Let F be a field of subsets of Ω and N is a subset of F. Say that P:Fx(F−N)→[0,1] (I will write P(A|B) instead of P(A,B)) is a pre-Popper function providing:
- the union of two sets in N is in N
- a subset of a set in N is in N
- for each B in F−N, P(−|B) is a finitely additive probability measure on F
- P(B|B)=1 for all B in F−N.
A pre-Popper measure is a pre-Popper function such that F is a σ-field and P(−|B) is a countably additive probability.
The results I've been advertising so far for Popper functions and measures in fact hold for pre-Popper ones. Say that P is invariant under a set G of transformations of some space X containing Ω provided that N is invariant under G and P(gA|gB)=P(A|B) for all g in G, A in F and B in F−N.
Suppose now P is a pre-Popper function invariant under G. Then we can summarize some results that I think I can show:
- Suppose Ω is a subset of Rn, n≥3, such that Ω has non-empty interior, and G is the rotation-and-translation group in Rn. Then if F contains all countable (respectively, Lebesgue null) subsets of Ω, then (a) some countable subset of Ω is P-trivial, (b) every finite subset of Ω is P-trivial, (c) every line segment in Ω is P-trivial, and (d) given the Axiom of Choice, every countable (respectively, Lebesgue null) subset of Ω is P-trivial.
- Suppose Ω is the sphere Sn (i.e., the surface of an (n+1)-dimensional ball), n≥2, and G is all rotations. Then if F contains all countable (respectively, Lebesgue null) subsets of Ω, (a), (b), and (d) from (1) hold.
- Suppose P is a Popper measure, Ω=[0,1)2 and G is all translations (modulo 1 in each coordinate). Any line segment in F is P-trivial. If F contains all finite infinitely differentiable curves, then all such curves are P-trivial.
The lesson is that Popper functions really don't help much with the problem of conditioning on measure zero sets. Too many measure zero sets are trivial.
On the other hand, if B is a bounded region of R^2, I think there is a Popper function defined for all subsets of B such that only the empty set is abnormal. This needs Choice.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still think this, I can't prove it. (Yet?)
ReplyDelete