Talk:Dynkin system

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Tsirel in topic Not the Doob-Dynkin lemma

λ system edit

The equivalent λ system is defined as follows: Definition. A family L of subsets of C is called a λ-system if

(1) Ω belongs to L,
(2) L is closed under complementation,
(3) L is closed under countable unions of pw disjoint sets.

Given any class C of sets, L(C) denotes the λ-system generated by C. Jackzhp 23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

asdf edit

I changed a slight mistake. Sorry, no latex improvement. September 13 / 2006 (USF)

A λproof for Dynkin's Lemma? edit

I suggest adding in a proof for Dynkin's Lemma.--A 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, would [1] be an appropriate source?--A 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the site is self-published, as it appears to be, then it would not qualify unless the author is already a recognized (and published) expert on the topic. The author calls himself a derivatives trader. While he cold have a degree in statistics, we really don't know anything else about him or the website. See WP:RS and WP:V for the definitive rules. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


I came up with proof(not sure if it is right) during preparation for exam. It uses transfinite induction. For every ordinal   we define new set  .  ,   Than one can show that every   iff  , every   is π-system,  .

Ok the motivation. I want to generate   from P. So you can do it with transfinite induction that in ever step you add new sets in form   and  . But than it is hard to show that all these new sets are still in Dynkin's system. So you want in every step create pi-system and than it is easy to show that new set generated from pi-system is still in Dynkin's system. So in every step you don't use operation   and   but insted you use   to generate new sets.

  This is obvious.

every   is π-system.  . This is again in form   because every previous   are already pi-systems.

  Can be show thanks to that every previous   are pi-systems. You can than convert sum of sets to sum of disjoint sets.

  This is quite easy. But you have to use fact that cofinality of   is  

So if anyone would have time a will to check it I would be happy to rewrite it properly and post it.

Not the Doob-Dynkin lemma edit

Maybe the "Dynkin's π-λ Theorem" is sometimes called "Dynkin's lemma", but surely it is not the "Doob–Dynkin lemma" (and not related to it). I correct the text accordingly. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply