Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Measure-Theoretic Information and Conditioning

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page develops finite-alphabet conditional entropy for general standard-Borel observations, law entropy as self-mutual information, general mutual information as joint relative entropy, and conditional mutual information through the same-marginal conditional-product law. It proves kernel measurability, finite-partition and variational formulas, the KL chain rule, mutual-information chain rules, zero-information equality conditions, and finite-quantization limits. All divergences are directional extended nonnegative quantities; no proof subtracts infinities, and conditioning variables are retained in the quantization theorem. A separate remark distinguishes law entropy from differential entropy. The controlling source is IT02 in research/plan-information-theory-track.md; no separate pair-specific design section governs this page.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

KL is invariant under a measurable bijection

Statement

Let ϕ:(E,E)→(F,F) be a measurable bijection with measurable inverse. For probability measures P,Q on E, let ϕ#P,ϕ#Q be their push-forwards. Then D(ϕ#P∥ϕ#Q)=D(P∥Q).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, the measurable isomorphism ϕ, and probability measures P,Q on E.

[A1]

AC supplies the Radon–Nikodym density in the absolutely continuous branch of KL. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

KL is +∞ outside absolute continuity; under absolute continuity it is the integral of the log Radon–Nikodym density. Kullback–Leibler divergence

[F2]

Push-forward integration satisfies ∫g d(ϕ#P)=∫g∘ϕ dP for every nonnegative measurable g, and for integrable signed g. Change of variables for expectation

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1F1givenchoose

If P≪̸Q, choose E_0 with Q(E0)=0<P(E0). Since ϕ−1 is measurable, ϕ(E0)=(ϕ−1)−1(E0) is measurable; then ϕ#Q(ϕ(E0))=0<ϕ#P(ϕ(E0)). Both divergences are +∞ by [F1].

1.2A1F1F2givenalgebra∎

If P≪Q, let r=dP/dQ. [given] The function s=r∘ϕ−1 is measurable. For every B in F, ∫Bs d(ϕ#Q)=∫ϕ−1(B)r dQ=P(ϕ−1(B))=ϕ#P(B), so s is a Radon–Nikodym density of ϕ#P with respect to ϕ#Q. By [F2], the push-forward integral identity applies separately to the nonnegative functions (ln⁡s)+ and (ln⁡s)−; the negative-part integrals are finite by [F1]. Therefore D(ϕ#P∥ϕ#Q)=∫(ln⁡s)+d(ϕ#P)−∫(ln⁡s)−d(ϕ#P)=∫(ln⁡r)+dP−∫(ln⁡r)−dP=D(P∥Q), including the case where the positive-part integral is +∞.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

The product of two probability kernels is a probability kernel

Statement

Let (Z,Z), (E,E), and (F,F) be measurable spaces, and let K:Z⇝E and L:Z⇝F be probability kernels. For each z, let Πz=K(z,⋅)⊗L(z,⋅) be the finite product probability on (E×F,E⊗F). Then z↦Πz is a probability kernel.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The spaces and probability kernels in the Statement.

[F1]

Every kernel section is a measure; each event evaluation is measurable, and probability-kernel sections have total mass one. Measure kernel and probability kernel

[F2]

For probability measures, the finite product measure exists uniquely and satisfies (μ⊗ν)(A×B)=μ(A)ν(B). For sigma-finite factors, the product measure exists, has the rectangle formula, is sigma-finite, and is unique

[F3]

Rectangles form a pi-system generating the product sigma-algebra, and a lambda-system containing them contains that sigma-algebra. The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3given

For fixed z, [F2] gives the probability measure Πz. [F2, given] If A∈E and B∈F, then Πz(A×B)=K(z,A)L(z,B), which is a measurable function of z by the two kernel assumptions in [F1]. Also Πz(E×F)=1 for every z.

2.1F1F3step 1.1

Let D be the class of product-measurable C⊆E×F for which z↦Πz(C) is measurable. Step 1.1 shows every rectangle belongs to D, and the whole product does as well. If C∈D, then Πz(Cc)=1−Πz(C), so Cc∈D. If Cj are pairwise disjoint members, then Πz(⋃jCj)=lim⁡n∑j=1nΠz(Cj) by countable additivity, a pointwise limit of measurable functions. Thus D is a lambda-system.

3.1F1F3step 1.1step 2.1∎

Rectangles are a pi-system generating E⊗F, so [F3] implies D=E⊗F. Every section Πz is a probability by step 1.1; hence z↦Πz is the claimed probability kernel. All constructions are pointwise and use no choice axiom.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Measure-theoretic mutual information

Definition

Let (E,E) and (F,F) be measurable spaces and let P be a probability measure on (E×F,E⊗F). Its marginals are PE(A)=P(A×F) and PF(B)=P(E×B). The product probability PE⊗PF exists by the finite product-measure theorem. For the absolutely continuous branch P≪PE⊗PF, assume AC as required by Kullback–Leibler divergence; the non-absolutely-continuous branch below remains +∞. Define the measure-theoretic mutual information of the joint law P by I(P):=D(P∥PE⊗PF)∈[0,+∞]. For random elements X,Y with joint law PXY, write I(X;Y):=I(PXY). The logarithm convention is the natural logarithm, so finite values are in nats as fixed by Information units and logarithm-base convention. The divergence is directional in its two law arguments and is +∞ when PXY≪̸PX⊗PY.

