Suppose that $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ is a probability space, and $X,Y:(\Omega,\mathcal{F}) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}))$ are real random variables. I want to justify why an event like $\{X \leq Y\}$ is $\mathcal{F}$-measurable. My thought is to justify something like $$\{X \leq Y\}=^?\bigcup_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} \{X \leq q\} \cap \{q \leq Y\},$$ where $\{X \leq q\} \cap \{q \leq Y\}$ is clearly $\mathcal{F}$-measurable. I highly suspect I want to use the rationals to approximate the reals in the way above, but I'm not sure how to justify this. Any help would be appreciated!
2026-03-25 01:38:02.1774402682
How to express random inequality events in terms of measurable events?
33 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in PROBABILITY-THEORY
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- What's $P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap A_4) $?
- Another application of the Central Limit Theorem
- proving Kochen-Stone lemma...
- Is there a contradiction in coin toss of expected / actual results?
- Sample each point with flipping coin, what is the average?
- Random variables coincide
- Reference request for a lemma on the expected value of Hermitian polynomials of Gaussian random variables.
- Determine the marginal distributions of $(T_1, T_2)$
- Convergence in distribution of a discretized random variable and generated sigma-algebras
Related Questions in MEASURE-THEORY
- On sufficient condition for pre-compactness "in measure"(i.e. in Young measure space)
- Absolutely continuous functions are dense in $L^1$
- I can't undestand why $ \{x \in X : f(x) > g(x) \} = \bigcup_{r \in \mathbb{Q}}{\{x\in X : f(x) > r\}\cap\{x\in X:g(x) < r\}} $
- Trace $\sigma$-algebra of a product $\sigma$-algebra is product $\sigma$-algebra of the trace $\sigma$-algebras
- Meaning of a double integral
- Random variables coincide
- Convergence in measure preserves measurability
- Convergence in distribution of a discretized random variable and generated sigma-algebras
- A sequence of absolutely continuous functions whose derivatives converge to $0$ a.e
- $f\in L_{p_1}\cap L_{p_2}$ implies $f\in L_{p}$ for all $p\in (p_1,p_2)$
Related Questions in MEASURABLE-FUNCTIONS
- Show if function is Lebesgue-measurable
- Square Integrable Functions are Measurable?
- Discontinuous Brownian Motion
- showing that $f(x)=\mu(B(x,r))$ is measurable
- Question on Durett 5.1.11
- Can someone explain the indicator function to me?
- Why the characteristic function is measurable?
- Distance metric limits to 0 if and only if convergence in measure
- Characterizing the dual space of the linear space of the signed measures generated by a given set of measures.
- $f: [0,1]\rightarrow L^1(\Omega)$ as a (measurable?) function from $[0,1]\times \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
Related Questions in MEASURABLE-SETS
- Measurable and lebesgue measurable sets
- Diffeomorphisms and measurable sets
- Show that there exists an open interval $(a,b)$ such that $m(E\cap(a,b)) > \frac{1}{2}m(a,b) > 0$ when $m(E) > 0$
- Why is the set $\{x \mid f(x) \not= g(x)\}$ measurable in a topological hausdorff space?
- A consequence of the Selection Theorem for the Effros Borel space F(X) - self study
- Direct sum of subgroups of $\mathbb{Q}^n$ with $\mathbb{Q}$ is a Borel map - Self study
- Continuous map from subset of $\mathcal{C}$ (Cantor) to non-measurable set.
- Upper bound for some measurable sets given the inequality $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu (A_{n}) \leq \mu (\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} A_{n}) + \epsilon$
- Proof explanation: $I_A$ is measurable$ \iff A$ is measurable
- Prove measurability of the set of lines starting from measurable set.
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
What you wrote is not quite correct; any outcome where $X=Y=\pi$ is not included in the RHS. Instead, you can prove the complement of $\{X\le Y\}$ is measurable via $$\{X>Y\}=\bigcup_{q\in \mathbb Q} \{X>q\}\cap \{q>Y\}.$$ Proof: Clearly the existence of a $q$ so $X>q$ and $q>Y$ implies $X>Y$. Conversely, if $X>Y$, then the density of $\mathbb Q$ in $\mathbb R$ implies there is a rational $q$ in the interval $(Y,X)$.