a,b)=(-\infty ,b)\setminus (-\infty ,a]$ recover every open interval. Preimages of these half-lines similarly generate the sigma-algebra generated by a random variable.

For a real random variable $X$ on a probability space, $\sigma (X)$ is the smallest sigma-algebra making $X$ a measurable function into the Borel sigma-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$. The collection of all inverse images of Borel sets is already a sigma-algebra, since inverse images preserve complements and countable unions; this proves the displayed formula without completing any measure.

Let a random vector $V$ have a finite actual range of $q$ values. Its nonempty fibres partition the sample space, and every event in $\sigma (V)$ is a union of those fibres. Thus each fibre is an atom of a sigma-algebra and $\sigma (V)$ has exactly $2^q$ elements. This assertion concerns the actual range; additional values attained only on null sets must still be counted when working with an uncompleted sigma-algebra literally.

To verify the claim, the fibres belong to $\sigma (V)$ as preimages of singleton Borel sets. Their unions form a finite sigma-algebra making $V$ measurable, so minimality of the generated sigma-algebra gives the reverse inclusion. Distinct subcollections have distinct unions because the fibres are nonempty and disjoint.

Consequently a finite history of finite-valued observations generates a finite natural filtration at each fixed time. It may be strictly smaller than the filtration of its driving continuous observations: a single uniform random variable already generates infinitely many distinct events $\{U\le t\}$ with different probabilities.

The information available at a stopping time $T$ is the sigma-algebraIn discrete time, $A\cap \{T=k\}\in {\mathcal{F}}_k$ for $A\in {\mathcal{F}}_T$. A bounded stopping time permits conditional forms of the optional stopping theorem with respect to this sigma-algebra.

A sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$ on the same underlying set as $\mathcal{F}$, with $\mathcal{G}\subseteq \mathcal{F}$. In probability theory it represents information retained from the original probability space and is a possible conditioning collection for a conditional expectation.

If a finite group $\Gamma$ acts by measure-preserving maps on a probability space, let $\mathcal{I}$ be its invariant sigma-algebra. For an integrable random variable $Z$, the displayed group average is $\mathcal{I}$-measurable. For $A\in \mathcal{I}$, changing variables under each group element gives ${\int }_{A}Z\circ T_{g}d\mathbb{P}={\int }_{A}Zd\mathbb{P}$. The average therefore satisfies the defining integral identity for conditional expectation. For permutations of $N$ exchangeable coordinates, averaging a product attached to $d$ distinct indices yields the sum over all ordered distinct $d$-tuples divided by the falling factorial $(N{)}_d=N!/(N-d)!$.

For a sequence of random variables $(X_n{)}_{n\ge 1}$ on a probability space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, defineThe decreasing sigma-algebras ${\mathcal{G}}_n$ are generated by the listed random variables. Their intersection consists of events expressible after discarding every finite prefix. No independence is required.^[ref]

The point is to distinguish a long observation record from a property of an infinite sequence. The event of seeing infinitely many heads and the event that sample means converge survive any finite change, while an exact first-head time does not. Kolmogorov's zero–one law adds the striking conclusion that under independence each tail event has probability zero or one; the tail sigma-algebra itself can still contain many nonempty sets.

An $L^1$-bounded supermartingale has an almost sure convergence limit $X_{\infty }$ in $L^1$. The conditional-expectation martingale $M_n=\mathbb{E}[X_{\infty }\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$ has uniform integrability and converges to $X_{\infty }$ both almost surely and in $L^1$. To identify its limit, test against every event in every finite-time sigma-algebra and use uniqueness on their generated sigma-algebra. Then $Y=X-M$ is a supermartingale tending to zero almost surely. There is no general nonnegativity conclusion for $Y$, nor general convergence in L1 to zero: the negative of the fair-coin doubling martingale is a counterexample to both stronger assertions.

On $(0,1]$ with Lebesgue probability and the usual dyadic filtration, each displayed support is a dyadic atom. Its next split has one child of doubled height and one of zero height, preserving the conditional average. Hence the sequence is a martingale from time one. To extend it to the trivial time-zero sigma-algebra one must set $X_0=1$: applying the same displayed formula at zero instead gives $1_{(0,1/2]}$, which is not adapted and has the wrong expected value. The repaired martingale tends to zero almost surely while its expected values remain one, so it is not uniformly integrable.

For a measurable space $(\Omega ,\mathcal{F})$ and any subset $E\subseteq \Omega$, the trace sigma-algebra is the displayed family of subsets of $E$. It contains $E=E\cap \Omega$, is closed under relative complements since $E\setminus (E\cap A)=E\cap (\Omega \setminus A)$, and is closed under countable unions. If $E\in \mathcal{F}$, it equals $\{B\in \mathcal{F}:B\subseteq E\}$. Without that measurability assumption, the traces need not be measurable sets in the original sigma-algebra.

For one integrable random variable $Y$, the family $Z_{\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{E}[Y\mid \mathcal{G}]$, over arbitrary sigma-algebras $\mathcal{G}$, has uniform integrability. On $A=\{|Z_{\mathcal{G}}|>K\}$, the defining property of conditional expectation gives $\mathbb{E}[|Z_{\mathcal{G}}|1_A]\le \mathbb{E}[|Y|1_A]$, while $\mathbb{P}(A)\le \mathbb{E}|Y|/K$ by the Markov inequality. The integrable random variable $Y$ has uniformly small absolute integrals over events of sufficiently small probability.