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.
Conditional Expectation — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Conditional Expectation
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Convexity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Darboux, L'Hôpital, and Taylor's Theorem
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability Spaces and Random Variables
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Modes of Convergence Egorov and Lusin
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Suprema and Infima
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
Finite partition and discrete fibre calculations make the defining event identity concrete. Trivial and full conditioning, an independent sum, least-squares prediction and total variance are evaluated on explicit finite probability spaces.
Two null-atom counterexamples distinguish arbitrary pointwise versions from almost-sure classes; strict almost-sure order remains valid. A countable atomic example shows why an unbounded known factor needs an integrable product: both factors are integrable, while the product has infinite positive and negative integrals.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Conditioning on a finite partition
Example
Assume AC for the conditional-class convention. Let be a finite measurable partition of a probability space, , and real . A version has value on each positive-mass cell, and zero on each zero-mass cell.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A probability space, a finite measurable partition , , and real integrable X; AC is the conditional-class convention.
A G-measurable integrable function with the defining event integrals represents the conditional class. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
The version is unique as a class. (Conditional expectation is unique almost surely)
Nonnegative finite atom weights summing to one define a probability measure. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
Verification
Let with the displayed zero convention. It is G-measurable and . Each positive-mass cell has ; on a null cell both integrals are zero. Every G-event is a union of cells (these unions form a sigma-algebra), so adding proves every defining identity. Hence [F1]–[F2] identify T as the conditional mean.
For a numerical instance take four atoms of weight , permitted by [F3], partitioned into and . For X with values , the cell integrals are and and their masses are , so T has values . Its mean is 3, matching . For the same positive-cell calculation is , the finite conditional-probability formula.
Source notes
Durrett Example 4.1.5, printed p.208; van der Vaart Example 1.7, printed p.3. Zero-mass cells and a numerical four-atom calculation are included.
Conditioning on trivial and full sigma algebras
Example
Under the AC conditional-class convention, for integrable real X, and as classes.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A probability space and real integrable X; AC is the conditional-class convention.
A known variable conditions to itself, and a variable independent of the conditioning sigma-algebra conditions to its mean. (Conditioning a known variable and an independent variable)
Finite weights summing to one define a probability space. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
Verification
Every X is independent of the trivial sigma-algebra: for A empty both sides of the rectangle identity are zero, and for A=Omega both equal . Thus [F1] gives the first formula. Since X is F-measurable, the known-variable clause of [F1] gives the second.
For example take two atoms a,b of masses using [F2], and X(a)=0, X(b)=4. Then . Under trivial conditioning the version has values (3,3), with integral 3 on Omega; under full conditioning it has values (0,4), with integrals 0 on {a} and 3 on {b}. These verify the two formulas numerically.
Source notes
Durrett Examples 4.1.3–4.1.5, printed pp.207–208; van der Vaart Examples 1.4–1.5, printed p.2.
Conditioning an independent sum on one summand
Example
Assume AC for conditional classes. If real integrable X,Y are independent, meaning for all real Borel B,C, then almost surely.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Real integrable independent X,Y on a probability space, with independence defined by the statement Borel rectangle identity; AC is the conditional-class convention.
The known and independent variable formulas hold under the Borel rectangle hypothesis. (Conditioning a known variable and an independent variable)
Conditional expectation is linear. (Basic algebra and order properties of conditional expectation)
Finite atom weights summing to one define a probability space. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
Verification
The sets , B real Borel, form a sigma-algebra because preimages preserve complements and countable unions; by definition this is . Thus the given rectangle identity is precisely independence of Y from every event of . By [F1], and . Linearity [F2] gives the stated sum formula.
Take , each atom of mass , and , . This is a probability space by [F3]. Each coordinate value has mass and each pair mass ; adding atom probabilities proves all Borel rectangle identities. Since , the conditional mean is . Directly, on the u=0 fibre the values 0,2 average to 1, and on the u=1 fibre the values 1,3 average to 2.
Source notes
Durrett Example 4.1.7, printed pp.209–210, additive special case; Examples 4.1.3–4.1.4 supply the two individual terms.
Conditional expectation given a discrete random variable
Example
Assume AC for conditional classes. If Y is a countably valued real random variable and X is real integrable, a version of takes value on each positive-mass fibre and zero on all zero-mass fibres.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A countably valued real random variable Y and real integrable X on a probability space; AC is the conditional-class convention.
