I am trying to understand EMM's and wanted to understand why we use EMM's over just martingale measures. The way we define EMM's is (for a simple one period model):
Given a probability measure $\mathbb{P},$
- $\mathbb{Q}$ must be a probability measure,
- $\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[\bar{V_1}]=\bar{V_0}$ where $V_i$ is the portfolio value at times $0 \text{ and } 1$,
- $\mathbb{Q}\sim \mathbb{P}$ in the sense that they both have the same null sets.
I have seen the usefulness of assumption two and the first assumption seems like a core requirement to the framework, but I would like to know more about why the third assumption is useful. I have been told that it is useful when transfering statements about being $\mathbb{P}$ almost surely and $\mathbb{Q}$ almost surely.
For reference, we define a martingale measure as just the first two conditions.