This may be wrong, but I have often heard some saying " we mainly care about CDFs". Similarly, in textbooks, one sees $X \sim N(0,1)$, without any reference to sample space. But why - and how do we justify this?
My thoughts: with my limited knowledge in probability, two results:
- Any distribution function $F:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,1]$, yields a Lebesgue-Stiltjes measure $\mu_F$. Considering the space $(\mathbb{R}, B_{\mathbb{R}}, \mu_F)$ with randon variable $X$ being identity, we obtain, $$P(X \le t ) = \mu((-\infty, t]) = F(t)$$
This implies it is sufficient in specifying cdf $F$, and say there exists a RV, $X$ with cdf $F$.
- (Skorokhod's construction, in Williams) Let $F: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,1]$ be a cdf. $U\sim U[0,1]$. $$ X^-:= \sup \{ y \in \mathbb{R} \,: \, F(y) < U \} $$ is a RV on $[0,1]$ with same distribution as $F$.
I believe there is also a generalization to joint variables.
But these results are not satisfying, I don't see how they are canonical.
Because of the Kolmogorov existence theorem. It tells us that given any distributions (not defined in a dumb way), there exists a stochastic process (in particular, a random variable) with those distributions.
Often we do not care about the actual probability space. The entire point of a random variable is to assign numbers to outcomes. Real numbers are easier to deal with than generic probability spaces. Although there are times where the space itself is important.
Taken from Wikipedia: