Setting (Definition 4.4, p. 67): an ANM from to means there exist a measurable and a random variable with
Everything below assumes such exists and derives a contradiction.
What “conditional distribution given ” means
For continuous the event has probability , so cannot be defined by division. Instead, a regular conditional distribution of given is a family of probability measures on (measurable in ) such that
Such a family exists, and it is unique up to -null sets of : if and both satisfy then for -a.e. . We write .
So the sentence ” is the law of ” means: the family satisfies .
Claim 1 (independence conditionals are shifts of one law)
\begin{claim} If with , then is a regular conditional distribution of given . Equivalently: for -a.e.\ , , the law of translated by . \end{claim}
Proof. Fix Borel . Because , the joint law of is the product . Then
The inner integral is , so the right side is , i.e. holds.
(This is the only place Fubini/Tonelli is used: writing the probability under a product measure as an iterated integral. Independence is what makes the joint law a product.)
Claim 2 (a shift-invariant statistic must be constant)
Let be any map from probability measures on to that is translation invariant: for all . Examples: ; the Lebesgue measure of the support of ; the interquartile range.
\begin{claim} Under the hypothesis of Claim 1, is -a.e.\ equal to the constant . \end{claim}
Proof. By Claim 1, for -a.e. , , hence by translation invariance.
Contradiction for Problem 4.15(a)
From the joint density (uniform, value , on the parallelogram ),
(This is a genuine version of the conditional distribution: one checks by integrating the joint density; it is unique a.e. by the uniqueness statement above.)
Take support length (or , which is for a uniform law):
- : length ;
- : length .
Both intervals have positive -mass ( there). So is not a.e. constant, contradicting Claim 2. Hence no with exists: admits no ANM from to .
Remarks
- Fubini is not “needed for the idea”; it is needed only to make Claim 1 a theorem rather than a picture, because conditioning on a null event is defined through .
- Variance is not needed either; any translation-invariant works. Support length is closest to the “draw the support” hint in the exercise.
- Theorem 4.5 (pp. 67–68) is not applicable: it needs strictly positive, three-times differentiable densities; the uniform noise here has neither.