This definition uses only the joint law, not a choice of density or a difference of entropy quantities.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

The same-marginal conditional-product law is well-defined

Statement

Assume AC. Let X,Y,Z be random elements with standard-Borel value spaces, and let K(z,⋅) and L(z,⋅) be supplied conditional laws of X and Y given Z=z. The product kernels M(z,⋅)=K(z,⋅)⊗L(z,⋅) form a probability kernel. The joint law R(C×A×B)=∫CK(z,A)L(z,B) PZ(dz) exists uniquely on the product sigma-algebra and does not depend on the chosen versions of K,L. It has Z marginal PZ and conditional law M for (X,Y) given Z.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, standard-Borel random elements X,Y,Z, and regular conditional laws K,L given Z.

[A1]

AC supplies the existence and simultaneous almost-everywhere uniqueness interfaces for standard-Borel regular conditional laws. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

The product of two supplied probability kernels is a probability kernel, with rectangle evaluations K(z,A)L(z,B). The product of two probability kernels is a probability kernel

[F2]

A probability measure and a probability kernel define a unique joint probability law with the iterated-integral formula. A prior and model kernel define a joint law

[F3]

Conditional laws of the same standard-Borel random element agree as measures outside one null set. Simultaneous ae uniqueness of regular conditional distributions

[F4]

Measurable rectangles generate the product sigma-algebra and determine a probability measure by the pi-lambda theorem. The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F1F2given

By [F1], M(z,⋅)=K(z,⋅)⊗L(z,⋅) is a probability kernel into the standard-Borel product of the X and Y spaces. Apply [F2] with base law PZ and kernel M. It gives a unique probability law R and the displayed rectangle formula; taking A and B equal to their whole value spaces gives R(C×EX×EY)=PZ(C) for every measurable C, so its Z marginal is PZ. The same rectangle identity is the conditional-law identity for M given Z.

2.1A1F1F2F3F4step 1.1∎

Let K′,L′ be alternative versions. By [F3], there are P_Z-null sets NX,NY such that K(z,⋅)=K′(z,⋅) for z∉NX and L(z,⋅)=L′(z,⋅) for z∉NY. Their product measures agree for every z outside NX∪NY. Thus the two joint laws have the same rectangle values R(C×A×B) for every measurable C,A,B; [F4] then makes the laws equal. This establishes version independence.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Variational and finite-partition formulas for measurable-space KL

Statement

Let P,Q be probability measures on one measurable space. For bounded measurable real f, put ΦP,Q(f):=∫f dP−ln⁡∫ef dQ. Then D(P∥Q)=sup⁡f bounded measurableΦP,Q(f). Equivalently, for every finite measurable partition P=(A1,…,Am) of the whole space, D(P∥Q)=sup⁡P∑i=1mP(Ai)ln⁡P(Ai)Q(Ai), where 0ln⁡(0/q)=0 and a term with P(Ai)>0=Q(Ai) is +∞. The result includes singular and infinite-divergence cases.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC and probability measures P,Q on a common measurable space.

[A1]

AC is the hypothesis used by the Radon–Nikodym definition of measurable-space KL. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

If P≪̸Q, then D(P∥Q)=+∞; if P≪Q with density r, then D(P∥Q)=∫log⁡r dP, whose negative part is finite. Kullback–Leibler divergence

[F2]

KL divergence between probability measures is nonnegative. Kullback–Leibler divergence is nonnegative

[F3]

On a finite alphabet, measurable-space KL equals the finite sum with the same support conventions. Finite KL divergence agrees with measurable-space KL

[F4]

Dominated convergence and monotone convergence apply to the stated finite or nonnegative integrals. Dominated convergence Monotone convergence for the integral

Proof

Given: AC and probability measures P,Q.

1.1A1F1F2givenalgebra

First suppose P≪Q and D(P∥Q)<∞. For bounded measurable f, let Zf=∫ef dQ and define Qf by dQf=efZf−1dQ. Then Qf is a probability equivalent to Q, and dP/dQf=(dP/dQ)Zfe−f. Taking logarithms and integrating under P gives D(P∥Qf)=D(P∥Q)−ΦP,Q(f). By [F2], ΦP,Q(f)≤D(P∥Q). If D(P∥Q)=+∞ or P≪̸Q, this upper bound is automatic.

1.2F1givenchoose

If P≪̸Q, choose a measurable A with Q(A)=0<P(A). For ft=t1A, ∫eftdQ=1 and ΦP,Q(ft)=tP(A)→+∞. Thus the bounded-function supremum is +∞=D(P∥Q) in the singular case.

2.1F1F4step 1.1

Suppose P≪Q, let r=dP/dQ, and set ℓ=log⁡r on {r>0}, with ℓ=−∞ on {r=0}; the latter set is P-null. Define fn=max⁡(−n,min⁡(n,ℓ)), taking fn=−n on {r=0}. The negative part of ℓ is integrable by [F1]; its clipped negative parts converge by [F4], while the clipped positive parts increase to ℓ+ and converge in integral by [F4]. Hence ∫fn dP→D(P∥Q), including value +∞. Pointwise, efn→r Q-a.e. and 0≤efn≤r+1, so [F4] gives ∫efndQ→∫r dQ=1. Therefore ΦP,Q(fn)→D(P∥Q) and the bounded-function supremum is at least the divergence.

2.2F2F3step 1.1algebra

Fix a finite measurable partition (Ai)i=1m and put pi=P(Ai), qi=Q(Ai). For constants ci, the simple function f=∑ici1Ai has Φ(f)=∑ipici−ln⁡∑iqieci. If some pi>0=qi, this expression is unbounded above by taking ci→+∞. Otherwise its supremum over the ci is ∑i:pi>0piln⁡(pi/qi): the upper bound follows by applying [F2] to the finite probability vector with masses proportional to qieci, and the lower bound follows by taking ci=ln⁡(pi/qi) when pi>0 and ci→−∞ on cells with pi=0<qi. The cases pi=qi=0 do not affect either sum.

3.1F3step 2.1step 2.2algebra∎

Every bounded measurable f is uniformly approximated by finite-valued measurable simple functions. If ∥f−g∥∞≤ε, then ∣∫f dP−∫g dP∣≤ε and e−ε∫egdQ≤∫efdQ≤eε∫egdQ, so ∣Φ(f)−Φ(g)∣≤2ε. Thus the supremum over bounded functions equals the supremum over simple functions. Step 2.2 identifies the latter with the supremum over finite partitions; step 2.1 identifies it with D(P∥Q). No step subtracts infinite quantities.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Finite-alphabet conditional entropy given an observation

Definition

Let X take values in a finite nonempty set S and let Y take values in a standard-Borel space (T,T). Let K:T⇝S be a conditional law of X given Y, so that K(Y,⋅) is a regular conditional distribution given σ(Y). Define H(X∣Y):=∫T(−∑x∈SK(y,{x})ln⁡K(y,{x}))PY(dy), with 0ln⁡0:=0 and natural logarithms. The finite entropy convention is that of Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices. Each evaluation y↦K(y,{x}) is measurable. The explicit argument in Kullback–Leibler divergence proves −tln⁡t extends continuously to zero and is bounded by 1/e on [0,1]; hence the finite entropy integrand is measurable and bounded by ∣S∣/e. The result is independent of the supplied version without a choice axiom: the finite supplied singleton family {{x}:x∈S} determines probability measures on S by finite additivity. Apply the supplied-determining-family argument in Conditional law given a random element to two supplied kernels K,L. Outside the finite union of their singleton-evaluation discrepancy sets, which is a measurable PY-null set, all probabilities K(y,{x}) and L(y,{x}) agree. Their entropy integrands therefore agree almost everywhere, proving equality of the integrals. This uses supplied kernels, not a theorem asserting their existence.

This definition permits a non-finite observation Y; only the target alphabet S is finite. If Y is finite, then for each positive-mass y the conditional-law identity gives K(y,{x})PY({y})=P(X=x,Y=y), so K(y,{x})=pX∣y(x). Evaluating the integral as a finite weighted sum therefore gives exactly the convention of Finite conditional entropy, by Expectation agrees with the published finite weighted sum.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Law entropy as self-mutual information

Definition

For a random element X with law PX, assume AC on the absolutely continuous branch PXX≪PX⊗PX, as in Measure-theoretic mutual information; the other branch has value +∞ without that premise. Define its law entropy by H(X):=I(X;X)=D(PXX∥PX⊗PX), where PXX is the joint law of the diagonal pair (X,X). This is an extended nonnegative quantity in nats and depends only on the law of X.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Conditional mutual information by a same-marginal product law

Definition

Assume AC. Let X,Y,Z be random elements with standard-Borel value spaces and write PZXY for the joint law of (Z,X,Y) in that coordinate order. Let K(z,⋅) and L(z,⋅) be regular conditional laws of X and Y given Z=z. Let R be the probability law on the same product space whose rectangle values are R(C×A×B)=∫CK(z,A)L(z,B) PZ(dz). Its existence, uniqueness, and independence of the versions K,L are established in The same-marginal conditional-product law is well-defined. Define the conditional mutual information by I(X;Y∣Z):=D(PZXY∥R)∈[0,+∞]. The reference R has the same Z marginal as the joint law and makes X,Y independent conditionally on Z. The logarithm is natural, so finite values are measured in nats under Information units and logarithm-base convention. The definition is a divergence between full probability laws; it does not subtract two possibly infinite entropies.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Conditional KL is measurable for supplied kernels

Statement

Let K,L be probability kernels from a measurable space (Z,Z) into a standard-Borel space (E,E). Then z↦D(K(z,⋅)∥L(z,⋅)) is Z-measurable, with +∞ allowed. Consequently the integral used to define conditional KL is well-defined.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, the kernels K,L, and the standard-Borel target (E,E).

[A1]

AC supplies the countable generating algebra for standard-Borel E and the Radon–Nikodym density in measurable-space KL. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

A standard-Borel space has a countable algebra A generating its sigma-algebra and determining finite measures. Standard borel spaces have countable generating and measure determining algebras

[F2]

For a probability kernel, integration of a nonnegative product-measurable function is measurable in the base variable; signed integrals are measurable when the positive and negative parts are finite. Measurability of integration against a kernel

[F3]

For probability laws P,Q, KL equals the supremum of ∫g dP−ln⁡∫eg dQ over bounded measurable real g. Variational and finite-partition formulas for measurable-space KL

Proof

Given: AC and probability kernels K,L into E.

