38
$\begingroup$

Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables such that $Y=E[X|Y]$ almost surely and $X= E[Y|X]$ almost surely. Prove that $X=Y$ almost surely.

The hint I was given is to evaluate: $$E[X-Y;X>a,Y\leq a] + E[X-Y;X\leq a,Y\leq a]$$

which I can write as: $$\int_A(X-Y)dP +\int_B(X-Y)dP$$ where $A=\{X>a, Y\leq a\}$ and $B=\{X\leq a,Y\leq a\}$.

But I need some more hints.

$\endgroup$
0

4 Answers 4

29
$\begingroup$

Simply follow the hint... First note that, since $E(X\mid Y)=Y$ almost surely, for every $c$, $$E(X-Y;Y\leqslant c)=E(E(X\mid Y)-Y;Y\leqslant c)=0,$$ and that, decomposing the event $[Y\leqslant c]$ into the disjoint union of the events $[X>c,Y\leqslant c]$ and $[X\leqslant c,Y\leqslant c]$, one has $$E(X-Y;Y\leqslant c)=U_c+E(X-Y;X\leqslant c,Y\leqslant c),$$ with $$U_c=E(X-Y;X>c,Y\leqslant c).$$ Since $U_c\geqslant0$, this shows that $$E(X-Y;X\leqslant c,Y\leqslant c)\leqslant 0.$$ Exchanging $X$ and $Y$ and following the same steps, using the hypothesis that $E(Y\mid X)=X$ almost surely instead of $E(X\mid Y)=Y$ almost surely, one gets $$E(Y-X;X\leqslant c,Y\leqslant c)\leqslant0,$$ that is $$E(Y-X;X\leqslant c,Y\leqslant c)=0,$$ which, coming back to the first decomposition of an expectation above, yields $U_c=0$, that is, $$E(X-Y;X>c\geqslant Y)=0.$$ This is the expectation of a nonnegative random variable hence $(X-Y)\mathbf 1_{X>c\geqslant Y}=0$ almost surely, which can only happen if the event $[X>c\geqslant Y]$ has probability zero. Now, $$[X>Y]=\bigcup_{c\in\mathbb Q}[X>c\geqslant Y],$$ hence all this proves that $P(X>Y)=0$. By symmetry, $P(Y>X)=0$ and we are done.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ If one assumes furthermore that $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable, the $L^2$ proof in the other answer (already on several other pages of the site) is simpler. $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ is this question a duplicate, then? We should mark it as such. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge If the question was assuming square integrability, it would be a duplicate. The general version (assuming only integrability) might also be a duplicate but I am not sure (and I said nothing about that). $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give a link to the previous instance(s) of the $L^2$ case? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2015 at 14:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you explain me why $E[X-Y;Y\le c]=E[E[X|Y]-Y;Y\le c]$ $\endgroup$
    – bunny
    Commented Dec 8, 2017 at 19:55
15
$\begingroup$

Let $h:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ be bounded and strictly increasing. (For example, $h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$.) Since $X$ and $Y$ are integrable and $h$ is bounded, the random variable $Z:=(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))$ is integrable, with expectation $$ E[Xh(X) -Yh(X)-Xh(Y) +Yh(Y)].\tag1 $$ But $E[Yh(X)]=E\left[E(Yh(X)\mid X)\right]=E[h(X)E(Y\mid X)]=E[Xh(X)]$ and similarly $E[Xh(Y)]=E[Yh(Y)]$. Plugging into (1), we find the expectation of $Z$ is zero. But $Z$ is non-negative, since $h$ is increasing. It follows that $Z$ is zero almost surely. To finish the proof, the fact that $h$ is one-to-one implies the set inclusion $$\left\{(X-Y)(h(X)-h(Y))=0\right\}\subset\left\{X=Y\right\}. $$

