In this section we discuss some topics from measure theory that are a bit more advanced than the topics in the early sections of this chapter. However, measure-theoretic ideas are essential for a deep understanding of probability, since probability is itself a measure. The most important of the definitions is the -algebra, a collection of subsets of a set with certain closure properties. Such collections play a fundamental role, even for applied probability, in encoding the state of information about a random experiment.
On the other hand, we won't be overly pedantic about measure-theoretic details in this text. Unless we say otherwise, we assume that all sets that appear are measurable (that is, members of the appropriate -algebras), and that all functions are measurable (relative to the appropriate -algebras).
Although this section is somewhat abstract, many of the proofs are straightforward. Be sure to try the proofs yourself before expanding the details.
Algebras and -Algebras
Suppose that is a set playing the role of a universal set for a particular mathematical model. It is sometimes impossible to include all subsets of in our model, particularly when is uncountable. In a sense, the more sets that we include, the harder it is to have consistent theories. However, we almost always want the collection of admissible subsets to be closed under the basic set operations. This leads to some important definitions.
Algebras of Sets
Suppose that is a nonempty collection of subsets of . Then is an algebra (or field) if it is closed under complement and union:
- If then .
- If and then .
If is an algebra of subsets of then
Details:
- Since is nonempty, there exists . Hence so .
Suppose that is an algebra of subsets of and that for each in a finite index set .
Details:
- This follows by induction on the number of elements in .
- This follows from (a) and De Morgan's law. If for then for . Therefore and hence .
Thus it follows that an algebra of sets is closed under a finite number of set operations. That is, if we start with a finite number of sets in the algebra , and build a new set with a finite number of set operations (union, intersection, complement), then the new set is also in . However in many mathematical theories, probability in particular, this is not sufficient; we often need the collection of admissible subsets to be closed under a countable number of set operations.
-Algebras of Sets
Suppose that is a nonempty collection of subsets of . Then is a -algebra (or -field) if the following axioms are satisfied:
- If then .
- If for each in a countable index set , then .
Clearly a -algebra of subsets is also an algebra of subsets, so the basic results for algebras in still hold. In particular, and .
If for each in a countable index set , then .
Details:
The proof is just like the one in [3] for algebras. If for then for . Therefore and hence .
Thus a -algebra of subsets of is closed under countable unions and intersections. This is the reason for the symbol in the name. As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, -algebras are of fundamental importance in mathematics generally and probability theory specifically, and thus deserve a special definition:
If is a set and a -algebra of subsets of , then is called a measurable space.
The term measurable space will make more sense when we discuss positive measures on such spaces.
Suppose that is a set and that is a finite algebra of subsets of . Then is also a -algebra.
Details:
Any countable union of sets in reduces to a finite union.
However, there are algebras that are not -algebras. Here is the classic example:
Suppose that is an infinite set. The collection of finite and co-finite subsets of defined below is an algebra of subsets of , but not a -algebra:
Details:
since is finite. If then by the symmetry of the definition. Suppose that . If and are both finite then is finite. If or is finite, then is finite. In either case, . Thus is an algebra of subsets of .
Since is infinite, it contains a countably infinite subset . Let for . Then is finite, so for each . Let . Then is infinite by construction. Also , so is infinite as well. Hence and so is not a -algebra.
General Constructions
Recall that denotes the collection of all subsets of , called the power set of . Trivially, is the largest -algebra of . The power set is often the appropriate -algebra if is countable, but as noted above, is sometimes too large to be useful if is uncountable. At the other extreme, the smallest -algebra of is given next:
The collection is a -algebra.
Details:
Clearly is a finite algebra: and are complements of each other, and . Hence is a -algebra by [7].
In many cases, we want to construct a -algebra that contains certain basic sets. The next two results show how to do this.
Suppose that is a -algebra of subsets of for each in a nonempty index set . Then is also a -algebra of subsets of .
Details:
The proof is completely straightforward. First, for each so . If then for each and hence for each . Therefore . Finally suppose that for each in a countable index set . Then for each and and therefore for each . It follows that .
Note that no restrictions are placed on the index set , other than it be nonempty, so in particular it may well be uncountable.
Suppose that is a set and that is a collection of subsets of . The -algebra generated by is
A -algebra that is generated by a countable collection of sets is said to be countably generated.
So the -algebra generated by is the intersection of all -algebras that contain , which by [10] really is a -algebra. Note that the collection of -algebras in the intersection is not empty, since is in the collection. Think of the sets in as basic sets that we want to be measurable, but do not form a -algebra.
The -algebra is the smallest algebra containing .
- If is a -algebra of subsets of and then .
Details:
Both of these properties follows from the definition of in [11].
Note that the conditions in [12] completely characterize . If and satisfy the conditions, then by (a), and . But then by (b), and .
If is a subset of then
Details:
Let . Clearly is an algebra: and are complements of each other, as are and . Also,
Since is finite, it is a -algebra by [4]. Next, . Conversely, if is a -algebra and then of course so . Hence
We can generalize [13]. Recall that a collection of subsets is a partition of if for with , and .
Suppose that is a countable partition of into nonempty subsets. Then is the collection of all unions of sets in . That is,
Details:
Let . Note that since . Next, suppose that . Then for some . But then , so . Next, suppose that for where is a countable index set. Then for each there exists such that . But then where . Hcnce . Therefore is a -algebra of subsets of . Trivially, . If is a -algebra of subsets of and , then clearly for every . Hence .
A -algebra of this form is said to be generated by a countable partition. Note that since for , the representation of a set in as a union of sets in is unique. That is, if and then . In particular, if there are nonempty sets in , so that , then there are subsets of and hence sets in .
Suppose now that is a collection of subsets of (not necessarily disjoint). To describe the -algebra generated by we need a bit more notation. For (a bit string of length ), let where and .
In the setting above,
- partitions .
- for .
- .
Details:
- Suppose that and that . Without loss of generality we can suppose that for some , while . Then and so and are disjoint. Suppose that . Construct by if and if , for each . Then by definition, . Hence partitions .
- Fix . Again if and then . Hence . Conversely, suppose . Define by if and if for each . Then and . Hence .
- Clearly, every -algebra of subsets of that contains must also contain , and every -algebra of subsets of that contains must also contain . It follows that . The characterization in terms of unions now follows from [14].
Recall that there are bit strings of length . The sets in are said to be in general position if the sets in are distinct (and hence there are of them) and are nonempty. In this case, there are sets in .
Open the Venn diagram app. This app shows two subsets and of in general position, and lists the 16 sets in .
- Select each of the 4 sets that partition : , , , .
- Select each of the other 12 sets in and note how each is a union of some of the sets in (a).
Sketch a Venn diagram with sets in general position. Identify the set for each .
If a -algebra is generated by a collection of basic sets, then each set in the -algebra is generated by a countable number of the basic sets.
Suppose that is a set and a nonempty collection of subsets of . Then
Details:
Let denote the collection on the right. We first show that is a -algebra. First, pick , which we can do since is nonempty. Then so . Let so that for some countable . Then so . Finally, suppose that for in a countable index set . Then for each , there exists a countable such that . But then is also countable and . Hence .
Next if then so . Hence . Conversely, if for some countable then trivially .
We have seen examples of finite algebras and infinite -algebras. It turns out that a -algebra cannot be countably infinite.
Suppose that is a -algebra of subsets of a set . Then is either finite or uncountable.
Details:
The proof is by contradiction. Suppose that is countably infinite. Clearly the base set is infinite since and is finite if is finite. Define
Then for since the intersection is over a countable collection of sets in . Clearly is the smallest set in containing . We next show that the distinct sets in the collection are disjoint. Suppose that and . If then is a proper subset of containing , which contradicts the definition of . Hence and therefore . By a symmetric argument, and hence . So we conclude that for every , either or . Trivially, if then . So if is finite then is finite, since there can only be a finite number of distinct unions of a finite collection of sets. But this contradicts the assumption that is countably infinite. On the other hand, if is countably infinite then is uncountable, since there are uncountably many distinct unions of a countably infinite collection of sets. But this is also a contradiction.
A -algebra on a set naturally leads to a -algebra on a subset.
Suppose that is a measurable space, and that . Let . Then
- is a -algebra of subsets of .
- If then .
Details:
- First, and so . Next suppose that . Then there exists such that . But then and , so . Finally, suppose that for in a countable index set . For each there exists such that . But then and , so .
- Suppose that . Then for every , and of course, . Conversely, if and then so
The -algebra is the -algebra on induced by . If then is a subspace of . The following construction is useful for counterexamples. Compare this example with example [8] for finite and co-finite sets.
Let be a nonempty set. The collection of countable and co-countable subsets of is
- is a -algebra
- , the -algebra generated by the singleton sets.
Details:
- First, since is countable. If then by the symmetry of the definition. Suppose that for each in a countable index set . If is countable for each then is countable. If is countable for some then is countable. In either case, .
- Let . Clearly for . Hence . Conversely, suppose that . If is countable, then . If is countable, then by an identical argument, and hence .
Of course, if is itself countable then . On the other hand, if is uncountable, then there exists such that and are uncountable. Thus, , but , and of course . Thus, we have an example of a -algebra that is not closed under general unions. Here is another use of this -algebra as a counterexample:
Suppose that is an uncountable set. The -algebra of countable and co-countable sets is not countably generated.
Details:
The proof is by contradiction. Suppose that is a countable collection of sets in and that . For each , let if is countable and if is countable. Then for each . The countable collection generates the same -algebra as , so . Now let . Then is a countable union of countable sets, so is countable. Therefore , the collection of all subsets of . Since for each and for each we have
So . But this is clearly a contradiction since .
Topology and Measure
One of the most important ways to generate a -algebra is by means of topology. Recall that a topological space consists of a set and a topology , the collection of open subsets of . Most spaces that occur in probability and stochastic processes are topological spaces, so it's crucial that the topological and measure-theoretic structures are compatible.
Suppose that is a topological space. Then is the Borel -algebra on , and is a Borel measurable space.
So the Borel -algebra on , named for Émile Borel is generated by the open subsets of . Thus, a topological space naturally leads to a measurable space . Since a closed set is simply the complement of an open set, the Borel -algebra contains the closed sets as well (and in fact is generated by the closed sets). Here are some other sets that are in the Borel -algebra:
Suppose again that is a topological space and let denote the Borel -algebral. Suppose also that is a countable index set.
- If is open for each then . Such sets are called sets.
- If is closed for each then . Such sets are called sets.
- If is Hausdorff then for every .
Details:
- This follows from [5].
- This follows from [4].
- This follows since is closed for each if the topology is Hausdorff.
In terms of part (c), recall that a topological space is Hausdorff, named for Felix Hausdorff, if the topology can distinguish individual points. Specifically, if are distinct then there exist disjoint open sets with and . This is a very basic property possessed by almost all topological spaces that occur in applications. A simple corollary of (c) is that if the topological space is Hausdorff then for every countable .
Let's note the extreme cases. If has the discrete topology , so that every set is open (and closed), then of course the Borel -algebra is also . As noted above, this is often the appropriate -algebra if is countable, but is often too large if is uncountable. If has the trivial topology , then the Borel -algebra is also , and so is also trivial.
Recall that a base for a topological space is a collection with the property that every set in is a union of a collection of sets in . In short, every open set is a union of some of the basic open sets.
Suppose that is a topological space with a countable base . Then .
Details:
Since it follows trivially that . Conversely, if , there exists a collection of sets in whose union is . Since is countable, .
The topological spaces that occur in probability and stochastic processes are usually assumed to have a countable base (along with other nice properties such as the Hausdorff property and locally compactness). The -algebra used for such a space is usually the Borel -algebra, which by the previous result, is countably generated.
Measurable Functions
Recall that a set usually comes with a -algebra of admissible subsets. A natural requirement on a function is that the inverse image of an admissible set in the co-domain be admissible in the domain. Here is the formal definition.
Suppose that and are measurable spaces. A function is measurable if for every .
If the -algebra in the co-domain is generated by a collection of basic sets, then to check the measurability of a function, we need only consider inverse images of basic sets:
Suppose again that and are measurable spaces, and that for a collection of subsets of . Then is measurable if and only if for every .
Details:
First , so if is measurable then the condition in the theorem trivially holds. Conversely, suppose that the condition in the theorem holds, and let . Then since . If then , so . If for in a countable index set , then , and hence . Thus is a -algebra of subsets of . But by assumption, so . Of course by definition, so and hence is measurable.
If you have reviewed topology then you may have noticed a striking parallel between the definition of continuity for functions on topological spaces and the defintion of measurability for functions on measurable spaces: A function from one topological space to another is continuous if the inverse image of an open set in the co-domain is open in the domain. A function from one measurable space to another is measurable if the inverse image of a measurable set in the co-domain is measurable in the domain. If we start with topological spaces, which we often do, and use the Borel -algebras to get measurable spaces, then we get the following (hardly surprising) connection.
Suppose that and are topological spaces, and that we give and the Borel -algebras and respectively. If is continuous, then is measurable.
Details:
If then . Hence is measurable by [27].
Measurability is preserved under composition, the most important method for combining functions.
Suppose that , , and are measurable spaces. If is measurable and is measurable, then is measurable.
Details:
If then since is measurable, and hence since is measurable.
If is given the smallest possible -algebra or if is given the largest one, then any function from into is measurable.
Every function is measurable in each of the following cases:
- and is an arbitrary -algebra of subsets of
- and is an arbitrary -algebra of subsets of .
Details:
- Suppose that and that is an arbitrary -algebra on . If , then and so is measurable.
- Suppose that and that is an arbitrary -algebra on . If , then trivially for every so is measurable.
When there are several -algebras for the same set, then we use the phrase with respect to so that we can be precise. If a function is measurable with respect to a given -algebra on its domain, then it's measurable with respect to any larger -algebra on the domain. If the function is measurable with respect to a -algebra on the co-domain then its measurable with respect to any smaller -algebra on the co-domain.
Suppose that has -algebras and with , and that has -algebras and with . If is measurable with respect to and , then is measureable with respect to and .
Details:
If then . Hence so .
The following construction is particularly important in probability theory:
Suppose that is a set and is a measurable space. Suppose also that and define . Then
- is a -algebra on .
- is the smallest -algebra on that makes measurable.
Details:
- The key to the proof is that the inverse image preserves all set operations First, since and . If then for some . But then and hence . Finally, suppose that for in a countable index set . Then for each there exists such that . But then and . Hence .
- If is a -algebra on and is measurable with respect to and , then by definition for every , so .
Appropriately enough, is called the -algebra generated by . Often, will have a given -algebra and will be measurable with respect to and . In this case, . We can generalize to an arbitrary collection of functions on .
Suppose is a set and that is a measurable space for each in a nonempty index set . Suppose also that for each . The -algebra generated by this collection of functions is
Again, this is the smallest -algebra on that makes measurable for each .
Product Sets
Product sets arise naturally in the form of the higher-dimensional Euclidean spaces for . In addition, product spaces are particularly important in probability, where they are used to describe the spaces associated with sequences of random variables. More general product spaces arise in the study of stochastic processes. We start with the product of two sets; the generalization to products of sets and to general products is straightforward, although the notation gets more complicated.
Suppose that and are measurable spaces. The product -algebra on is
So the definition is natural: the product -algebra is generated by products of measurable sets. Note however that is not the Cartesian product of the collections and , even though the same notation is used. Our next goal is to consider the measurability of functions defined on, or mapping into, product spaces. Of basic importance are the projection functions. If and are sets, let and be defined by and for . Recall that is the projection onto the first coordinate and is the projection onto the second coordinate. The product algebra is the smallest -algebra that makes the projections measurable:
Suppose again that and are measurable spaces. Then .
Details:
If then . Similarly, if then . Hence and are measurable, so . Conversely, if and then . Since sets of this form generate the product -algebra, we have .
Projection functions make it easy to study functions mapping into a product space.
Suppose that , and are measurable spaces, and that is given the product -algebra . Suppose also that , so that for , where and are the coordinate functions. Then is measurable if and only if and are measurable.
Details:
Note that and . So if is measurable then and are compositions of measurable functions, and hence are measurable by [29]. Conversely, suppose that and are measurable. If and then . Since products of measurable sets generate , it follows that is measurable.
Our next goal is to consider cross sections of sets in a product space and cross sections of functions defined on a product space. It will help to introduce some new functions, which in a sense are complementary to the projection functions.
Suppose again that and are measurable spaces, and that is given the product -algebra .
- For the function , defined by for , is measurable.
- For the function , defined by for , is measurable.
Details:
To show that the functions are measurable, if suffices to consider inverse images of products of measurable sets, since such sets generate . Thus, let and .
- For note that is if and is if . In either case, .
- Similarly, for note that is if and is if . In either case, .
Now our work is easy.
Suppose again that and are measurable spaces, and that . Then
- For , .
- For , .
Details:
These result follow immediately from the measurability of the functions and in [37]:
- For , .
- For , .
The set in (a) is the cross section of in the first coordinate at , and the set in (b) is the cross section of in the second coordinate at . As a simple corollary to the theorem, note that if , and then and . That is, the only measurable product sets are products of measurable sets. Here is the measurability result for cross-sectional functions:
Suppose again that and are measurable spaces, and that is given the product -algebra . Suppose also that is another measurable space, and that is measurable. Then
- The function from to is measurable for each .
- The function from to is measurable for each .
Details:
Note that the function in (a) is just , and the function in (b) is just , both are compositions of measurable functions.
A measurable space has a measurable diagonal if
A space with a measurable diagonal has many nice properties. First, for . Even more impressive is the following theorem:
Suppose that the measurable space has a measurable diagonal. If is another measurable space and is a measurable function, then the graph of is measurable:
Because of properties such as these, measurable diagonal is sometimes used as an assumption. Here are a few technical connections: A space has a measurable diagonal if and only if is generated by a countable collection of sets that separated points. That is, if then there exists such that and , or and . Here is a standard example of a measurable space without a measurable diagonal:
If is an uncountable set and is the -algebra of countable and co-countable subsets, then does not have a measurable diagonal.
Details:
This follows from [22].
The results for products of two spaces generalize in a completely straightforward way to a product of spaces.
Suppose and that is a measurable space for each . The product -algebra on the Cartesian product set is
So again, the product -algebra is generated by products of measurable sets. Results analogous to the theorems above hold. In the special case that for , the Cartesian product becomes and the corresponding product -algebra is denoted . The notation is natural, but again potentially confusing. Note that is not the Cartesian product of of order , but rather the -algebra generated by sets of the form where for .
We can also extend these ideas to a general product. To recall the definition, suppose that is a set for each in a nonempty index set . The product set consists of all functions such that for each . To make the notation look more like a simple Cartesian product, we often write instead of for the value of a function in the product set at . The next definition gives the appropriate -algebra for the product set.
Suppose that is a measurable space for each in a nonempty index set . The product -algebra on the product set is
The definition can also be understood in terms of projections. Recall that the projection onto coordinate is the function given by . The product -algebra is the smallest -algebra on the product set that makes all of the projections measurable.
Suppose again that is a measurable space for each in a nonempty index set , Then .
Details:
Let and . Then where for and . This set is in so is measurable. Hence . For the other direction, consider a product set where except for , where is finite. Then . This set is in . Product sets of this form generate so it follows that .
In the special case that is a fixed measurable space and for all , the product set is just the collection of functions from into , often denoted . The product -algebra is then denoted , a notation that is natural, but again potentially confusing. Here is the main measurability result for a function mapping into a product space.
Suppose that is a measurable space, and that is a measurable space for each in a nonempty index set . As before, let have the product -algebra. Suppose now that . For let denote the th coordinate function of , so that for . Then is measurable if and only if is measurable for each .
Details:
Suppose that is measurable. For note that is a composition of measurable functions, and hence is measurable by [29]. Conversely, suppose that is measurable for each . To show that measurability of we need only consider inverse images of sets that generate the product -algebra. Thus, suppose that for in a finite subset , and let for . Then . This set is in since the intersection is over a finite index set.
Just as with the product of two sets, cross-sectional sets and functions are measurable with respect to the product measure. Again, it's best to work with some special functions.
Suppose that is a measurable space for each in an index set with at least two elements. For and , define the function by where for and . Then is measurable with respect to the product -algebras.
Details:
Once again, it suffices to consider the inverse image of the sets that generate the product -algebra. So suppose for with for all but finitely many . Then if , and the inverse image is otherwise. In either case, is in the product -algebra on .
In words, for and , the function takes a point in the product set and assigns to coordinate to give a point in . If , then is the cross section of in coordinate at . So it follows immediately from the previous result that the cross sections of a measurable set are measurable. Cross sections of measurable functions are also measurable. Suppose that is another measurable space, and that is measurable. The cross section of in coordinate at is simply , a composition of measurable functions.
However, a non-measurable set can have measurable cross sections, even in a product of two spaces.
Suppose that is an uncountable set with the -algebra of countable and co-countable sets as defined in [21]. Consider with the product -algebra . Let , the diagonal of . Then has measurable cross sections, but is not measurable.
Details:
For , the cross section of in the first coordinate at is . Similarly, for , the cross section of in the second coordinate at is . But as noted in [42], is not measurable.