1.1A1F1F3givenconstruct

Let ρ=P+Q for arbitrary probability measures P,Q on E. [given, choose] For the algebra A in [F1], the class of measurable B approximable in ρ-measure by members of A is a sigma-algebra: complements preserve symmetric-difference measure, finite unions preserve approximation, and a countable union is approximated by first truncating the union using finiteness of ρ and then approximating that finite union. It contains A, so it is all of E. Hence any bounded measurable real function can be approximated in L1(ρ) by bounded simple functions from a countable family G of rational-valued simple functions on A. On a fixed bound M, the functional ΦP,Q(g)=∫g dP−ln⁡∫eg dQ is continuous under L1(ρ) approximation, because et is Lipschitz on [−M,M] and ∫eg dQ≥e−M. Thus [F3] gives D(P∥Q)=sup⁡g∈G(∫g dP−ln⁡∫eg dQ). The family G is countable and does not depend on P,Q.

2.1F2step 1.1

For fixed g∈G, the functions z↦∫g(x)K(z,dx) and z↦∫eg(x)L(z,dx) are measurable by [F2], applying it to positive and negative parts for the first function. If ∣g∣≤M, then ∫eg dL(z)≥e−M>0, so its logarithm is measurable. Therefore each candidate Φz(g) is measurable.

3.1A1F3step 1.1step 2.1∎

Apply the identity in step 1.1 to P=K(z,⋅) and Q=L(z,⋅) for each fixed z. Then D(K(z,⋅)∥L(z,⋅))=sup⁡g∈GΦz(g), a countable supremum of measurable functions by step 2.1. This proves measurability and makes its nonnegative integral against any supplied base probability well-defined.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Conditional KL for supplied probability kernels

Definition

Let (Z,Z) and (E,E) be standard-Borel spaces, let μ be a probability measure on Z, and let K,L:Z⇝E be supplied probability kernels. Define their conditional KL divergence with base μ by Dμ(K∥L):=∫ZD(K(z,⋅)∥L(z,⋅)) μ(dz)∈[0,+∞]. The integrand is measurable by Conditional KL is measurable for supplied kernels, so this is a well-defined nonnegative extended integral. No absolute-continuity assumption is imposed on individual fibers; a singular fiber has divergence +∞. Changing supplied kernel versions on a μ-null set does not change the integral.

RemarkRemark: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Law entropy and differential entropy are different quantities

Remark

For a probability law with Lebesgue density f on Rd, its differential entropy, when the integral is defined, is h(f):=−∫Rdf(x)ln⁡f(x) dx. This density-based quantity is not the law entropy H(X)=I(X;X) of Law entropy as self-mutual information. Differential entropy may be finite or negative even when law entropy is infinite; the uniform law on [0,1] is a basic example. No identity between the two is used in this page.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Finite-alphabet conditional entropy is version-invariant and obeys its chain rule

Statement

Assume AC. Let X,U take values in finite nonempty sets and Z in a standard-Borel space. Conditional entropy as defined in Finite-alphabet conditional entropy given an observation is unchanged when any supplied regular conditional law is replaced by another version. Moreover, H(X,U∣Z)=H(X∣Z)+H(U∣X,Z). All three quantities are finite; the identity is an additive finite-sum identity.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The random elements and hypotheses in the Statement.

[A1]

AC is required for the stated regular conditional law existence and simultaneous uniqueness interfaces. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

H(X∣Z) is the integral of the finite Shannon entropy of a conditional probability vector; the value of −tln⁡t at zero is zero. Finite-alphabet conditional entropy given an observation Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices

[F2]

Two regular conditional distributions of a standard-Borel-valued variable agree as probability measures outside one measurable null set. Simultaneous ae uniqueness of regular conditional distributions

[F3]

A joint law on standard-Borel factors disintegrates through a supplied regular conditional law, and the integral identity extends from rectangles to nonnegative product-measurable functions. Disintegration of a joint law on standard borel spaces

[F4]

A finite product of standard-Borel spaces is standard Borel. Finite products of standard Borel spaces are standard Borel

Proof

Given: AC and the stated finite-valued random elements and standard-Borel conditioning variable.

1.1A1F1F2given

If two versions of the conditional law of X given Z are supplied, [F2] gives one PZ-null set outside which their probability measures agree. Every atom probability, and hence the finite entropy sum in [F1], then agrees pointwise outside that set. Integrating gives the same H(X∣Z). The same argument applies to (X,U)∣Z and to U∣(X,Z).

1.2A1F2F3F4givenconstruct

Choose regular conditional laws of (X,U) given Z and of U given (X,Z); they exist by [A1, F3], since (X,U) and (X,Z) are standard Borel by [F4]. Write pij(z)=P(X=i,U=j∣Z=z), pi(z)=∑jpij(z), and mij(z)=P(U=j∣X=i,Z=z) for the chosen versions. The function pi is itself a conditional law of X given Z, so [F2] makes it agree almost everywhere with the version used in H(X∣Z). For each i,j and measurable C in the value space of Z, the two disintegrations [F3] give ∫Cpi(z)mij(z) PZ(dz)=P(X=i,U=j,Z∈C)=∫Cpij(z) PZ(dz). Both integrands are bounded and measurable. Testing the sets where one exceeds the other by at least 1/n, for each n≥1, shows pi(z)mij(z)=pij(z) almost everywhere; because the alphabets are finite, one null set works for every i,j.

2.1F1step 1.2algebra

Outside that null set, if pi(z)=0 then every pij(z)=0, so the row contributes zero to the conditional entropy. If pi(z)>0, then mij(z)=pij(z)/pi(z) for every j. On positive entries, ln⁡pij=ln⁡pi+ln⁡mij; multiplying by −pij and summing over the finite alphabets gives H(X,U∣Z=z)=H(X∣Z=z)+∑ipi(z)H(U∣X=i,Z=z).

3.1F1F3step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

Integrate the finite conditional identity from step 2.1 with respect to PZ. The disintegration identity [F3] identifies the last integral with H(U∣X,Z) and the other terms with their definitions. By the bound −tln⁡t≤1/e in [F1], each conditional entropy is bounded by its finite alphabet size divided by e, so all integrals are finite and no subtraction of infinite quantities occurs. Step 1.1 proves the accompanying version-independence assertion.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Self-mutual-information entropy on countable and non-atomic laws

Statement

Assume AC. Let X have a probability law P on a standard-Borel space. Let S={x:P({x})>0} be its set of atoms. Then S is countable. If P(S)=1 and its atom masses are (pi), the law entropy from Law entropy as self-mutual information is H(X)=∑ipiln⁡1pi, with value +∞ allowed. If P(S)<1, then H(X)=+∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC and a standard-Borel probability law P.

[A1]

AC is assumed for the Radon–Nikodym law-entropy interface, the countable determining algebra in [F2], and the countable union of finite atom sets in step 1.1. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

Law entropy is the KL divergence of the diagonal joint law of (X,X) from P⊗P. Law entropy as self-mutual information Measure-theoretic mutual information

[F2]

A standard-Borel space has a countable algebra separating points, and each singleton is Borel because points are closed in its Polish presentation. The diagonal is the intersection, over the algebra, of measurable sets (A×A)∪(Ac×Ac). Standard Borel spaces Polish spaces are separable completely metrizable spaces Standard borel spaces have countable generating and measure determining algebras The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates

[F4]

For a finite law, Shannon entropy is the sum −∑ipiln⁡pi with 0ln⁡0=0. Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices

[F5]

For every positive real t, there is an integer n≥1 with 1/n<t. For every ε>0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n≥1 with 1/n<ε

[F6]

Increasing limits of nonnegative measurable functions pass through their integrals. Monotone convergence for the integral

Proof

Given: AC and the standard-Borel probability law P.

1.1A1F5givenchoose

For each positive integer n, there are at most n atoms with mass at least 1/n, since any n+1 distinct such atoms would have total mass greater than one. For each atom of mass p>0, choose n with 1/n<p by [F5]; thus S is a countable union of finite sets and is countable.

1.2A1F1F2F3F6givenconstruct

Suppose P(S)=1 and enumerate the distinct atoms as (xi) with masses pi>0. By [F2], each singleton (xi,xi) is measurable, so the function r that equals 1/pi at (xi,xi) and zero elsewhere is measurable. For each finite N, let rN=∑i≤Npi−11{(xi,xi)}; these functions increase to r. The rectangle formula gives (P⊗P){(xi,xi)}=pi2. Hence for every measurable C⊆E×E, [F6] gives ∫Cr d(P⊗P)=lim⁡N∑i≤N:(xi,xi)∈C1pipi2=∑i:(xi,xi)∈Cpi=PXX(C). Thus r is the Radon–Nikodym density. Since pi≤1, log⁡r≥0 on the PXX-full set of diagonal atoms; the partial sums gN=∑i≤Nln⁡(1/pi)1{(xi,xi)} increase to log⁡r there. Another application of [F6] gives the KL integral ∑ipiln⁡(1/pi), including an infinite sum.

2.1A1F1F2F3step 1.1

Suppose P(S)<1. The set C=Δ∖(S×S) is measurable, where Δ={(x,x):x∈E} by [F2]. The diagonal joint law assigns C mass P(E∖S)>0. Its product-measure section at x∈S is empty; at x∉S it is {x}, whose P-mass is zero. By [F3], (P⊗P)(C)=0. Hence PXX≪̸P⊗P and [F1] gives H(X)=+∞.

3.1F4step 1.2step 2.1∎

The two cases P(S)=1 and P(S)<1 exhaust all probability laws. Step 1.2 gives the nonnegative countable sum, which agrees on every finite subset with the finite Shannon formula [F4]; step 2.1 gives infinite divergence when there is positive non-atomic mass.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Zero information is exactly independence

Statement

Assume AC. Let X,Y,Z be standard-Borel random elements. Then I(X;Y)=0 if and only if PXY=PX⊗PY (independence). Also I(X;Y∣Z)=0 if and only if X and Y are conditionally independent given σ(Z) in the sense of Conditional independence given a sigma-algebra.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC and standard-Borel random elements X,Y,Z with their joint law.

[A1]

AC is inherited from KL, standard-Borel regular conditional laws, and the conditional-independence convention. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

KL divergence is nonnegative and equals zero exactly when the two probability laws agree. Kullback–Leibler divergence is nonnegative

[F2]

I(X;Y)=D(PXY∥PX⊗PY). Measure-theoretic mutual information

[F3]

I(X;Y∣Z) is the KL divergence of the joint law from its same-Z-marginal conditional-product law R. Conditional mutual information by a same-marginal product law

[F4]

Conditional independence given G means E[f(X)g(Y)∣G]=E[f(X)∣G]E[g(Y)∣G] almost surely for all bounded measurable real f,g. Conditional independence given a sigma-algebra

[F5]

Equality of conditional-expectation versions is characterized by their integrals on every conditioning event. Conditional expectation given a sigma algebra

[F6]

Conditional dominated convergence passes bounded pointwise limits through conditional expectations. Conditional fatou and dominated convergence

[F7]

Measurable rectangles generate the finite product sigma-algebra and determine probability measures by pi-lambda. The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F1F2given

By [F2] and [F1], I(X;Y)=0 exactly when PXY=PX⊗PY, which is the stated independence condition.

