Show that this process is not a martingale











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have to show that the following process $(X_t)_{tin [0,infty)}$ is no martingale.



Let $Y_n$ be a sequence of independent random variables with
$$P(Y_n=n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=-n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=0)=1-frac{1}{n^2}.$$
We put
$$X_t=sum_{left{n,;, 1-tleq frac 1{n}right}} Y_nquadtext{for all } tgeq 0.$$



An ansatz would be to assume that is a martingale and then, by the fundamental theorem of local martingales, you can decompose $X$ as
$$X=A+B$$
where $A$ is a local martingale with bounded jumps and $B$ is a process of locally integrable variation.
But we have
$$sum_{{sleq t,:,Delta X_sgeq 1}}|Delta X_s|=infty,$$
which contradicts $B$ having integrable variation. But it does not necessarily contradict $B$ having locally integrable variation.



Any help is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
    – Makina
    Nov 24 at 21:15












  • Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 7:58















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have to show that the following process $(X_t)_{tin [0,infty)}$ is no martingale.



Let $Y_n$ be a sequence of independent random variables with
$$P(Y_n=n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=-n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=0)=1-frac{1}{n^2}.$$
We put
$$X_t=sum_{left{n,;, 1-tleq frac 1{n}right}} Y_nquadtext{for all } tgeq 0.$$



An ansatz would be to assume that is a martingale and then, by the fundamental theorem of local martingales, you can decompose $X$ as
$$X=A+B$$
where $A$ is a local martingale with bounded jumps and $B$ is a process of locally integrable variation.
But we have
$$sum_{{sleq t,:,Delta X_sgeq 1}}|Delta X_s|=infty,$$
which contradicts $B$ having integrable variation. But it does not necessarily contradict $B$ having locally integrable variation.



Any help is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
    – Makina
    Nov 24 at 21:15












  • Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 7:58













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I have to show that the following process $(X_t)_{tin [0,infty)}$ is no martingale.



Let $Y_n$ be a sequence of independent random variables with
$$P(Y_n=n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=-n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=0)=1-frac{1}{n^2}.$$
We put
$$X_t=sum_{left{n,;, 1-tleq frac 1{n}right}} Y_nquadtext{for all } tgeq 0.$$



An ansatz would be to assume that is a martingale and then, by the fundamental theorem of local martingales, you can decompose $X$ as
$$X=A+B$$
where $A$ is a local martingale with bounded jumps and $B$ is a process of locally integrable variation.
But we have
$$sum_{{sleq t,:,Delta X_sgeq 1}}|Delta X_s|=infty,$$
which contradicts $B$ having integrable variation. But it does not necessarily contradict $B$ having locally integrable variation.



Any help is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question















I have to show that the following process $(X_t)_{tin [0,infty)}$ is no martingale.



Let $Y_n$ be a sequence of independent random variables with
$$P(Y_n=n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=-n)=frac{1}{2n^2},quad P(Y_n=0)=1-frac{1}{n^2}.$$
We put
$$X_t=sum_{left{n,;, 1-tleq frac 1{n}right}} Y_nquadtext{for all } tgeq 0.$$



An ansatz would be to assume that is a martingale and then, by the fundamental theorem of local martingales, you can decompose $X$ as
$$X=A+B$$
where $A$ is a local martingale with bounded jumps and $B$ is a process of locally integrable variation.
But we have
$$sum_{{sleq t,:,Delta X_sgeq 1}}|Delta X_s|=infty,$$
which contradicts $B$ having integrable variation. But it does not necessarily contradict $B$ having locally integrable variation.



Any help is appreciated!







stochastic-processes martingales local-martingales






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 25 at 7:56

























asked Nov 24 at 20:50









Agnetha Timara

966




966












  • I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
    – Makina
    Nov 24 at 21:15












  • Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 7:58


















  • I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
    – Makina
    Nov 24 at 21:15












  • Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 7:58
















I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
– Makina
Nov 24 at 21:15






I might be wrong but one of the conditions (the integrability) is violated for $Y_n$. That is just from the get go really, without any splits
– Makina
Nov 24 at 21:15














Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 7:58




Sorry, I forgot. I added it.
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 7:58










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Set



$$S_k := sum_{n=1}^k Y_n.$$



Since



$$sum_{n geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_n neq 0) = sum_{n geq 1} frac{1}{n^2} < infty,$$



it follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma that for almost all $omega in Omega$ we have $Y_n(omega)=0$ for all $n geq N(omega)$ sufficiently large. This implies, in particular, that



$$S_{infty} := lim_{k to infty} S_k = sum_{n geq 1} Y_n$$



exists almost surely (as a pointwise limit).




