Martingale in probability and Statistics [duplicate]












0















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







share|cite|improve this 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.




















    0















    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







    share|cite|improve this 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.


















      0












      0








      0








      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







      share|cite|improve this question














      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      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.
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          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
          $$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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


















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          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
          $$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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
















          1














          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
          $$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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














          1












          1








          1






          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
          $$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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
          $$mathbb{P}(mathbb{E}(X_{n+1}| mathcal{F}_n) neq X_n) = mathbb{P}(bigcup_{n=1}^infty A_{1/n}) le sum_{n=1}^infty mathbb{P}(A_{1/n}) =0.$$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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


















          • 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



          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Image
          Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
          Read more

          In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
          Read more

          How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

          Image
          1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
          Read more