The measurable integrable event-identity characterization defines the conditional class. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
Versions are unique almost surely. (Conditional expectation is unique almost surely)
Increasing nonnegative partial sums pass through the integral. (Monotone convergence for the integral)
Finite weights summing to one define a probability space. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
Verification
List the at most countably many fibres . Every union of fibres is measurable as a countable union, and these unions are exactly : each fibre is a preimage of a singleton Borel set, and every preimage is a union of fibres. The proposed function T is thus -measurable. Its absolute integral is , where [F3] applies to nonnegative finite partial sums. Null fibres have zero X integral and their countable union is null.
On each positive fibre , and on null fibres both sides are zero. For every union A of fibres, sum these identities; absolute summability follows from step 1.1 and integrability of X, with [F3] applied to positive and negative parts. Thus . By [F1]–[F2] T is the desired version.
For a concrete instance take atoms a,b,c with masses by [F4], with Y values (0,0,2) and X values (2,6,10). The zero fibre has mass and X integral , so its conditional value is 4. The fibre at 2 has mass and X integral 5, giving value 10. Hence T=(4,4,10), with mean .
Source notes
Durrett Example 4.1.5, printed p.208; van der Vaart Example 1.7 and its countable-partition extension, printed p.3. The countable sum is justified using ordinary MCT on positive and negative parts.
best prediction by conditional expectation
Example
Assume AC. For real , and every , . Equality with the minimum error holds if and only if almost surely.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, real , a sub-sigma-algebra G, and any predictor .
The conditional mean is the unique minimizer and is orthogonal to every G-measurable residual. (Conditional expectation is the l2 orthogonal projection)
Finite weights summing to one define a probability space. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
The event-integral characterization identifies an integrable G-measurable version. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
Verification
Write . Since , [F1] gives . Expansion gives the displayed decomposition. The last term is the squared norm of U-Z, so it is zero exactly when Z=U almost surely. This proves both directions of the minimum-error assertion.
For an instance take four equally weighted atoms by [F2], X values (0,2,4,6), and G generated by the first pair and last pair. The G-measurable U=(1,1,5,5) has on each pair the same integral as X, namely and , so it is the conditional mean. For the constant predictor Z=3 the total error is , the residual error is , and the prediction displacement is . Thus the formula reads .
Source notes
Durrett Theorem 4.1.15, printed p.213; van der Vaart Lemma 1.8, printed p.3. The four-atom calculation illustrates the orthogonal error decomposition.
Law of total variance
Example
Assume AC for conditional classes. On with full sigma-algebra and each atom of mass , put , , and . Then , and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The four-atom model, variables U,V,X and sigma-algebra G specified in the example; AC is the conditional-class convention.
Finite weights summing to one define a probability measure. (Finite probability spaces are exactly finite full-power-set probability spaces)
A known variable conditions to itself; an independent variable conditions to its mean. (Conditioning a known variable and an independent variable)
Conditional expectation is linear and fixes constants. (Basic algebra and order properties of conditional expectation)
Total variance is expected conditional variance plus the variance of the conditional mean. (Conditional variance decomposition)
Conditional variance is the conditional mean of the squared residual. (Conditional variance)
Verification
The four masses are nonnegative and sum to one, so [F1] constructs the probability space. Each U and V marginal has mass one half at zero and at one, and for all four pairs. Summing over coordinate subsets gives independence for every Borel rectangle. Both variables are bounded and integrable, with .
By [F2]–[F3], . The residual is , whose square equals 1/4 at every atom. Thus [F5] and the constant rule [F3] give and its expectation 1/4.
The four X values are (0,1,1,2), with mean 1, so . The conditional mean takes values one half and three halves, each with probability one half; its mean is 1 and its variance is . Therefore the three computed quantities satisfy [F4] as .
Source notes
Durrett §4.1.2, printed pp.210–213, conditional identities; the explicit four-atom variance instance is locally calculated and has generated-example provenance.
A version can fail a pointwise identity on a null set
Statement refuted
The assertion “every version of equals zero at every sample point” is false, under the usual AC conditional-class convention.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The universal pointwise claim in Statement refuted; a witness will be constructed on two atoms.