Claim: $S_{infty}$ is not integrable. In particular, $(S_n)_{n in mathbb{N} cup {infty}}$ is not a martingale.




Proof: For $n in mathbb{N}$ define $$A_n := {Y_n = n} cap bigcap_{k neq n} {Y_k=0}.$$ Since $$a:=prod_{k geq 1} left(1- frac{1}{k^2} right) > 0,$$ it follows from the independence of the random variables $(Y_k)_{k in mathbb{N}}$ that $$ mathbb{P}(A_n) = mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k neq n} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0) geq mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0)= a frac{1}{2n^2}$$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. As the sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint, we find from the monotone converence theorem that $$begin{align*} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}|) geq mathbb{E} left(|S_{infty}| sum_{n in mathbb{N}} 1_{A_n} right) &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}| 1_{A_n}) \ &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n mathbb{P}(A_n) \ &geq a sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n frac{1}{2n^2} = infty end{align*}$$ which proves the assertion.



Finally, we note that by the very definition of $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$, it holds that



$$X_1 = sum_{n in mathbb{N}} Y_n = S_{infty};$$



since we have shown that $X_1$ fails to be integrable, the process $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$ is not a martingale.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Wow thank you. That is amazing!
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 14:08










  • @TimBraun You are welcome.
    – saz
    Nov 25 at 14:09











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012063%2fshow-that-this-process-is-not-a-martingale%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Set



$$S_k := sum_{n=1}^k Y_n.$$



Since



$$sum_{n geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_n neq 0) = sum_{n geq 1} frac{1}{n^2} < infty,$$



it follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma that for almost all $omega in Omega$ we have $Y_n(omega)=0$ for all $n geq N(omega)$ sufficiently large. This implies, in particular, that



$$S_{infty} := lim_{k to infty} S_k = sum_{n geq 1} Y_n$$



exists almost surely (as a pointwise limit).




Claim: $S_{infty}$ is not integrable. In particular, $(S_n)_{n in mathbb{N} cup {infty}}$ is not a martingale.




Proof: For $n in mathbb{N}$ define $$A_n := {Y_n = n} cap bigcap_{k neq n} {Y_k=0}.$$ Since $$a:=prod_{k geq 1} left(1- frac{1}{k^2} right) > 0,$$ it follows from the independence of the random variables $(Y_k)_{k in mathbb{N}}$ that $$ mathbb{P}(A_n) = mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k neq n} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0) geq mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0)= a frac{1}{2n^2}$$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. As the sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint, we find from the monotone converence theorem that $$begin{align*} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}|) geq mathbb{E} left(|S_{infty}| sum_{n in mathbb{N}} 1_{A_n} right) &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}| 1_{A_n}) \ &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n mathbb{P}(A_n) \ &geq a sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n frac{1}{2n^2} = infty end{align*}$$ which proves the assertion.



Finally, we note that by the very definition of $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$, it holds that



$$X_1 = sum_{n in mathbb{N}} Y_n = S_{infty};$$



since we have shown that $X_1$ fails to be integrable, the process $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$ is not a martingale.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Wow thank you. That is amazing!
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 14:08










  • @TimBraun You are welcome.
    – saz
    Nov 25 at 14:09















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Set



$$S_k := sum_{n=1}^k Y_n.$$



Since



$$sum_{n geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_n neq 0) = sum_{n geq 1} frac{1}{n^2} < infty,$$



it follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma that for almost all $omega in Omega$ we have $Y_n(omega)=0$ for all $n geq N(omega)$ sufficiently large. This implies, in particular, that



$$S_{infty} := lim_{k to infty} S_k = sum_{n geq 1} Y_n$$



exists almost surely (as a pointwise limit).




Claim: $S_{infty}$ is not integrable. In particular, $(S_n)_{n in mathbb{N} cup {infty}}$ is not a martingale.




Proof: For $n in mathbb{N}$ define $$A_n := {Y_n = n} cap bigcap_{k neq n} {Y_k=0}.$$ Since $$a:=prod_{k geq 1} left(1- frac{1}{k^2} right) > 0,$$ it follows from the independence of the random variables $(Y_k)_{k in mathbb{N}}$ that $$ mathbb{P}(A_n) = mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k neq n} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0) geq mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0)= a frac{1}{2n^2}$$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. As the sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint, we find from the monotone converence theorem that $$begin{align*} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}|) geq mathbb{E} left(|S_{infty}| sum_{n in mathbb{N}} 1_{A_n} right) &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}| 1_{A_n}) \ &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n mathbb{P}(A_n) \ &geq a sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n frac{1}{2n^2} = infty end{align*}$$ which proves the assertion.