In terms of topology, suppose that and are topological spaces. Recall that the product topology on is the topology with base . Given the similarities of the definitions, you might think that the Borel -algebra on corresponding to the product topolgy is the product of the Borel -algebras of and . That fails in general, but is true if the topological spaces are sufficiently nice.
Suppose that and are topological spaces corresponding to separable metric spaces. Then the Borel -algebra on corresponding to the product topology is the product of the Borel -algebras on and . In symbols
As noted above, having a measurable diagonal in [40] is a simple property that implies a number of seemingly stronger properties. Here is the connection to topology.
Suppose that is a topological space corresponding to a separable metric space and let be the Borel -algebra. Then has a measurable diagonal.
Details:
Since is Hausdorff, the diagonal is closed in the product topology, and hence is measurable for the Borel -algebra corresponding to the product topology. But by [49], this is the product of the Borel -algebras on .
In particular, the previous results apply to the standard LCCB topological spaces.
Special Cases
Most of the sets encountered in applied probability are either countable, or subsets of for some , or more generally, subsets of a product of a countable number of sets of these types. In the study of stochastic processes, various spaces of functions play an important role. In this subsection, we will explore the most important special cases.
Discrete Spaces
If is countable and is the collection of all subsets of , then is a discrete measurable space.
Thus if is discrete, all subsets of are measurable and every function from to another measurable space is measurable. The power set is also the discrete topology on , so is a Borel -algebra as well. As a topological space, is complete, locally compact, Hausdorff, and since is countable, separable. Moreover, the discrete topology corresponds to the discrete metric , defined by for and for with .
Euclidean Spaces
Recall that for , the Euclidean topology on is generated by the standard Euclidean metric given by
With this topology, is complete, connected, locally compact, Hausdorff, and separable.
For , the -dimensional Euclidean measurable space is where is the Borel -algebra corresponding to the standard Euclidean topology on .
The one-dimensional case is particularly important. In this case, the standard Euclidean metric is given by for . The Borel -algebra can be generated by various collections of intervals.
Each of the following collections generates .
Details:
The proof involves showing that each set in any one of the collections is in the -algebra of any other collection. Let for .
- Clearly and so and .
- If with then and , so . Also so . Thus all bounded intervals are in . Next, , , , and , so each of these intervals is in . Of course , so we now have that for every interval . Thus , and so from (a), .
- If with then so . Hence . But then from (a) and (b) it follows that .
Since the Euclidean topology has a countable base, is countably generated. In fact each collection of intervals above, but with endpoints restricted to , generates . Moreover, can also be constructed from -algebras that are generated by countable partitions as in [14]. First recall that for , the set of dyadic rationals (or binary rationals) of rank or less is . Note that is countable and for . Moreover, the set of all dyadic rationals is dense in . The dyadic rationals are often useful in various applications because has the natural ordered enumeration for each . Now let
Then is a countable partition of into nonempty intervals of equal size , so consists of unions of sets in as described in [14]. Every set is the union of two sets in so clearly for . Finally, the Borel -algebra on is . This construction turns out to be useful in a number of settings.
For , the Euclidean topology on is the -fold product topology formed from the Euclidean topology on . So the Borel -algebra is also the -fold product -algebra formed from . Finally, can be generated by -fold products of sets in any of the three collections in [53].
Space of Real Functions
Suppose that is a measurable space. Recall that the usual arithmetic operations on functions from into are defined pointwise.
If and are measurable and , then each of the following functions from into is also measurable:
Details:
These results follow from the fact that the arithmetic operators are continuous, and hence measurable. That is, , , and are continuous as functions from into . Thus, if are measurable, then is measurable by . Then, , , are the compositions, respectively, of , , with . Of course, (d) is a simple corollary of (c).
Similarly, if is measurable, then so is . Recall that the set of functions from into is a vector space, under the pointwise definitions of addition and scalar multiplication. But once again, we usually want to restrict our attention to measurable functions. Thus, it's nice to know that the measurable functions from into also form a vector space. This follows immediately from the closure properties (a) and (d) of [54]. Of particular importance in probability and stochastic processes is the vector space of bounded, measurable functions , with the supremum norm
The elementary functions that we encounter in calculus and other areas of applied mathematics are functions from subsets of into . The elementary functions include algebraic functions (which in turn include the polynomial and rational functions), the usual transcendental functions (exponential, logarithm, trigonometric), and the usual functions constructed from these by composition, the arithmetic operations, and by piecing together. As we might hope, all of the elementary functions are measurable.