A real measurable integrable function with the required event integrals is a version of the class. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
Counterexample
Let , and . This is a probability measure: P(Omega)=1, P(empty)=0, and in a disjoint sequence at most one event contains b, so countable additivity holds. Take . It is F-measurable and .
For every A subset Omega, . Thus [F1] makes T a version of the conditional expectation of zero. But T(a)=1, so the claimed pointwise identity fails at a. The discrepancy set {a} has probability zero, consistent with almost-sure uniqueness.
Source notes
Durrett §4.1 uniqueness/version discussion, printed p.206; van der Vaart warning after Lemma 1.10, printed p.4. The two-atom witness is locally constructed.
Conditioning does not preserve strict inequalities
Statement refuted
Even when at every point, arbitrary versions of their conditional expectations need not satisfy that strict inequality at every point. This is a pointwise-version counterexample; strict almost-sure inequalities are preserved.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The claim that pointwise strict input order must hold for every pair of conditional versions at every point; a two-atom witness will be constructed.
The class is specified by event integrals, not by fixed values at null points. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
Strict almost-sure order is preserved by conditional expectation. (Basic algebra and order properties of conditional expectation)
Counterexample
On take the full sigma-algebra and . Countable additivity holds because at most one member of a disjoint sequence contains b, and total mass is one. Let X=0 and Y=1 everywhere. Then X<Y at both points. Set S(a)=2,S(b)=0 and T=1 everywhere; these are measurable and integrable.
For every A, and , so [F1] makes S,T conditional versions. At a, however, S(a)=2 is larger than T(a)=1. At the mass-one point b, S(b)=0<T(b)=1. Hence the failed strict pointwise inequality is fully consistent with the strict almost-sure order theorem [F2].
Source notes
Durrett §4.1 version convention, printed p.206. The local basic-properties theorem proves strict almost-sure preservation. The stable requested ID retains the Step-3-approved pointwise interpretation.
Taking out an unbounded factor needs integrability
Statement refuted
Under the AC conditional-class convention, omitting product integrability from the signed taking-out rule can leave its left side undefined even when both factors are integrable and the product of the factor with the conditional mean is zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The proposed signed taking-out rule with product integrability omitted; a countable atomic witness will be constructed.
The Dirac set function is the indicator that the specified point belongs to an event. (The Dirac set function at a point)
Each Dirac set function is a probability measure. (A Dirac set function is a probability measure)
Countable nonnegative weighted sums are defined eventwise. (Nonnegative scalar multiples and countable weighted sums of measures)
Nonnegative weighted sums of measures are measures. (Nonnegative scalar multiples and countable weighted sums of measures are measures)
Integer powers at the positive base two are defined. (Integer powers )
For |r|<1 the geometric series from n=0 sums to 1/(1-r). (For , , and for the series diverges)
A measure of total mass one is a probability measure. (Probability measures and probability spaces)
The signed conditional expectation requires an integrable real input. (Conditional expectation as an ae class)
The taking-out rule requires integrability of the input product. (Taking out what is known)
Integrals on the countable atomic space are sums, by increasing partial sums for nonnegative functions. (Monotone convergence for the integral)
Counterexample
Let with its power-set sigma-algebra. By [F5]–[F6], . Set . These weights are positive finite numbers.
Define . The Dirac probabilities [F1]–[F2] and weighted-sum construction [F3]–[F4] make this a measure on all subsets. Its mass is , so [F7] makes it a probability measure. In particular each atom (n,s) has mass w_n.
Let , and . Z is finite G-measurable, X is real measurable, and [F10] evaluates their absolute moments as sums. Using [F6], and . Thus each is integrable.
Each G-event is a union of two-point fibres. On the nth fibre the X integral is ; summing is legitimate by the finite absolute moment in step 3.1. Consequently the zero function has every defining event integral and is a version of by [F8]. Hence is integrable.
But . Its positive-part integral is , and the negative-part integral has exactly the same value. These sums are nonnegative integrals by [F10]. Thus the signed expectation would require infinity minus infinity; ZX is not an input to [F8]. The left side of [F9] is undefined in that sense although the proposed right side is zero. This proves the failure when the product-integrability hypothesis is omitted.
Source notes
Durrett Theorem 4.1.14, printed pp.212–213, states the integrable-product hypothesis. The constructed atomic counterexample, its normalization and all moments are independently calculated here.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.