Result and proof on the conditional expectation of the product of two random variables

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












My problem is the following:
$X$ and $Y$ are two random variables and $mathcalF$ is a $sigma$-algebra. Given that $X$ and $Y$ are independent, and that $X$ is independent of $mathcalF$, can I affirm that
$$mathbbE(XY mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)?$$
My intuition is yes but I did not manage to find a formal proof. Any idea ?



Thanks a lot.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    3












    My problem is the following:
    $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables and $mathcalF$ is a $sigma$-algebra. Given that $X$ and $Y$ are independent, and that $X$ is independent of $mathcalF$, can I affirm that
    $$mathbbE(XY mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)?$$
    My intuition is yes but I did not manage to find a formal proof. Any idea ?



    Thanks a lot.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3






      3





      My problem is the following:
      $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables and $mathcalF$ is a $sigma$-algebra. Given that $X$ and $Y$ are independent, and that $X$ is independent of $mathcalF$, can I affirm that
      $$mathbbE(XY mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)?$$
      My intuition is yes but I did not manage to find a formal proof. Any idea ?



      Thanks a lot.










      share|cite|improve this question















      My problem is the following:
      $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables and $mathcalF$ is a $sigma$-algebra. Given that $X$ and $Y$ are independent, and that $X$ is independent of $mathcalF$, can I affirm that
      $$mathbbE(XY mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)?$$
      My intuition is yes but I did not manage to find a formal proof. Any idea ?



      Thanks a lot.







      probability probability-theory probability-distributions expectation






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Sep 14 '15 at 9:13









      saz

      74k553113




      74k553113










      asked Oct 29 '13 at 16:55









      vitaly

      7016




      7016




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted










          No, in general the statement is not correct.



          Example Consider sets $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that $mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0$ and $mathbbP(A_i)>0$, $mathbbP(A_i cap A_j) = mathbbP(A_i) cdot mathbbP(A_j)$ for any two $i,j in 1,2,3$. Set $X:=1_A_1$, $Y=1_A_2$, $mathcalF := sigma(1_A_3)$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as well as $X$ and $mathcalF$, so the assumption on the independence is satisfied. For $F:= A_3$ we have



          $$int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP = int 1_A_1 cdot 1_A_2 cdot 1_A_3 , dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0 tag1 $$



          On the other hand,



          $$int_F mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF), dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1) cdot underbracemathbbE(Y)_mathbbP(A_2) cdot mathbbP(A_3)>0 tag2$$



          where we used that $Y$ and $mathcalF$ are independent (hence $mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)=mathbbE(Y)$). Since by the definition of conditional expectation



          $$0 stackrel(1)= int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP stackrel!= int_F mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) , dmathbbP$$



          we conclude from $(2)$ that



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) neq mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$




          But: If $sigma(X)$ is independent of $sigma(Y,mathcalF)$ (i.e. the smallest $sigma$-algebra containing $mathcalF$ and $sigma(Y)$), then the claim holds as the following proof shows:



          Denote by $mathcalG := sigma(mathcalF,sigma(Y))$ the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcalF$ and $Y$. Since $sigma(X)$ and $mathcalG$ are independent, we have



          $$mathbbE(X mid mathcalG) = mathbbE(X)$$



          Consequently, by the tower property



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(Y cdot underbracemathbbE(X mid mathcalG)_mathbbE(X) mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 2




            I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
            – Ben Whitney
            Jul 9 '15 at 19:32










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f544410%2fresult-and-proof-on-the-conditional-expectation-of-the-product-of-two-random-var%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted










          No, in general the statement is not correct.



          Example Consider sets $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that $mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0$ and $mathbbP(A_i)>0$, $mathbbP(A_i cap A_j) = mathbbP(A_i) cdot mathbbP(A_j)$ for any two $i,j in 1,2,3$. Set $X:=1_A_1$, $Y=1_A_2$, $mathcalF := sigma(1_A_3)$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as well as $X$ and $mathcalF$, so the assumption on the independence is satisfied. For $F:= A_3$ we have



          $$int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP = int 1_A_1 cdot 1_A_2 cdot 1_A_3 , dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0 tag1 $$



          On the other hand,



          $$int_F mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF), dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1) cdot underbracemathbbE(Y)_mathbbP(A_2) cdot mathbbP(A_3)>0 tag2$$



          where we used that $Y$ and $mathcalF$ are independent (hence $mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)=mathbbE(Y)$). Since by the definition of conditional expectation



          $$0 stackrel(1)= int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP stackrel!= int_F mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) , dmathbbP$$



          we conclude from $(2)$ that



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) neq mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$




          But: If $sigma(X)$ is independent of $sigma(Y,mathcalF)$ (i.e. the smallest $sigma$-algebra containing $mathcalF$ and $sigma(Y)$), then the claim holds as the following proof shows:



          Denote by $mathcalG := sigma(mathcalF,sigma(Y))$ the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcalF$ and $Y$. Since $sigma(X)$ and $mathcalG$ are independent, we have



          $$mathbbE(X mid mathcalG) = mathbbE(X)$$



          Consequently, by the tower property



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(Y cdot underbracemathbbE(X mid mathcalG)_mathbbE(X) mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 2




            I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
            – Ben Whitney
            Jul 9 '15 at 19:32














          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted










          No, in general the statement is not correct.



          Example Consider sets $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that $mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0$ and $mathbbP(A_i)>0$, $mathbbP(A_i cap A_j) = mathbbP(A_i) cdot mathbbP(A_j)$ for any two $i,j in 1,2,3$. Set $X:=1_A_1$, $Y=1_A_2$, $mathcalF := sigma(1_A_3)$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as well as $X$ and $mathcalF$, so the assumption on the independence is satisfied. For $F:= A_3$ we have



          $$int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP = int 1_A_1 cdot 1_A_2 cdot 1_A_3 , dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0 tag1 $$



          On the other hand,



          $$int_F mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF), dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1) cdot underbracemathbbE(Y)_mathbbP(A_2) cdot mathbbP(A_3)>0 tag2$$



          where we used that $Y$ and $mathcalF$ are independent (hence $mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)=mathbbE(Y)$). Since by the definition of conditional expectation



          $$0 stackrel(1)= int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP stackrel!= int_F mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) , dmathbbP$$



          we conclude from $(2)$ that



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) neq mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$




          But: If $sigma(X)$ is independent of $sigma(Y,mathcalF)$ (i.e. the smallest $sigma$-algebra containing $mathcalF$ and $sigma(Y)$), then the claim holds as the following proof shows:



          Denote by $mathcalG := sigma(mathcalF,sigma(Y))$ the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcalF$ and $Y$. Since $sigma(X)$ and $mathcalG$ are independent, we have



          $$mathbbE(X mid mathcalG) = mathbbE(X)$$



          Consequently, by the tower property



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(Y cdot underbracemathbbE(X mid mathcalG)_mathbbE(X) mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 2




            I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
            – Ben Whitney
            Jul 9 '15 at 19:32












          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          9
          down vote



          accepted






          No, in general the statement is not correct.



          Example Consider sets $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that $mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0$ and $mathbbP(A_i)>0$, $mathbbP(A_i cap A_j) = mathbbP(A_i) cdot mathbbP(A_j)$ for any two $i,j in 1,2,3$. Set $X:=1_A_1$, $Y=1_A_2$, $mathcalF := sigma(1_A_3)$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as well as $X$ and $mathcalF$, so the assumption on the independence is satisfied. For $F:= A_3$ we have



          $$int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP = int 1_A_1 cdot 1_A_2 cdot 1_A_3 , dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0 tag1 $$



