I was recently asked a question about Exercise 9.2.4(i) in Klenke's Probability theory. First I state the exercise itself.
Let $X$ be a real-valued random variable (on $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$) with $|X|\leq 1$ almost surely. Then there exists a random variable $Y:\Omega\rightarrow \{-1,1\}$ such that $E[Y|X]=X$.
Now the question is regarding the following counter-example. Consider two coin tosses, which leads to the event space $$\Omega=\{HH,HT,TH,TT\},$$ and the random variable $X:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb R$ with $$X(HH)=-0.5, \, X(HT)=X(TH)=0, \, X(TT)=0.5.$$
Using the definition of conditional expectation $E[Y|X]$ is a random variable defined w.r.t. $\sigma(X)$ and satisfies
$$ E[Y|X](TT)\, \mathbb P(\{TT\}) = \int_{\{TT\}} E[Y|X](\omega)d\mathbb P(\omega) = \int_{\{TT\}} Y (\omega) d\mathbb P(\omega) = Y(TT)\mathbb P(\{TT\}), $$
and therefore $E[Y|X]=X$ would mean that
$$0.5=X(TT)= E[Y|X](TT)=Y(TT),$$
which means that $Y$ has to have values other than $\{-1,1\}$. But this contradicts the exercise which states that $Y$ should only have values in $\{-1,1\}$.
Question: What is the issue with the argument in this counterexample.
Its possible that I missing something simple with conditional expectations. Also any hints on the original question in Klenke's book.
I'm not sure where the original exercise comes from, but it seems to be stated incorrectly for a minor technical reason.I think the intended idea is to define a random variable $Y$ such that $P(Y=1 \mid X=x) = \frac{1+x}{2}$ and $P(Y=-1 \mid X=x) = \frac{1-x}{2}$ so that $E[Y \mid X=x] = \frac{1+x}{2} \cdot 1 + \frac{1-x}{2} \cdot (-1) = x$.
But if $\sigma(X)=\mathcal{F}$ like in your counterexample, there may not be enough "room" in the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ to define this new random variable $Y$ on the same probability space.Edit: The original problem statement did not explicitly specify probability spaces $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ so the above solution will work.
Here is the actual statement of the exercise:
The error in your counterexample is $E[Y \mid X](TT) = Y(TT)$, which I think comes from your imposition that $Y$ must be measurable with respect to $\sigma(X)$. This is not required by the original problem statement. You should not have modified the statement of the exercise with explicit mentions of the $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$; as your attempted counterexample shows, $Y$ generally should not be $\sigma(X)$-measurable for the exercise's claim to hold. In your counterexample, you would need to "augment" the probability space $\Omega$ in order to specify $Y$ (e.g., $\Omega' = \Omega \times \{-1, 1\}$).