1.2A1F1F3given

By [F3] and [F1], I(X;Y∣Z)=0 exactly when the joint law PZXY of (Z,X,Y) equals the conditional-product reference law R.

2.1F3F4F5F6F7givenstep 1.2∎

Suppose PZXY=R, using the coordinate order (Z,X,Y) of [F3]. For all measurable A,B,C the rectangle formula for R gives P(X∈A,Y∈B,Z∈C)=∫CK(z,A)L(z,B)PZ(dz). By the regular conditional law identities, K(Z,A) and L(Z,B) are versions of the two conditional expectations in [F4]. The displayed identity says their product is the conditional-expectation version of 1{X∈A,Y∈B} by [F5]. Thus [F4] holds for indicators. Linearity gives it for bounded simple functions; bounded measurable functions follow by bounded simple approximation and [F6]. Conversely, [F4] applied to indicators gives the same rectangle identity, so PZXY and R agree on every rectangle C×A×B. These rectangles determine the probability law by [F7], hence PZXY=R.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Mutual information is recovered by finite coordinate quantizations

Statement

A finite quantizer on a measurable space is a measurable map into a finite set. Assume AC. Let X,Y,Z be standard-Borel random elements. Choose sequences of finite quantizers qn on X and rn on Y whose generated sigma-algebras increase to the full sigma-algebras of their respective spaces. Then I(X;Y)=lim⁡n→∞I(qn(X);rn(Y)) and I(X;Y∣Z)=lim⁡n→∞I(qn(X);rn(Y)∣Z). Such sequences exist by countable generation of standard-Borel sigma-algebras. In the conditional formula, Z remains unchanged.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, standard-Borel X,Y,Z, and finite quantizer sequences as in the Statement.

[A1]

AC supplies the standard-Borel countable generating algebras and conditional laws. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

Every standard-Borel space has a countable generating algebra. Standard borel spaces have countable generating and measure determining algebras

[F2]

KL is the supremum of its variational functional over bounded measurable functions. Variational and finite-partition formulas for measurable-space KL

[F3]

Mutual information is joint KL against the product of marginals. Measure-theoretic mutual information

[F4]

Conditional mutual information is KL against the same-marginal conditional-product law, which is version-independent. Conditional mutual information by a same-marginal product law The same-marginal conditional-product law is well-defined

[F5]

A finite measure is continuous from below on increasing measurable sets. Continuity from below for measures

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F2F5givenconstruct

Let (Gn) be any increasing sequence of sub-sigma-algebras generating G, and let ρ=P+Q for probability measures on G. The union U=⋃nGn is an algebra. The class of A∈G approximable in ρ-measure by a set in U is a sigma-algebra: complements preserve the symmetric-difference measure, finite unions preserve approximation, and for a countable union one first truncates it using continuity from below [F5] of the finite measure ρ, then approximates the finite union. Hence every set in G is approximable. Approximating bounded measurable functions first by simple functions and then their level sets gives bounded U-measurable functions converging in L1(ρ), with one Gn containing each finite simple approximation. The approximants may be clipped to the same bound M. On that bound, [F2]'s variational functional is continuous under L1(ρ) approximation: et is Lipschitz on [−M,M], and the exponential integral is bounded below by e−M. By [F2] applied to P,Q and their restrictions to each Gn, the supremum over all bounded Gn-measurable functions is D(P∣Gn∥Q∣Gn). These test classes increase, so the restricted divergences increase; the approximation shows their supremum equals the unrestricted variational supremum D(P∥Q). Hence D(P∥Q)=lim⁡nD(P∣Gn∥Q∣Gn).

2.1A1F1F2F3step 1.1

By [F1], countable generating algebras exist; their first-n finite Boolean subalgebras yield increasing finite quantizers by labeling their atoms. For the quantizers in the Statement, the same generated-sigma property is assumed, so in either case σ(qn(X),rn(Y)) increases to the product sigma-algebra of (X,Y). Under the map (x,y)↦(qn(x),rn(y)), the push-forward of PX⊗PY is Pqn(X)⊗Prn(Y), as is checked on rectangles of the finite output sets. Since σ(qn(X),rn(Y)) consists exactly of preimages of output events, every bounded measurable test function on that sigma-algebra factors through the finite output map. Therefore its restricted KL equals the KL of the push-forward laws, which by [F3] is I(qn(X);rn(Y)). Applying step 1.1 proves the ordinary mutual-information limit.

2.2A1F1F2F4step 1.1

For the conditional statement, put Gn=σ(Z,qn(X),rn(Y)). These sigma-algebras increase to the full product sigma-algebra of (Z,X,Y) because the entire Z sigma-algebra is retained. A bounded Gn-measurable simple function factors through (Z,qn(X),rn(Y)): each level set is the preimage of a measurable output set, and finitely many output sets can be made disjoint without changing their preimages. Uniform simple approximation extends this factorization to all bounded variational test functions. Hence the KL restricted to Gn equals the KL between the push-forward joint and reference laws. Under the same map, the push-forward of the reference law in [F4] has, given Z=z, the product of the push-forward kernels Kz∘qn−1 and Lz∘rn−1: on a rectangle C×A′×B′ its mass is ∫CKz(qn−1A′)Lz(rn−1B′)PZ(dz). By rectangle uniqueness, this is exactly the conditional-product reference law for the quantized variables. Step 1.1 therefore gives the conditional limit.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2∎

Steps 2.1 and 2.2 establish both limits. The proof quantizes X and Y only; it makes no claim that coarsening Z decreases conditional mutual information.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

KL chain rule for standard-Borel disintegrations

Statement

Let E,F be standard-Borel spaces, let μ,ν be probability measures on E, and let K,L:E⇝F be probability kernels. Let P=μ⋉K and Q=ν⋉L be the joint probability laws defined by P(C)=∫EK(x,Cx) μ(dx),Q(C)=∫EL(x,Cx) ν(dx) for product-measurable C⊆E×F. Then D(P∥Q)=D(μ∥ν)+∫ED(K(x,⋅)∥L(x,⋅)) μ(dx)=D(μ∥ν)+Dμ(K∥L), as an equality in [0,+∞]. In particular, when μ=ν, the joint KL is the conditional KL from Conditional KL for supplied probability kernels.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, standard-Borel spaces E,F, probability measures μ,ν on E, and supplied probability kernels K,L into F.

[A1]

AC is required for the Radon–Nikodym densities and the countable determining algebra. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

A probability measure and a probability kernel define a joint probability law with the section-integral formula for every product-measurable set and nonnegative function. A prior and model kernel define a joint law

[F2]

The conditional KL integrand is measurable and its base integral is well-defined. Conditional KL for supplied probability kernels Conditional KL is measurable for supplied kernels

[F3]

Under AC, an absolutely continuous finite positive measure has a finite-valued nonnegative measurable Radon–Nikodym representative, unique almost everywhere, and integrating that density recovers the measure on every measurable set. A sigma-finite positive measure has a nonnegative Radon–Nikodym density version A sigma-finite signed measure that is absolutely continuous with respect to a sigma-finite positive measure has a unique almost-everywhere density Integrating against a Radon-Nikodym derivative recovers integration against the measure

[F4]

A standard-Borel target has a countable algebra generating its sigma-algebra and determining finite measures. Standard borel spaces have countable generating and measure determining algebras

[F5]

A nonnegative function with finite integral is finite almost everywhere, and one with zero integral vanishes almost everywhere. A nonnegative measurable function with finite integral is finite almost everywhere A nonnegative measurable function has integral 0 exactly when it vanishes almost everywhere

[F6]

In the absolutely continuous case, if r=dP/dQ then the negative part of the log-density has integral ∫(ln⁡r)−dP=∫(rln⁡r)−dQ≤1/e for probability laws; the positive part may be infinite. Kullback–Leibler divergence

[F7]

If μ=aν, then ∫g dμ=∫ga dν for every nonnegative measurable g. Integrating against a density agrees with integrating the product

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F1F2F5F6given

If μ≪̸ν, choose A with ν(A)=0<μ(A). Then Q(A×F)=0<P(A×F) by [F1], so P≪̸Q. Both D(P∥Q) and D(μ∥ν)+Dμ(K∥L) are +∞. Now suppose μ≪ν but P≪̸Q. If Dμ(K∥L)<∞, [F5] implies D(K(x,⋅)∥L(x,⋅))<∞ for μ-almost every x, hence K(x,⋅)≪L(x,⋅) there by [F6]. For any product-measurable C with Q(C)=0, [F1] and [F5] give L(x,Cx)=0 for ν-almost every x, hence for μ-almost every x. On the intersection with the conditional absolute-continuity set, K(x,Cx)=0, and then [F1] gives P(C)=0, a contradiction. Thus Dμ(K∥L)=+∞ and the identity holds in this case too.

1.2A1F1F3F4F8givenchoose

It remains to consider P≪Q. Then μ≪ν, since Q(A×F)=0 whenever ν(A)=0, and [F1] gives P(A×F)=μ(A). Choose finite-valued nonnegative measurable representatives a=dμ/dν and h=dP/dQ by [F3]. In particular, μ({a=0})=∫{a=0}a dν=0. For each B in the countable determining algebra AF of [F4] and every measurable A in E, [F1] and [F3] give ∫Aa(x)K(x,B) ν(dx)=P(A×B)=∫A(∫Bh(x,y)L(x,dy))ν(dx). The two integrands are measurable and nonnegative, and their integrals over E are finite. Their equality on every A therefore makes them equal ν-almost everywhere. Intersect the corresponding measurable conull sets over the countable algebra to obtain T. Since μ≪ν, the set S=T∩{a>0} has full μ-measure. Let ρ(t)=1/t for t>0 and ρ(0)=0; this is Borel on [0,+∞). The first projection πE:E×F→E is measurable because πE−1(A)=A×F. Define r(x,y)=1S×F(x,y)h(x,y)ρ(a(πE(x,y))). By [F8], r is finite-valued, nonnegative and product-measurable; it equals h(x,y)/a(x) for x∈S and zero elsewhere. For each x∈S the preceding identities give K(x,B)=∫Br(x,y)L(x,dy)(B∈AF). The algebra contains F, so the right-hand measure has total mass one. Measure determination [F4] extends the equality to every measurable B: r(x,⋅) is a Radon–Nikodym representative of K(x,⋅) with respect to L(x,⋅) for every x∈S. No conditional identity outside the μ-full set S is needed.

