Martingale in probability and Statistics [duplicate]
This question already has an answer here:
Supermartingale with constant Expectation is a martingale
1 answer
Let $(X_n)$ be a supermartingale such that $EX_n$ is constant. show that $X_n$ is a martingale. My problem here in this question is how can I use the constant expectation concept given to prove the statement.
probability
marked as duplicate by Scientifica, Davide Giraudo, NCh, jgon, Paul Frost Dec 1 '18 at 0:10
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Supermartingale with constant Expectation is a martingale
1 answer
Let $(X_n)$ be a supermartingale such that $EX_n$ is constant. show that $X_n$ is a martingale. My problem here in this question is how can I use the constant expectation concept given to prove the statement.
probability
marked as duplicate by Scientifica, Davide Giraudo, NCh, jgon, Paul Frost Dec 1 '18 at 0:10
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Supermartingale with constant Expectation is a martingale
1 answer
Let $(X_n)$ be a supermartingale such that $EX_n$ is constant. show that $X_n$ is a martingale. My problem here in this question is how can I use the constant expectation concept given to prove the statement.
probability
This question already has an answer here:
Supermartingale with constant Expectation is a martingale
1 answer
Let $(X_n)$ be a supermartingale such that $EX_n$ is constant. show that $X_n$ is a martingale. My problem here in this question is how can I use the constant expectation concept given to prove the statement.
This question already has an answer here:
Supermartingale with constant Expectation is a martingale
1 answer
probability
probability
asked Nov 25 '18 at 17:01
Segni
354
354
marked as duplicate by Scientifica, Davide Giraudo, NCh, jgon, Paul Frost Dec 1 '18 at 0:10
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Scientifica, Davide Giraudo, NCh, jgon, Paul Frost Dec 1 '18 at 0:10
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
We have $mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) le X_n $, because $(X_n)_{n in mathbb{N}}$ is a supermartingale. Let $$A_varepsilon = { mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n)+varepsilon le X_n},$$
then
$$ int_{A_varepsilon} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P}+ varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) = int_{A_varepsilon} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} + varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
On the other hand
$$int_{A_varepsilon^c} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P} = int_{A_varepsilon^c} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
Adding both, we get
$$mathbb{E}[X_n]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le mathbb{E}[X_n].$$
Thus $mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =0$ for any $varepsilon >0$. Finally, by $sigma$-additivity we find that
$$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We have $mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) le X_n $, because $(X_n)_{n in mathbb{N}}$ is a supermartingale. Let $$A_varepsilon = { mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n)+varepsilon le X_n},$$
then
$$ int_{A_varepsilon} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P}+ varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) = int_{A_varepsilon} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} + varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
On the other hand
$$int_{A_varepsilon^c} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P} = int_{A_varepsilon^c} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
Adding both, we get
$$mathbb{E}[X_n]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le mathbb{E}[X_n].$$
Thus $mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =0$ for any $varepsilon >0$. Finally, by $sigma$-additivity we find that
$$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
add a comment |
We have $mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) le X_n $, because $(X_n)_{n in mathbb{N}}$ is a supermartingale. Let $$A_varepsilon = { mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n)+varepsilon le X_n},$$
then
$$ int_{A_varepsilon} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P}+ varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) = int_{A_varepsilon} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} + varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
On the other hand
$$int_{A_varepsilon^c} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P} = int_{A_varepsilon^c} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
Adding both, we get
$$mathbb{E}[X_n]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le mathbb{E}[X_n].$$
Thus $mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =0$ for any $varepsilon >0$. Finally, by $sigma$-additivity we find that
$$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
add a comment |
We have $mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) le X_n $, because $(X_n)_{n in mathbb{N}}$ is a supermartingale. Let $$A_varepsilon = { mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n)+varepsilon le X_n},$$
then
$$ int_{A_varepsilon} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P}+ varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) = int_{A_varepsilon} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} + varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
On the other hand
$$int_{A_varepsilon^c} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P} = int_{A_varepsilon^c} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
Adding both, we get
$$mathbb{E}[X_n]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le mathbb{E}[X_n].$$
Thus $mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =0$ for any $varepsilon >0$. Finally, by $sigma$-additivity we find that
$$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$
We have $mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) le X_n $, because $(X_n)_{n in mathbb{N}}$ is a supermartingale. Let $$A_varepsilon = { mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n)+varepsilon le X_n},$$
then
$$ int_{A_varepsilon} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P}+ varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) = int_{A_varepsilon} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} + varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
On the other hand
$$int_{A_varepsilon^c} X_{n+1} , d mathbb{P} = int_{A_varepsilon^c} mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) , d mathbb{P} le int_{A_varepsilon} X_n , d mathbb{P}.$$
Adding both, we get
$$mathbb{E}[X_n]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]+varepsilon mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) le mathbb{E}[X_n].$$
Thus $mathbb{P}(A_varepsilon) =0$ for any $varepsilon >0$. Finally, by $sigma$-additivity we find that
$$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$
edited Nov 25 '18 at 22:04
answered Nov 25 '18 at 17:13
p4sch
4,760217
4,760217
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
add a comment |
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
Already in the first line you have mistook the property of a submartingale for a supermartingale.
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 21:30
1
1
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
I always mix up 'submartingale' and 'supermartingale'. However, it does not matter, since we can replace $(X_n)_n$ by $(-X_n)_n$ and vica versa. I changed the proof for the case of supermartingales. (The requiered changes are more than obvious!)
– p4sch
Nov 25 '18 at 22:06
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
you might like this little mnemonic from D. Williams book, “supermartingales decrease on average, submartingales increase on average—the ‘p’ in supermartingale points down, and the ‘b’ in submartingale points up!”
– LoveTooNap29
Nov 25 '18 at 22:36
add a comment |