Dtjytyk

Do I have to take mana from my deck or hand when tapping a dual land?

Why the "ls" command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

What happens if I try to grapple an illusory duplicate from the Mirror Image spell?

Storage of electrolytic capacitors - how long?

Do I have to know the General Relativity theory to understand the concept of inertial frame?

Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

Origin of pigs as a species

Isometric embedding of a genus g surface

Why would five hundred and five be same as one?

Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

Check if object is null and return null

Possible Eco thriller, man invents a device to remove rain from glass

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

If the only attacker is removed from combat, is a creature still counted as having attacked this turn?

I'm just a whisper. Who am I?

Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Overlapping circles covering polygon

Ways of geometrical multiplication

ContourPlot — How do I color by contour curvature?

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

Mimic lecturing on blackboard, facing audience

Do Vitali sets really explain measure-theoretic probability?

What's the intuition behind and some illustrative applications of probability kernels?Do two probability kernels induce the same distributions if they induce the same distributions on rays?Samples from the Dirichlet measureBetween bayesian and measure theoretic approachesProbabilistic implications of the existence of non-measurable setsShow that there's a $A_n downarrow emptyset$ with $lim_{n to infty} mu(A_n) neq 0$Measure theory and Probability Theory on generalizations of topological spacesWhy keeping a disctinction between almost surely equal elements in probability theory?Proof of a change-of-measure formulaWhy is the sample space called a 'space'?

3

$begingroup$

I’ve read several answers about how how crazy sets like Vitali’s set are (one of the reasons) why we need $sigma$-algebra and measure theory for probability spaces. However, Vitali’s set is only eliminated by requiring non-trivial translation-invariant measures. So either (a) Vitali’s set wasn’t a problem in the first place or (b) probability spaces need translation-invariance.

No definition of probability spaces I’ve seen mentions translation invariance, leaving us with (a): Vitali’s set is not a problem for probabilists. Then:

1. Why do people mention Vitali's set while explaining the measure-theoretic formulation of probability?


2. Why do, in fact, we need measure theory for probability?


3. Are there any other paradoxes arising from uncountable sets to worry about that do apply to regular measures and probability?

probability-theory

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 12 at 23:12

Yatharth Agarwal

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Non-measurable set is not the only reason that we define a measure on $sigma$-algebra instead of the whole power set.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 21:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @BigbearZzz Some of the other reasons I’ve seen are $sigma$-algebra as “information” which is fine. But still, what’s even the relevance of people mentioning the Vitali set if can’t be solved for all probability spaces anyway?
  $endgroup$
  – Yatharth Agarwal
  Mar 12 at 21:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Vitali set serves as an example of a Lebesgue non-measurable set, perhaps the first example of why the Lebesgue outer measure is not a measure on the power set of $Bbb R$. You can say that this has more to do with real analysis than probability theory.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 22:01
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  You should look into the construction of a probability measure via Caratheodory extension theorem. The presence/absence of Vitali set and translation invariant is not relevant at all, but still the theorem doesn't, in general, let you define a probability measure on the whole power set of your space anyway. This is another reason why $sigma$-algebra is preferred.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 22:05
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @BigbearZzz That makes a ton of sense: These Vitali set examples are not actually relevant for probability theory; people just tend to mention them because they’re familiar with analysis, or they’re just trying to present an analogy of how things go wrong with uncountable sets! Does that sound fair?
  $endgroup$
  – Yatharth Agarwal
  Mar 12 at 22:16
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

3

$begingroup$

I’ve read several answers about how how crazy sets like Vitali’s set are (one of the reasons) why we need $sigma$-algebra and measure theory for probability spaces. However, Vitali’s set is only eliminated by requiring non-trivial translation-invariant measures. So either (a) Vitali’s set wasn’t a problem in the first place or (b) probability spaces need translation-invariance.

No definition of probability spaces I’ve seen mentions translation invariance, leaving us with (a): Vitali’s set is not a problem for probabilists. Then:

1. Why do people mention Vitali's set while explaining the measure-theoretic formulation of probability?


2. Why do, in fact, we need measure theory for probability?


3. Are there any other paradoxes arising from uncountable sets to worry about that do apply to regular measures and probability?

probability-theory

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 12 at 23:12

Yatharth Agarwal

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Non-measurable set is not the only reason that we define a measure on $sigma$-algebra instead of the whole power set.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 21:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @BigbearZzz Some of the other reasons I’ve seen are $sigma$-algebra as “information” which is fine. But still, what’s even the relevance of people mentioning the Vitali set if can’t be solved for all probability spaces anyway?
  $endgroup$
  – Yatharth Agarwal
  Mar 12 at 21:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Vitali set serves as an example of a Lebesgue non-measurable set, perhaps the first example of why the Lebesgue outer measure is not a measure on the power set of $Bbb R$. You can say that this has more to do with real analysis than probability theory.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 22:01
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  You should look into the construction of a probability measure via Caratheodory extension theorem. The presence/absence of Vitali set and translation invariant is not relevant at all, but still the theorem doesn't, in general, let you define a probability measure on the whole power set of your space anyway. This is another reason why $sigma$-algebra is preferred.
  $endgroup$
  – BigbearZzz
  Mar 12 at 22:05
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @BigbearZzz That makes a ton of sense: These Vitali set examples are not actually relevant for probability theory; people just tend to mention them because they’re familiar with analysis, or they’re just trying to present an analogy of how things go wrong with uncountable sets! Does that sound fair?
  $endgroup$
  – Yatharth Agarwal
  Mar 12 at 22:16
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

$begingroup$

I’ve read several answers about how how crazy sets like Vitali’s set are (one of the reasons) why we need $sigma$-algebra and measure theory for probability spaces. However, Vitali’s set is only eliminated by requiring non-trivial translation-invariant measures. So either (a) Vitali’s set wasn’t a problem in the first place or (b) probability spaces need translation-invariance.

No definition of probability spaces I’ve seen mentions translation invariance, leaving us with (a): Vitali’s set is not a problem for probabilists. Then:

1. Why do people mention Vitali's set while explaining the measure-theoretic formulation of probability?


2. Why do, in fact, we need measure theory for probability?


3. Are there any other paradoxes arising from uncountable sets to worry about that do apply to regular measures and probability?

probability-theory

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 12 at 23:12

Yatharth Agarwal

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 12 at 23:12

Yatharth Agarwal

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 12 at 23:12

Yatharth Agarwal

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418

asked Mar 12 at 21:40

Yatharth AgarwalYatharth Agarwal

542418