Suppose we have a random variable (RV) $X$ defined on a measurable space $\mathcal{M} = (\Omega, \Sigma)$. Suppose we equip the measurable space with a probability measure $P$ and associated expectation operator $E$ such that for all $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ we have $E[e^{\theta X}] < \infty$. Then, for all bounded, continuous $f : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ define $F_{\theta}$ as follows:
$$F_{\theta}(f) = \dfrac{E[f(X)e^{\theta X}]}{E[e^{\theta X}]}$$
Question: Show that there exists a probability measure $P_{\theta}$ defined on $\mathcal{M}$ such that for all bounded continuous functions $f$ the following identity holds:
$$F_{\theta}(f) = E_{\theta}[f(X)]$$
where $E_{\theta}[Y]$ is the expectation of any RV $Y$ w.r.t. $P_{\theta}$.
Background: Around 45 minutes into this video, the lecturer defines an operator $E_{\theta}$ w.r.t to a moment generating function and makes a brief argument as to why this operator is in fact the expectation of an implicitly defined probability measure $P_{\theta}$. I can't see how this conclusion can be made.
Note: If the above result is, or relies on, some known theorem I'd be delighted if someone could point me in the direction of that.
Note: in expressions such as $f(X)$ and $e^{\theta X}$ we are composing the RV $X$ with continuous functions to build new RVs. Also in the expression $f(X)e^{\theta X}$ we use both composition with $X$ and mutliplication of two RVs to get a new RV.
Note: I'm not sure if maybe we need to restrict $\theta > 0$. I'm thinking about it...
I haven't fully digested the maths in your comment. It does look better to me at a first glance.
However, note that the measurable space $\mathcal{M}$ itself cannot be assumed to be $(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}))$. However, what I was getting at is that with the pushforward measure of $X$ is defined on the Borel measurable space.
– Colm Bhandal Jan 27 '21 at 13:38