Finally, we note that by the very definition of $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$, it holds that



$$X_1 = sum_{n in mathbb{N}} Y_n = S_{infty};$$



since we have shown that $X_1$ fails to be integrable, the process $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$ is not a martingale.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Wow thank you. That is amazing!
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 14:08










  • @TimBraun You are welcome.
    – saz
    Nov 25 at 14:09













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






Set



$$S_k := sum_{n=1}^k Y_n.$$



Since



$$sum_{n geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_n neq 0) = sum_{n geq 1} frac{1}{n^2} < infty,$$



it follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma that for almost all $omega in Omega$ we have $Y_n(omega)=0$ for all $n geq N(omega)$ sufficiently large. This implies, in particular, that



$$S_{infty} := lim_{k to infty} S_k = sum_{n geq 1} Y_n$$



exists almost surely (as a pointwise limit).




Claim: $S_{infty}$ is not integrable. In particular, $(S_n)_{n in mathbb{N} cup {infty}}$ is not a martingale.




Proof: For $n in mathbb{N}$ define $$A_n := {Y_n = n} cap bigcap_{k neq n} {Y_k=0}.$$ Since $$a:=prod_{k geq 1} left(1- frac{1}{k^2} right) > 0,$$ it follows from the independence of the random variables $(Y_k)_{k in mathbb{N}}$ that $$ mathbb{P}(A_n) = mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k neq n} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0) geq mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0)= a frac{1}{2n^2}$$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. As the sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint, we find from the monotone converence theorem that $$begin{align*} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}|) geq mathbb{E} left(|S_{infty}| sum_{n in mathbb{N}} 1_{A_n} right) &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}| 1_{A_n}) \ &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n mathbb{P}(A_n) \ &geq a sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n frac{1}{2n^2} = infty end{align*}$$ which proves the assertion.



Finally, we note that by the very definition of $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$, it holds that



$$X_1 = sum_{n in mathbb{N}} Y_n = S_{infty};$$



since we have shown that $X_1$ fails to be integrable, the process $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$ is not a martingale.






share|cite|improve this answer














Set



$$S_k := sum_{n=1}^k Y_n.$$



Since



$$sum_{n geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_n neq 0) = sum_{n geq 1} frac{1}{n^2} < infty,$$



it follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma that for almost all $omega in Omega$ we have $Y_n(omega)=0$ for all $n geq N(omega)$ sufficiently large. This implies, in particular, that



$$S_{infty} := lim_{k to infty} S_k = sum_{n geq 1} Y_n$$



exists almost surely (as a pointwise limit).




Claim: $S_{infty}$ is not integrable. In particular, $(S_n)_{n in mathbb{N} cup {infty}}$ is not a martingale.




Proof: For $n in mathbb{N}$ define $$A_n := {Y_n = n} cap bigcap_{k neq n} {Y_k=0}.$$ Since $$a:=prod_{k geq 1} left(1- frac{1}{k^2} right) > 0,$$ it follows from the independence of the random variables $(Y_k)_{k in mathbb{N}}$ that $$ mathbb{P}(A_n) = mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k neq n} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0) geq mathbb{P}(Y_n=n) prod_{k geq 1} mathbb{P}(Y_k=0)= a frac{1}{2n^2}$$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. As the sets $A_n$ are pairwise disjoint, we find from the monotone converence theorem that $$begin{align*} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}|) geq mathbb{E} left(|S_{infty}| sum_{n in mathbb{N}} 1_{A_n} right) &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} mathbb{E}(|S_{infty}| 1_{A_n}) \ &= sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n mathbb{P}(A_n) \ &geq a sum_{n in mathbb{N}} n frac{1}{2n^2} = infty end{align*}$$ which proves the assertion.



Finally, we note that by the very definition of $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$, it holds that



$$X_1 = sum_{n in mathbb{N}} Y_n = S_{infty};$$



since we have shown that $X_1$ fails to be integrable, the process $(X_t)_{t geq 0}$ is not a martingale.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 25 at 15:01

























answered Nov 25 at 13:02









saz

77k755118




77k755118












  • Wow thank you. That is amazing!
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 14:08










  • @TimBraun You are welcome.
    – saz
    Nov 25 at 14:09


















  • Wow thank you. That is amazing!
    – Agnetha Timara
    Nov 25 at 14:08










  • @TimBraun You are welcome.
    – saz
    Nov 25 at 14:09
















Wow thank you. That is amazing!
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 14:08




Wow thank you. That is amazing!
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 14:08












@TimBraun You are welcome.
– saz
Nov 25 at 14:09




@TimBraun You are welcome.
– saz
Nov 25 at 14:09


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012063%2fshow-that-this-process-is-not-a-martingale%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Berounka

Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

Sphinx de Gizeh