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!
stochastic-processes martingales local-martingales
add a comment |
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!
stochastic-processes martingales local-martingales
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
add a comment |
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!
stochastic-processes martingales local-martingales
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
stochastic-processes martingales local-martingales
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Wow thank you. That is amazing!
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 14:08
@TimBraun You are welcome.
– saz
Nov 25 at 14:09
add a comment |
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.
Wow thank you. That is amazing!
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 14:08
@TimBraun You are welcome.
– saz
Nov 25 at 14:09
add a comment |
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.
Wow thank you. That is amazing!
– Agnetha Timara
Nov 25 at 14:08
@TimBraun You are welcome.
– saz
Nov 25 at 14:09
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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