          On the other hand,



          $$int_F mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF), dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1) cdot underbracemathbbE(Y)_mathbbP(A_2) cdot mathbbP(A_3)>0 tag2$$



          where we used that $Y$ and $mathcalF$ are independent (hence $mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)=mathbbE(Y)$). Since by the definition of conditional expectation



          $$0 stackrel(1)= int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP stackrel!= int_F mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) , dmathbbP$$



          we conclude from $(2)$ that



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) neq mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$




          But: If $sigma(X)$ is independent of $sigma(Y,mathcalF)$ (i.e. the smallest $sigma$-algebra containing $mathcalF$ and $sigma(Y)$), then the claim holds as the following proof shows:



          Denote by $mathcalG := sigma(mathcalF,sigma(Y))$ the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcalF$ and $Y$. Since $sigma(X)$ and $mathcalG$ are independent, we have



          $$mathbbE(X mid mathcalG) = mathbbE(X)$$



          Consequently, by the tower property



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(Y cdot underbracemathbbE(X mid mathcalG)_mathbbE(X) mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer














          No, in general the statement is not correct.



          Example Consider sets $A_1,A_2,A_3$ such that $mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0$ and $mathbbP(A_i)>0$, $mathbbP(A_i cap A_j) = mathbbP(A_i) cdot mathbbP(A_j)$ for any two $i,j in 1,2,3$. Set $X:=1_A_1$, $Y=1_A_2$, $mathcalF := sigma(1_A_3)$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are independent, as well as $X$ and $mathcalF$, so the assumption on the independence is satisfied. For $F:= A_3$ we have



          $$int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP = int 1_A_1 cdot 1_A_2 cdot 1_A_3 , dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1 cap A_2 cap A_3) = 0 tag1 $$



          On the other hand,



          $$int_F mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF), dmathbbP = mathbbP(A_1) cdot underbracemathbbE(Y)_mathbbP(A_2) cdot mathbbP(A_3)>0 tag2$$



          where we used that $Y$ and $mathcalF$ are independent (hence $mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)=mathbbE(Y)$). Since by the definition of conditional expectation



          $$0 stackrel(1)= int_F X cdot Y , dmathbbP stackrel!= int_F mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) , dmathbbP$$



          we conclude from $(2)$ that



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) neq mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$




          But: If $sigma(X)$ is independent of $sigma(Y,mathcalF)$ (i.e. the smallest $sigma$-algebra containing $mathcalF$ and $sigma(Y)$), then the claim holds as the following proof shows:



          Denote by $mathcalG := sigma(mathcalF,sigma(Y))$ the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcalF$ and $Y$. Since $sigma(X)$ and $mathcalG$ are independent, we have



          $$mathbbE(X mid mathcalG) = mathbbE(X)$$



          Consequently, by the tower property



          $$mathbbE(X cdot Y mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(Y cdot underbracemathbbE(X mid mathcalG)_mathbbE(X) mid mathcalF) = mathbbE(X) cdot mathbbE(Y mid mathcalF)$$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 5 at 7:55









          gofvonx

          1,042828




          1,042828










          answered Oct 29 '13 at 18:11









          saz

          74k553113




          74k553113







          • 2




            I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
            – Ben Whitney
            Jul 9 '15 at 19:32












          • 2




            I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
            – Ben Whitney
            Jul 9 '15 at 19:32







          2




          2




          I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
          – Ben Whitney
          Jul 9 '15 at 19:32




          I have used your answer to correct the Wikipedia page on conditional expectation (see <en.wikipedia.org/w/…). Thank you.
          – Ben Whitney
          Jul 9 '15 at 19:32

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f544410%2fresult-and-proof-on-the-conditional-expectation-of-the-product-of-two-random-var%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          gcrGxQQ,qme MEJE7LdbWqaWyg8faKQMT44F,RLNOQwvG,aS6LZjAd,LIAdV9fSu gqhq9 It8yo9oBd5qjxYG9UAbRv HHB,SkqBCVe
          YKUhg6rdnSIITCOWb0gMr6N,RLpylJLIPA6I1CxK2Hjr,aae

          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Propositional logic and tautologies

          Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility