If $X_i$ where $i=1,2,\dots,n$ is a random independent sample from $\textrm{Beta(1,0)}$ having the pdf $f_X(x \mid \theta) = \theta x^{\theta-1}, 0 < x < 1$ and transform this random variable as $Y = -\ln{X}$, I'd like to show using purely the definition of sufficiency that $\sum_i^n Y_i$ is a sufficient statistic for $\theta$.
This is very easy to do using Fisher-Neymann Factorization, but I'd prefer to show that the ratio $\frac{\Pr(X=x)}{\Pr(T(X)=t)}$ does not depend on $\theta$.
Here is what I have so far:
I have verified that $X$ is a member of the single parameter exponential family by rewriting the pdf and using the transformation method, I've computed the pdf of $Y$ as $f_Y(y \mid \theta) = \theta e^{-\theta y}$.
I note that the above pdf signifies that $Y \sim \textrm{exp}(\theta)$. Setting $T = \sum_i^n Y$ and using the moment generating function of the exponential distribution, we have that $M_Z(t) = \prod_i^n M_{Y_i}$ and from this, we see that $T \sim \textrm{Gamma}(n, \theta)$. Now taking the ratio of the pdf's, we have:
$\frac{\Pr(X=x)}{\Pr(T(X)=t)} = \frac{\prod_i f_{X_i}}{f_T} = \frac{\theta^n (\prod_i^n x_i)^{\theta-1}}{\frac{\theta^n}{\Gamma(n)}t^{n-1} e^{-t/\theta}}$
Obviously, the $\theta^n$ terms cancel and I can use the fact that I know $t = -\sum_i \ln{x_i} = -\ln{(\prod_i x_i)}$ to get everything in terms of the same variable, but I can't seem to get rid of the other $\theta$ terms. Is this the right math to be doing?