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Yep, this is the other way. $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Dec 19, 2018 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ I am familiar with the "if EZ=0 and Z is non-negative then Z is zero almost surely" trick. However, I never would have thought of this solution on my own (e.g. how did you think of such a Z? how did you know this Z would have expectation zero). Could you please explain how you came up with this solution? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 16, 2020 at 12:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @xFioraMstr18 This proof is not that different from Nate Eldredge's proof. If you take $h(x):=x$ you're looking at $(X-Y)^2$. The requirement here that $h$ be bounded assures that all expectations exist when $X$ and $Y$ are merely integrable but not necessarily square integrable. $\endgroup$
    – grand_chat
    Commented Mar 17, 2020 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I guess Nate Eldredge's proof is pretty slick too. Btw, I hope I'm not nitpicking, but in your answer, you should also assume $h$ is (Borel) measurable ($h(x)=1/(1+e^{-x})$ clearly is, but you forgot to list that as one of the properties). $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2020 at 1:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @xFioraMstr18 You are welcome. (And it's easy to show that increasing functions are Borel measurable.) $\endgroup$
    – grand_chat
    Commented Mar 17, 2020 at 17:05
12
$\begingroup$

If $X,Y$ are square-integrable we can give a quick proof.

Consider the random variable $(X-Y)^2 = X^2 - 2XY + Y^2$. Let's compute its expectation by conditioning on $X$. We have $$\begin{align*} E[(X-Y)^2] &= E[E[(X-Y)^2 \mid X]] \\ &= E[E[X^2 - 2XY + Y^2 \mid X]] \\ &= E[X^2 - 2 X E[Y \mid X] + E[Y^2 \mid X]] \\ &= E[X^2 - 2 X^2 + E[Y^2 \mid X]] \\ &= E[-X^2 + Y^2]\end{align*}$$ If we condition on $Y$ instead we get $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[X^2 - Y^2]$. Comparing these, we see that we have $E[(X-Y)^2] = -E[(X-Y)^2]$, i.e. $E[(X-Y)^2]=0$. This means $X=Y$ almost surely.

Unfortunately I don't quite see a way to handle the case where $X,Y$ are merely integrable, since in that case some of the expectations used above may be undefined.

Acknowledgement of priority. After writing this I found (thanks to Did) that essentially the same proof was given by Michael Hardy in Conditional expectation and almost sure equality.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but why is $E[(X-Y)^2] = E[E[(X-Y)^2 \mid X]]$? $\endgroup$
    – user428487
    Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 3:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user428487: Basic property of conditional expectation. $E[E[Z \mid \mathcal{F}]] = E[Z]$. You should be able to see it as an immediate consequence of whatever you take as the definition. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ I can see that $E[(X-Y)^2] = 0 \implies X = Y a.s.$is a fact used in lots of places, would you mind pointing me to a proof? $\endgroup$
    – user428487
    Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 10:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user428487: It's the fact that if $Z \ge 0$ and $E[Z] = 0$ then $Z=0$ a.s. It's very basic measure theory and probably left as an exercise in most books. One way to see it: for any $n$ you have $P(Z \ge 1/n) = 0$ using Markov's inequality. So by countable additivity $0 = P(\bigcup_n \{Z \ge 1/n\}) = P(Z > 0) = 0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 13:38
1
$\begingroup$

we can prove that $\forall k \in \mathbb{N},E[\min(X,k)|\min(Y,k)]=\min(Y,k)$ and $E[\min(Y,k)|\min(X,k)]=\min(X,k)$ by noticing that $E[\min(X,k)|\min(Y,k)] \leq \min(E[X|\min(Y,k)],k)$ and that $E[X|\min(Y,k)]=E[E[X|Y]|\min(Y,k)]=E[Y|\min(Y,k)]$ also we have $\min(E[Y|\min(Y,k)],k)=\min(Y,k)$

This method, works for integrable functions and with functions taking values in $[0, \infty]$ by truncating the random variables, and then we can consider the $L^2$ case.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .