Question
Prove that a random variable is independent of itself if and only if is almost surely constant.
Step-by-step solution
Proof: Step 1. If is almost surely constant Suppose . To show that is independent of itself, we must verify that for all Borel sets , Case 1: Then , so . The identity holds. Case 2: but Then . The identity holds. Case 3: but . The argument is analogous. Case 4: and Then . The identity holds. Therefore, "almost surely constant" implies that is independent of itself. Step 2. If is independent of itself Independence means that for all Borel sets : In particular, setting , we obtain Hence for every Borel set , Step 3. implies that is almost surely constant. Define the distribution function . By the previous step, . Moreover, is monotonically nondecreasing and right-continuous, satisfying and . Therefore there exists a unique such that: For , , i.e., , hence . For , . Setting , we get , and by taking the intersection, . Setting gives . Therefore . Note that , so Step 4. In summary, independent of itself implies that the distribution function takes only the values 0 and 1, which in turn implies the existence of with ; conversely, if , then is clearly independent of itself. QED.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is an undergraduate mathematics marking rubric based on the official solution (total: 7 points):
1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts)
Part I: Sufficiency Proof [2 pts total]
*Prove that " is almost surely constant is independent of itself"*
- [1 pt] State that if , then for every Borel set , the probability equals either or (depending on whether ).
- [1 pt] Verify the independence identity: show that holds for all combinations (i.e., , etc.).
Part II: Necessity Proof [5 pts total]
*Prove that " is independent of itself is almost surely constant"*
Award marks for any ONE of the following logical paths (if multiple paths appear, take the highest score; do not combine):
> Path A: Via the 0–1 property and the distribution function (official solution approach)
> - [2 pts] Derive the 0–1 property: Using the independence definition (set or an analogous argument), obtain , and conclude that .
> - [2 pts] Locate the constant value : Using the monotonicity, right-continuity, and limiting behavior of the distribution function (which takes only the values and ), show that a unique jump point exists (or equivalently, use the supremum characterization ).
> - [1 pt] Confirm that probability concentrates at : Rigorously argue that the jump size equals 1, i.e., (or provide an equivalent set-theoretic argument).
> Path B: Via variance/moment properties (alternative approach)
> - [1 pt] Introduce a bounded transform or justify moment existence: Introduce a bounded function (e.g., ) or a truncation, or explicitly address the existence of moments. *(If is assumed without justification of generality, see deductions.)*
> - [2 pts] Derive zero variance: Use independence to show or .
> - [1 pt] Conclude almost sure constancy: Deduce from zero variance that is almost surely constant.
> - [1 pt] Transfer the conclusion: Use properties of the transform (e.g., injectivity) to conclude that the original variable is almost surely constant.
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-Credit Items
- Merely restating the definitions of "independence" or "almost surely constant" from the problem statement without any substantive derivation.
- Simply asserting "a constant random variable is obviously independent of itself" or "an independent-of-itself random variable is obviously constant" without mathematical justification.
- Confusing independence of with itself and independence of and , rendering the derivation invalid.
3. Deductions
*Apply the most severe applicable deduction (minimum score is 0):*
- [Cap at 3/7] Unjustified restriction to a specific distribution type: In the necessity proof, assuming without justification that is discrete (enumerating probability masses) or continuous (assuming a probability density function exists), thereby losing generality.
- [Cap at 5/7] Failure to justify moment existence: If Path B is used, computing directly without verifying that has a finite second moment (or without using a bounded transform) is considered a gap in rigor.
- [-1 pt] Logical gap: In Path A, after obtaining , directly asserting "therefore is a step function" without invoking properties of the distribution function (e.g., monotonicity or limits).