3

Given an absolutely continuous cumulative distribution function, we know the corresponding probability density function is not unique, but it is determined almost everywhere. My question is: For any absolutely continuous cumulative distribution function, can we always find a continuous almost everywhere probability density function?

For example, $f(x)*1\{x\in\mathbb{R} - \mathbb{Q}\}$ is nowhere continuous, where $f(x)$ is a continuous probability density function. But $f(x)=f(x)*1\{x\in\mathbb{R} - \mathbb{Q}\}$ a.e. So $f(x)$ is a desired probability density function.

Leon
  • 83
  • 5
  • 1
    This question can be roughly considered as follows: For any Lebesgue integrable function $f$, is there a continuous a.e. function $g$ such that $f=g$ a.e.? – Leon Jun 29 '18 at 09:18

2 Answers2

1

There may be a simpler argument but here is one that shows that the answer is in the negative. Let $E$ be any set of positive finite measure. If $I_E=f$ a.e. where $f$ is continuous a.e. then $\{f<1\}$ differs from an open set only by a set of measure zero. This means that $E$ differs from an open set only by a set of measure zero. Not every measurable set of finite measure has this property.

1

The answer is negative. The following is a proof.

The following web shows that one construct a Borel set $A⊂[0,1]$ such that $0<μ(A∩I)<μ(I)$ for every interval $I ⊂ [0,1]$. Hence $0<μ(A)<1$.

Construction of a Borel set with positive but not full measure in each interval

Now we prove $f(x)=\frac{1\{x\in A\}}{μ(A)}$ satisfies that there is no a continuous a.e. function $g$ such that $f=g$ a.e..

Suppose there exists such $g$. Denote $C:=\{x:f(x)\neq g(x)\}$, and $D:=\{x: g(x) \text{ is not continuous at } x\}$. Then $\mu (C)=\mu (D)=0$, and $\mu (C\cup D)=0$. For $ x_0\in A-C\cup D$, $g(x_0)=f(x_0)=\frac{1}{μ(A)}$. Since $g$ is continuous at $x_0$, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a $\delta>0$ such that $|g(x)-\frac{1}{μ(A)}|<\epsilon$ for $x\in (x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$. Choose $\epsilon<\frac{1}{μ(A)}$, then $g(x)>0,x\in (x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$. On the other hand, by the definition of $A$, we know that $0<\mu((x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\cap A)<2\delta$. Hence $0<\mu((x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\cap ([0,1]-A))<2\delta$. Observe that for $x\in (x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\cap ([0,1]-A))$, $f(x)=0$ and $g(x)>0$, hence $\mu(C)\ge \mu((x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\cap ([0,1]-A))>0$. This contradicts with the assumption $\mu(C)=0$.

Leon
  • 83
  • 5