2.1A1F1F3F4F6F7F8step 1.2algebra∎

For product-measurable C, let gC(x)=∫F1C(x,y)r(x,y)L(x,dy), which is measurable by [F1]. The fiber identity from step 1.2 and the joint-law formula for Q give P(C)=∫K(x,Cx) μ(dx)=∫gC(x) μ(dx)=∫a(x)gC(x) ν(dx)=∫Ca(x)r(x,y) Q(d(x,y)), where [F7] justifies the change from μ to its density aν. Thus the globally measurable nonnegative function ar is a Radon–Nikodym density of P with respect to Q; uniqueness in [F3] gives h=ar Q-almost everywhere, hence P-almost everywhere because P≪Q. Moreover, P({h=0})=∫{h=0}h dQ=0, and P({a=0}×F)=μ({a=0})=0. Intersecting these conull sets with S×F shows that a,h,r are all strictly positive and finite on one P-full set. Therefore ln⁡h=ln⁡a+ln⁡r there; on the exceptional zero sets use the zero log-density convention of [F6]. By [F6], the negative part of ln⁡a under μ is at most 1/e, and for μ-almost every x the negative part of ln⁡r(x,⋅) under K(x,⋅) is at most 1/e; integrating the latter bound over the probability base μ is finite. Hence both sides can be integrated by adding their positive and negative parts separately, with finite negative parts and no ∞−∞ ambiguity. The section formula [F1] now gives D(P∥Q)=∫ln⁡a dP+∫ln⁡r dP=D(μ∥ν)+∫D(K(x,⋅)∥L(x,⋅)) μ(dx). The right side is a sum of extended nonnegative divergences, so this equality includes the infinite cases.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Mutual-information chain rule without subtracting infinities

Statement

Assume AC. For standard-Borel random elements X,Y,Z, I((Z,X);Y)=I(Z;Y)+I(X;Y∣Z). The right side is a sum in [0,+∞]. This chain rule is asserted as an equality of extended nonnegative quantities; no difference of possibly infinite entropies or divergences occurs.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC and standard-Borel random elements X,Y,Z on one probability space.

[A1]

AC is required for the Radon–Nikodym divergences and standard-Borel conditional laws. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

Mutual information is the KL divergence of a joint law from the product of its marginals. Measure-theoretic mutual information

[F2]

Conditional mutual information is the KL divergence from the same-Z-marginal conditionally independent product law. Conditional mutual information by a same-marginal product law

[F3]

For disintegrated joint laws, KL equals the marginal KL plus the average conditional KL, as an extended sum. KL chain rule for standard-Borel disintegrations

[F4]

The same-marginal conditional-product law exists, has the stated rectangle formula, and is independent of kernel versions. The same-marginal conditional-product law is well-defined

[F5]

Standard-Borel joint laws admit the regular conditional distributions and disintegration identities used below. Disintegration of a joint law on standard borel spaces

[F6]

The product of supplied probability kernels is a probability kernel, and KL is invariant under a measurable coordinate bijection. The product of two probability kernels is a probability kernel KL is invariant under a measurable bijection

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F1F4F5F6given

Let K(z,⋅) be a regular conditional law of X given Z and let Q=PZX⊗PY on (Z×X)×Y. In the coordinate order Z,X,Y, Q has Z marginal PZ and conditional law K(z,⋅)⊗PY for (X,Y). On every rectangle C×A×B, the law formed from this base and kernel has mass ∫CK(z,A)PY(B)PZ(dz)=PZX(C×A)PY(B), so it equals Q by rectangle uniqueness.

2.1A1F1F3step 1.1

Apply [F3] to the joint law of (Z,X,Y) and Q using their common Z marginal. With PXY∣z denoting the conditional law of (X,Y) given Z=z, this gives I((Z,X);Y)=D(PZXY∥PZX⊗PY)=∫D(PXY∣z∥PX∣z⊗PY)PZ(dz). The formula is an extended sum of nonnegative KL values.

3.1A1F2F3F5step 2.1

For PZ-almost every z, disintegrate the two measures in step 2.1 over Y. Their Y marginals are PY∣z and PY, while their conditional X laws are PX∣Y,z and PX∣z, respectively. [F3] gives D(PXY∣z∥PX∣z⊗PY)=D(PY∣z∥PY)+∫D(PX∣Y=y,z∥PX∣z)PY∣z(dy). Applying [F3] with the common Y marginal PY∣z identifies the last integral as D(PXY∣z∥PX∣z⊗PY∣z).

4.1A1F2F3F6step 3.1∎

Integrate step 3.1 over PZ. The first term becomes D(PYZ∥PY⊗PZ), which equals I(Z;Y) by the measurable coordinate swap [F6]. Applying [F3] with the common Z marginal of the joint law and its conditional-product reference shows that the second term integrates to I(X;Y∣Z) as defined in [F2]. All terms are nonnegative KL divergences, so their extended sum is well-defined even when one or more are infinite.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources