Local time and $int_0^t operatornamesgn(B_t-x),dB_t$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I would like to compute the expectation of the stopped local time $L_t^x$ with underlying Brownian Motion $B_t$ with $B_0=x$. Set



$T_a=inf s geq 0 mid B_s=a$
with $y<x<a$.



The target of interest is
$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$. I would like apply optional stopping theorem. We have by Tanaka's Formula
$$|B_t-y|-|B_0-y|=int_0^t operatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s+L_t^y.$$



But for this I have to prove $int_0^T_a operatornamesgn(B_t-y),dB_t$ is bounded.



Nevertheless assuming this. We obtain
$|a-y|-|x-y|=mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$.



We have:
$|a-y|-|x-y|=a-y-|x-y|=a-x$.



So I'm not very sure about this computation. Thanks for every comment



There is some other Question which arises. If we have the case $x<y<a$ we would obtain



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=a+x-2y$. For example for $x=0$ and $y=a3/4$ we get



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=-a/2$



so there is a contradiction. But where is the mistake?



It seems the assumption fails.
So how one can handle
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?.



It is quite strange here I used the same
expectation of stopped local time
and the result was true.



I know the Formula expectation of stopped local time
holds true nevertheless my mistake (see site 171, Diffusion process and their sample path).
Now let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, dominated convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$
By the way.
I hope this computation is on the right way.
I need this to compute the walk Dimension for gap diffusions.




probability stochastic-calculus brownian-motion martingales




share|cite|improve this question





















  • Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 24 at 12:28










  • In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 25 at 0:25














up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I would like to compute the expectation of the stopped local time $L_t^x$ with underlying Brownian Motion $B_t$ with $B_0=x$. Set



$T_a=inf s geq 0 mid B_s=a$
with $y<x<a$.



The target of interest is
$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$. I would like apply optional stopping theorem. We have by Tanaka's Formula
$$|B_t-y|-|B_0-y|=int_0^t operatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s+L_t^y.$$



But for this I have to prove $int_0^T_a operatornamesgn(B_t-y),dB_t$ is bounded.



Nevertheless assuming this. We obtain
$|a-y|-|x-y|=mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$.



We have:
$|a-y|-|x-y|=a-y-|x-y|=a-x$.



So I'm not very sure about this computation. Thanks for every comment



There is some other Question which arises. If we have the case $x<y<a$ we would obtain



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=a+x-2y$. For example for $x=0$ and $y=a3/4$ we get



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=-a/2$



so there is a contradiction. But where is the mistake?



It seems the assumption fails.
So how one can handle
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?.



It is quite strange here I used the same
expectation of stopped local time
and the result was true.



I know the Formula expectation of stopped local time
holds true nevertheless my mistake (see site 171, Diffusion process and their sample path).
Now let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, dominated convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$
By the way.
I hope this computation is on the right way.
I need this to compute the walk Dimension for gap diffusions.




probability stochastic-calculus brownian-motion martingales




share|cite|improve this question





















  • Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 24 at 12:28










  • In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 25 at 0:25












up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I would like to compute the expectation of the stopped local time $L_t^x$ with underlying Brownian Motion $B_t$ with $B_0=x$. Set



$T_a=inf s geq 0 mid B_s=a$
with $y<x<a$.



The target of interest is
$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$. I would like apply optional stopping theorem. We have by Tanaka's Formula
$$|B_t-y|-|B_0-y|=int_0^t operatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s+L_t^y.$$



But for this I have to prove $int_0^T_a operatornamesgn(B_t-y),dB_t$ is bounded.



Nevertheless assuming this. We obtain
$|a-y|-|x-y|=mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$.



We have:
$|a-y|-|x-y|=a-y-|x-y|=a-x$.



So I'm not very sure about this computation. Thanks for every comment



There is some other Question which arises. If we have the case $x<y<a$ we would obtain



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=a+x-2y$. For example for $x=0$ and $y=a3/4$ we get



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=-a/2$



so there is a contradiction. But where is the mistake?



It seems the assumption fails.
So how one can handle
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?.



It is quite strange here I used the same
expectation of stopped local time
and the result was true.



I know the Formula expectation of stopped local time
holds true nevertheless my mistake (see site 171, Diffusion process and their sample path).
Now let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, dominated convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$
By the way.
I hope this computation is on the right way.
I need this to compute the walk Dimension for gap diffusions.




probability stochastic-calculus brownian-motion martingales




share|cite|improve this question













I would like to compute the expectation of the stopped local time $L_t^x$ with underlying Brownian Motion $B_t$ with $B_0=x$. Set



$T_a=inf s geq 0 mid B_s=a$
with $y<x<a$.



The target of interest is
$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$. I would like apply optional stopping theorem. We have by Tanaka's Formula
$$|B_t-y|-|B_0-y|=int_0^t operatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s+L_t^y.$$



But for this I have to prove $int_0^T_a operatornamesgn(B_t-y),dB_t$ is bounded.



Nevertheless assuming this. We obtain
$|a-y|-|x-y|=mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]$.



We have:
$|a-y|-|x-y|=a-y-|x-y|=a-x$.



So I'm not very sure about this computation. Thanks for every comment



There is some other Question which arises. If we have the case $x<y<a$ we would obtain



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=a+x-2y$. For example for $x=0$ and $y=a3/4$ we get



$mathbbE_x[L_T_a^y]=-a/2$



so there is a contradiction. But where is the mistake?



It seems the assumption fails.
So how one can handle
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?.



It is quite strange here I used the same
expectation of stopped local time
and the result was true.



I know the Formula expectation of stopped local time
holds true nevertheless my mistake (see site 171, Diffusion process and their sample path).
Now let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, dominated convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$
By the way.
I hope this computation is on the right way.
I need this to compute the walk Dimension for gap diffusions.





probability stochastic-calculus brownian-motion martingales





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 23 at 14:44
























asked Jul 22 at 16:00









Dr. NIemann

605




605











  • Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 24 at 12:28










  • In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 25 at 0:25
















  • Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 24 at 12:28










  • In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 25 at 0:25















Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
– zhoraster
Jul 24 at 12:28




Instead of editing the question, it is better to post this as an answer to your own question (which is very normal). Also you should let $bto-infty$, not $a$; this would give $mathbb E_x [L_y^T_a] = 2(a-x)$, which is not unexpected at all.
– zhoraster
Jul 24 at 12:28












In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 25 at 0:25




In my answer I change the order of $a$ and $x$ my bad.
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 25 at 0:25










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Because the integrand is bounded, the stochastic intergal is uniformly integrable. So $int_0^T_aoperatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s$ has mean zero. The rest of your computation is fine.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
    – Did
    Jul 23 at 10:54










  • So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:03










  • Not, it is not.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 23 at 11:06










  • Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:08







  • 1




    Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
    – John Dawkins
    Jul 24 at 17:31

















up vote
0
down vote













Let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, monotone convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 27 at 4:13










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: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2859527%2flocal-time-and-int-0t-operatornamesgnb-t-x-db-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Because the integrand is bounded, the stochastic intergal is uniformly integrable. So $int_0^T_aoperatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s$ has mean zero. The rest of your computation is fine.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
    – Did
    Jul 23 at 10:54










  • So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:03










  • Not, it is not.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 23 at 11:06










  • Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:08







  • 1




    Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
    – John Dawkins
    Jul 24 at 17:31














up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Because the integrand is bounded, the stochastic intergal is uniformly integrable. So $int_0^T_aoperatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s$ has mean zero. The rest of your computation is fine.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
    – Did
    Jul 23 at 10:54










  • So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:03










  • Not, it is not.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 23 at 11:06










  • Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:08







  • 1




    Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
    – John Dawkins
    Jul 24 at 17:31












up vote
0
down vote



accepted







up vote
0
down vote



accepted






Because the integrand is bounded, the stochastic intergal is uniformly integrable. So $int_0^T_aoperatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s$ has mean zero. The rest of your computation is fine.






share|cite|improve this answer













Because the integrand is bounded, the stochastic intergal is uniformly integrable. So $int_0^T_aoperatornamesgn(B_s-y),dB_s$ has mean zero. The rest of your computation is fine.







share|cite|improve this answer













share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer











answered Jul 22 at 17:19









John Dawkins

12.5k1917




12.5k1917







  • 2




    Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
    – Did
    Jul 23 at 10:54










  • So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:03










  • Not, it is not.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 23 at 11:06










  • Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:08







  • 1




    Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
    – John Dawkins
    Jul 24 at 17:31












  • 2




    Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
    – Did
    Jul 23 at 10:54










  • So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:03










  • Not, it is not.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 23 at 11:06










  • Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
    – Dr. NIemann
    Jul 23 at 11:08







  • 1




    Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
    – John Dawkins
    Jul 24 at 17:31







2




2




Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
– Did
Jul 23 at 10:54




Hmmm... The same reasoning would "prove" that $a=E_y(B_T_a)=y$, which is obviously untrue.
– Did
Jul 23 at 10:54












So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 23 at 11:03




So It is not a uniform integrable martingal?
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 23 at 11:03












Not, it is not.
– zhoraster
Jul 23 at 11:06




Not, it is not.
– zhoraster
Jul 23 at 11:06












Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 23 at 11:08





Ok, this will explain the contradiction. Is there an other way to handle $mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]$?
– Dr. NIemann
Jul 23 at 11:08





1




1




Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
– John Dawkins
Jul 24 at 17:31




Replace $T_a$ by $R_n:=min( T_a, T_z,n)$, where $z$ is far to the left of $y$. and take expectations: $$ Bbb E^x[|B_R_n-y|] -|x-y| = Bbb E^x[L^y_R_n]. $$ The right side of this converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $Bbb E^x[L^y_min(T_a, T_z)]$ by monotone convergence. The left side converges, as $ntoinfty$, to $|a-y|cdot Bbb P^x[T_a<T_z]+|z-y|cdotBbb P^x[T_z<T_a]-|x-y|$ by dominated convergence. From the well-known formula for hitting probabilities, this is equal to $$ |a-y|cdotx-zover a-z+|z-y|cdota-xover a-z-|x-y|. $$ Finally, let $zto-infty$.
– John Dawkins
Jul 24 at 17:31










up vote
0
down vote













Let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, monotone convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 27 at 4:13














up vote
0
down vote













Let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, monotone convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 27 at 4:13












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, monotone convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$






share|cite|improve this answer















Let $a <x<y<b$ then we have



$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a) leq mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a ] $



because the local time is increasing.
Now, we have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]
=2 dfrac(x-a)(b-y)(b-a)= 2 dfracb(x-a)(1-y/b)b(1-a/b)= 2 dfrac(x-a)(1-y/b)(1-a/b) rightarrow 2 (x-a)$
for $b rightarrow infty$.
Now, the continuity of the local time, monotone convergence one obtains
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a]=2(x-a)$.



We also have
$mathbbE_x[L_y^T_a wedge T_b]=2 dfraca(x/a-1)(b-y)a(b/a-1) =2 dfrac(x/a-1)(b-y)(b/a-1) rightarrow 2(b-y)$ for $a rightarrow -infty$.
This leads to
$mathbbE_x[L_y^ T_b]=2(b-y)$







share|cite|improve this answer















share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jul 25 at 0:10


























answered Jul 25 at 0:02









Dr. NIemann

605




605











  • Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 27 at 4:13
















  • Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
    – zhoraster
    Jul 27 at 4:13















Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
– zhoraster
Jul 27 at 4:13




Yes, but in OP, you have $y<x$. With this, the numerator would be $(y-a)(b-x)$, and the limit would become $2(b-x)$.
– zhoraster
Jul 27 at 4:13












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2859527%2flocal-time-and-int-0t-operatornamesgnb-t-x-db-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
Read more

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
Read more