I The set of nonzero values of pmf is at most countable

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter psie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that for a discrete random variable X taking values in R, the set of x values where the probability mass function p_X(x) is greater than zero is at most countable. The proof demonstrates that if there were uncountably many such x values, it would lead to a contradiction regarding the total probability being less than or equal to one. The argument also highlights that any finite measure can only have at most countably many atoms, reinforcing the claim. Additionally, a method is proposed to show that the union of finite sets remains countable, supporting the conclusion. The overall consensus affirms the claim's validity through various logical approaches.
psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR Summary
As the title implies, I'm working on showing this relatively basic exercise. I was wondering if my solution is correct. The crux of my argument is that every infinite set has a countable infinite subset.
The claim is

Claim Given a discrete random variable ##X## taking values in ##\mathbb R##, the number of ##x## values such that ##p_X(x)=P(X=x)>0## is at most countable.

Proof. If it was ##P(X = x ) > 0## for uncountably many ##x##, then there would exist an ##N\in\mathbb N## such that ##P(X = x) > \frac{1}{N}## for uncountably many ##x## (1). This in turn would imply that there exist countably infinite many ##x## such that ##P(X=x)>\frac{1}{N}##, since every infinite set has a countably infinite subset. Denote this subset by ##A=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots\}##. Then $$P(X\in A) = \sum_{i\in \mathbb N} P(X = x_i) >\sum_{i\in \mathbb N}\frac1{N}=\infty,$$contradicting ##P(X\in A)\leq 1##.

(1) if such an ##N## would not exist, then ##A_n=\{x\in\mathbb R: P(X = x) > \frac{1}{n}\}## would be countable for every ##n##, and the countable union of countable sets is countable, i.e. ##\{x\in\mathbb R: P(X=x)>0\}=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}A_n## is countable.

Thoughts, comments? I guess a more general claim is that any finite measure has at most countably many atoms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Writing this down, I realize one could simply argue as follows too (without contradiction). Since the measure space is finite, the number of singletons with measure ##1/n## or more is finite. Any positive number here will do, because their total mass will be at least their number times that lower bound, and since the space is finite, their number has to be finite. Now, for each ##n## there are finitely many singletons of measure greater than ##1/n##, and the set of all singletons of positive measure is the union of those. And a countable union of finite sets is countable.
 
Last edited:
Here's how I'd formulate it. Let ##C## be a set of positive numbers. Define ##C_n = \{x\in C \mid x> 1/n\}##. Then ##C_n## is a monotone increasing sequence w.r.t inclusion and ##C = \bigcup C_n##.

Note that for each ##n\in\mathbb N## we have
<br /> \sum _{x\in C} x \geqslant \sum _{x\in C_n} x \geqslant \frac{|C_n|}{n}.<br />
But the sum of the probabilities of atoms is bounded (by ##1##), hence the sets ##C_n## must be finite, therefore ##C## can be at most countable.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD and psie
Edit: A sort of combination of your two arguments:
Yes, the only way an uncountable sum will converge is if it has finite support. You can partition your support by ##S_n:= x, x\geq 1/n ## . Then, for an infinite sum, at least one of the ##S_n## will be infinite, so you have an infinite number of copies of ##1/n## as a lower bound of your sum, and this will diverge.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top