Let $F$ be the distribution function of a random variable $X$. If $F$ is continuous, then it holds that $F^{-1}(F(X))=X$ almost surely, where $F^{-1}$ denotes the generalized inverse of $F$.
My question is now: Why does this result not hold for a discontinuous function $F$?
Generally it holds that $F^{-1}(F(x))\leq x$. Assume that $F$ is flat on the interval $[x_0,x_1]$. Then for $x\in(x_0,x_1]$ it follows $F^{-1}(F(x))=x_0<x$. However, we have that $Pr(X\in(x_0,x_1])=F(x_1)-F(x_0)=0$ and therefore the set where $F^{-1}(F(X))=X$ does NOT hold has measure 0 and the equality holds almost surely.
Now, assume there is a jump at $x_1$, i.e. the function is flat on the interval $[x_0,x_1)$. Then, in order to verify that the statement does not hold for discontinuous distribution function, we need to check the probability of $Pr(X\in (x_0,x_1))$. In my mind, this equals $Pr(X\in (x_0,x_1))=F(x_1-)-F(x_0)=0$, where $x_1-$ denotes the left limit of $x_1$. Hence, the set where $F^{-1}(F(X))=X$ does NOT hold has again measure zero and the statement holds almost surely.
What am I doing wrong here?
However, what I am looking for is an example (or rather the reason) why I need the continuity of F for the claim that $F^{-1}(F(X))=X$ almost surely.
Your proof does not need it, but other literature that I'm working with states something like...
"..thanks to the continuity of F, we have $F^{-1}(F(X))=X$ almost surely.."
The fact that your proof seems ok to me and does not need the continuity confuses me even more now...:)
– Tim May 08 '14 at 10:42H. Jin and X. Zhou, " Behavioral portfolio selection in continuous time" (pdf), Mathematical Finance, Vol. 18 (2008), pp. 385-426.
After the proof of Lemma C.1. it says (rough quote): "Assume the strictly positive rv $X$ does not admit an atom. Denote $Z:=1-F(X)$. Then $Z\sim U[0,1]$ and $X=F^{-1}(1-Z)$ a.s., thanks to $F$ being continuous."
I know that one needs continuity for $Z\sim U[0,1]$. Do you think that the above expression only relates to this fact? If yes, then this is bad wording, in my opinion.
BIG thanks for your help and contribution!
– Tim May 08 '14 at 12:15$X=F^{-1}(U)$ almost surely?
(cf. http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/24938/can-two-random-variables-have-the-same-distribution-yet-be-almost-surely-differ)
– Tim May 15 '14 at 22:38http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/831593/distribution-function-inequality-for-a-transformed-random-variable
?!
– Tim Jun 13 '14 at 07:07