Fdtxjr

What does Jesus mean regarding "Raca," and "you fool?" - is he contrasting them?

Worshiping one God at a time?

When did antialiasing start being available?

Can a wizard cast a spell during their first turn of combat if they initiated combat by releasing a readied spell?

Am I eligible for the Eurail Youth pass? I am 27.5 years old

Can you move over difficult terrain with only 5 feet of movement?

What favor did Moody owe Dumbledore?

Comment Box for Substitution Method of Integrals

How to generate binary array whose elements with values 1 are randomly drawn

Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?

Practical application of matrices and determinants

I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?

Is there a term for accumulated dirt on the outside of your hands and feet?

Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculator

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java

Word for flower that blooms and wilts in one day

PTIJ What is the inyan of the Konami code in Uncle Moishy's song?

Can a medieval gyroplane be built?

What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?

How do hiring committees for research positions view getting "scooped"?

What does "Four-F." mean?

Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?

두음법칙 - When did North and South diverge in pronunciation of initial ㄹ?

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