Probability that a Brownian Motion in R2 hits a line through the origin.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $B_t=(B_t^1,B_t^2)$ be a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$. I wish to show that $P[B_t^2=0, tin(0,epsilon)]=1$ for all $epsilon$; that is, a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$ will always hit a line through the origin in some short time. For context, this is part of an attempted solution for Exercise 9.7c in Oksendal's SDE book, 6th edition.
My reason for believing this is that I know that one-dimensional Brownian motion equals zero infinitely many times in a short time interval, but I'm not sure how to adapt this.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
probability stochastic-processes stochastic-calculus brownian-motion
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $B_t=(B_t^1,B_t^2)$ be a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$. I wish to show that $P[B_t^2=0, tin(0,epsilon)]=1$ for all $epsilon$; that is, a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$ will always hit a line through the origin in some short time. For context, this is part of an attempted solution for Exercise 9.7c in Oksendal's SDE book, 6th edition.
My reason for believing this is that I know that one-dimensional Brownian motion equals zero infinitely many times in a short time interval, but I'm not sure how to adapt this.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
probability stochastic-processes stochastic-calculus brownian-motion
3
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
1
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $B_t=(B_t^1,B_t^2)$ be a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$. I wish to show that $P[B_t^2=0, tin(0,epsilon)]=1$ for all $epsilon$; that is, a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$ will always hit a line through the origin in some short time. For context, this is part of an attempted solution for Exercise 9.7c in Oksendal's SDE book, 6th edition.
My reason for believing this is that I know that one-dimensional Brownian motion equals zero infinitely many times in a short time interval, but I'm not sure how to adapt this.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
probability stochastic-processes stochastic-calculus brownian-motion
Let $B_t=(B_t^1,B_t^2)$ be a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$. I wish to show that $P[B_t^2=0, tin(0,epsilon)]=1$ for all $epsilon$; that is, a Brownian motion in $mathbbR^2$ will always hit a line through the origin in some short time. For context, this is part of an attempted solution for Exercise 9.7c in Oksendal's SDE book, 6th edition.
My reason for believing this is that I know that one-dimensional Brownian motion equals zero infinitely many times in a short time interval, but I'm not sure how to adapt this.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
probability stochastic-processes stochastic-calculus brownian-motion
asked Aug 1 at 23:34
liplo
363
363
3
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
1
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44
add a comment |Â
3
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
1
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44
3
3
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
1
1
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2869603%2fprobability-that-a-brownian-motion-in-r2-hits-a-line-through-the-origin%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
3
If $B_t^1$ and $B_t^2$ are independent, can you just ignore $B_t^1$ and reduce this to the one-dimensional case?
– Henry
Aug 1 at 23:37
1
Henry's comment + the fact that the whole thing is rotationally invariant will give you the answer. (i.e. you can construct another BM from these that has the same distributions but one direction is perpendicular to your line (and the other parallel))
– E-A
Aug 1 at 23:41
Duh! Little embarrassed that I didn't realize this myself. Thanks!
– liplo
Aug 1 at 23:44