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.
Expectation factors over a finite product of mutually independent random variables
Statement
Let be a finite mutually independent family of real random variables on a common probability space, with independence in the sense of Independent random elements.
- If every is integrable, then is integrable and in .
- If every is nonnegative, the same identity holds in . A zero factor on the right makes the product zero even if another factor is ; otherwise the usual extended nonnegative product is used.
The original finite-probability-space case is included: for a finite family of finite-valued real random variables, mutual atom independence as in Pairwise and mutual independence of finite-valued random variables suffices, and all expectations are finite. For , both sides equal . The converse is not asserted.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite family satisfying the independence and moment hypotheses of the applicable case in the Statement.
Independence of random elements means independence of their inverse-image sigma-algebras. (Independent random elements)
For an independent nonempty finite family of real random variables and Borel functions , the product expectations factor in the nonnegative extended case, with the explicit zero-factor convention, and in the integrable case; in the latter case the product is integrable. (Expectations factor over finite products of independent random variables)
For finite-valued random variables, mutual atom independence factors the joint probabilities of attained values for every subfamily. (Pairwise and mutual independence of finite-valued random variables)
On a general probability space, follows from the set-difference identity with , and . For disjoint events this is two-set additivity, which gives finite disjoint additivity by induction. (Basic identities for a probability measure)
Proof
In the original finite-valued case, let and let be Borel for . Write for the finite attained-value set of . The event is the disjoint union of the joint atoms indexed by . By [L3] and [L4], its probability is Factoring finite sums proves the middle equality, including empty factors. Thus the family is independent in the sense of [L1]. Each variable is bounded because its attained-value set is finite, hence integrable on a probability space.
Suppose and every is integrable. Enumerate the finite set by and apply [L2] with , which is Borel. It gives product integrability and the asserted real factorization. Selecting one enumeration of one finite set uses no axiom of choice. Step 1.1 supplies the required independence and integrability in the original finite-valued case.
Suppose and every is nonnegative. Apply [L2] to the same enumeration with , a continuous nonnegative Borel function. Since , [L2] gives the asserted extended factorization with precisely its zero-factor convention.
For , the random product is the constant , whose expectation is on a probability space, and the product of expectations is the empty product . Steps 2.1 and 3.1 and this identity prove all stated cases.
Depends on
Used by
- Variance adds for every finite pairwise-independent family Corollary
- An atomic sinusoid and an AR(1) process have different spectra Example
- Classical and Berkson slopes, misclassification, and validation Example
- A Chernoff bound for sums of independent Bernoulli trials Lemma
- Chernoff bound for independent bernoulli trials Lemma
- One-sided concentration bound for independent median trials Lemma
- The independent reward-stack model has the prescribed conditional arm laws Lemma
- The moment generating function of a finite sum of independent variables is the product of their moment generating functions Lemma
- The observed law need not identify the latent-error variance split Proposition
- Berkson error preserves the simple linear regression slope Theorem
- Classical bounded-sample mean baseline Theorem
- Classical error attenuates the simple linear regression slope Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
26 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- J. Matousek and J. Vondrak, The Probabilistic Method, Lemma 1.1.9 (standard reference, not scraped)
- M. Bucic, Probabilistic Method, Proposition A.15 (standard reference, not scraped)