Stochastic version of the Radon-Nikodým theorem

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











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let



  • $(Omega,mathcal A,operatorname P)$ be a probability space

  • $T>0$

  • $I:=(0,T]$

  • $(mathcal F_t)_tinoverline I$ be a filtration on $(Omega,mathcal A)$

  • $mathcal P$ denote the predictable $sigma$-algebra on $Omegatimesoverline I$

  • $A:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ be $mathcal Aotimesmathcal B(overline I)$-measurable such that $A_0(omega)=0$ and $A(omega)$ is continuous and of bounded variation for all $omegainOmega$ and $$operatorname Eleft[|A|_Tright]<inftytag1,$$ where $|A(omega)|$ denotes the total variation function of $A(omega)$ for $omegainOmega$

  • $B:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ satisfy all assumptions imposed on $A$ and assume that $B(omega)$ is nondecreasing for all $omegainOmega$

Assume $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dA=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin Itag1$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ with $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dB=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin I.tag2$$



Now, let $$mu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dAright]$$ and $$nu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dBright]$$ for $Pinmathcal P$. By assumption, $mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $nu$ and hence the Radon-Nikodým derivative $$alpha:=fracrm dmurm dnu$$ is well-defined and $mathcal P$-measurable with $$operatorname Eleft[int|alpha|:rm dBright]<inftytag3$$ and $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dBright]=intxi:rm dmu=intalphaxi:rm dnutag4$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$.




Let $$M:=A-intalpha:rm dB$$ and note that $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dMright]=0tag5$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$. Why does $(5)$ yield that $M$ is an $mathcal F$-martingale?





probability-theory stochastic-processes martingales stochastic-analysis radon-nikodym




share|cite|improve this question























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Let



    • $(Omega,mathcal A,operatorname P)$ be a probability space

    • $T>0$

    • $I:=(0,T]$

    • $(mathcal F_t)_tinoverline I$ be a filtration on $(Omega,mathcal A)$

    • $mathcal P$ denote the predictable $sigma$-algebra on $Omegatimesoverline I$

    • $A:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ be $mathcal Aotimesmathcal B(overline I)$-measurable such that $A_0(omega)=0$ and $A(omega)$ is continuous and of bounded variation for all $omegainOmega$ and $$operatorname Eleft[|A|_Tright]<inftytag1,$$ where $|A(omega)|$ denotes the total variation function of $A(omega)$ for $omegainOmega$

    • $B:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ satisfy all assumptions imposed on $A$ and assume that $B(omega)$ is nondecreasing for all $omegainOmega$

    Assume $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dA=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin Itag1$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ with $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dB=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin I.tag2$$



    Now, let $$mu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dAright]$$ and $$nu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dBright]$$ for $Pinmathcal P$. By assumption, $mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $nu$ and hence the Radon-Nikodým derivative $$alpha:=fracrm dmurm dnu$$ is well-defined and $mathcal P$-measurable with $$operatorname Eleft[int|alpha|:rm dBright]<inftytag3$$ and $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dBright]=intxi:rm dmu=intalphaxi:rm dnutag4$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$.




    Let $$M:=A-intalpha:rm dB$$ and note that $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dMright]=0tag5$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$. Why does $(5)$ yield that $M$ is an $mathcal F$-martingale?





    probability-theory stochastic-processes martingales stochastic-analysis radon-nikodym




    share|cite|improve this question





















      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Let



      • $(Omega,mathcal A,operatorname P)$ be a probability space

      • $T>0$

      • $I:=(0,T]$

      • $(mathcal F_t)_tinoverline I$ be a filtration on $(Omega,mathcal A)$

      • $mathcal P$ denote the predictable $sigma$-algebra on $Omegatimesoverline I$

      • $A:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ be $mathcal Aotimesmathcal B(overline I)$-measurable such that $A_0(omega)=0$ and $A(omega)$ is continuous and of bounded variation for all $omegainOmega$ and $$operatorname Eleft[|A|_Tright]<inftytag1,$$ where $|A(omega)|$ denotes the total variation function of $A(omega)$ for $omegainOmega$

      • $B:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ satisfy all assumptions imposed on $A$ and assume that $B(omega)$ is nondecreasing for all $omegainOmega$

      Assume $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dA=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin Itag1$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ with $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dB=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin I.tag2$$



      Now, let $$mu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dAright]$$ and $$nu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dBright]$$ for $Pinmathcal P$. By assumption, $mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $nu$ and hence the Radon-Nikodým derivative $$alpha:=fracrm dmurm dnu$$ is well-defined and $mathcal P$-measurable with $$operatorname Eleft[int|alpha|:rm dBright]<inftytag3$$ and $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dBright]=intxi:rm dmu=intalphaxi:rm dnutag4$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$.




      Let $$M:=A-intalpha:rm dB$$ and note that $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dMright]=0tag5$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$. Why does $(5)$ yield that $M$ is an $mathcal F$-martingale?





      probability-theory stochastic-processes martingales stochastic-analysis radon-nikodym




      share|cite|improve this question











      Let



      • $(Omega,mathcal A,operatorname P)$ be a probability space

      • $T>0$

      • $I:=(0,T]$

      • $(mathcal F_t)_tinoverline I$ be a filtration on $(Omega,mathcal A)$

      • $mathcal P$ denote the predictable $sigma$-algebra on $Omegatimesoverline I$

      • $A:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ be $mathcal Aotimesmathcal B(overline I)$-measurable such that $A_0(omega)=0$ and $A(omega)$ is continuous and of bounded variation for all $omegainOmega$ and $$operatorname Eleft[|A|_Tright]<inftytag1,$$ where $|A(omega)|$ denotes the total variation function of $A(omega)$ for $omegainOmega$

      • $B:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ satisfy all assumptions imposed on $A$ and assume that $B(omega)$ is nondecreasing for all $omegainOmega$

      Assume $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dA=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin Itag1$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$ with $$int_(0,:t]xi:rm dB=0;;;textalmost surely for all tin I.tag2$$



      Now, let $$mu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dAright]$$ and $$nu(P):=operatorname Eleft[int1_P:rm dBright]$$ for $Pinmathcal P$. By assumption, $mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $nu$ and hence the Radon-Nikodým derivative $$alpha:=fracrm dmurm dnu$$ is well-defined and $mathcal P$-measurable with $$operatorname Eleft[int|alpha|:rm dBright]<inftytag3$$ and $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dBright]=intxi:rm dmu=intalphaxi:rm dnutag4$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$.




      Let $$M:=A-intalpha:rm dB$$ and note that $$operatorname Eleft[intxi:rm dMright]=0tag5$$ for all bounded nonnegative $mathcal P$-measurable $xi:Omegatimesoverline Itomathbb R$. Why does $(5)$ yield that $M$ is an $mathcal F$-martingale?






      probability-theory stochastic-processes martingales stochastic-analysis radon-nikodym





      share|cite|improve this question










      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question









      asked Aug 5 at 22:46









      0xbadf00d

      2,04141028




      2,04141028




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Fix $s leq t$. For fixed $F in mathcalF_s$ the process



          $$xi(u,omega) := 1_F(omega) 1_(s,t](u)$$



          is bounded, non-negative and progressively measurable. By assumption, this implies that



          $$mathbbE left( int xi , dM right)=0$$



          which means that



          $$mathbbE(1_F (M_t-M_s)) =0.$$



          Since $F in mathcalF_s$ is arbitrary, this is equivalent to saying that



          $$mathbbE(M_t-M_s mid mathcalF_s)=0,$$



          and so $(M_t,mathcalF_t)_t geq 0$ is a martingale.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
            – 0xbadf00d
            Aug 8 at 20:27










          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%2f2873406%2fstochastic-version-of-the-radon-nikod%25c3%25bdm-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest

















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Fix $s leq t$. For fixed $F in mathcalF_s$ the process



          $$xi(u,omega) := 1_F(omega) 1_(s,t](u)$$



          is bounded, non-negative and progressively measurable. By assumption, this implies that



          $$mathbbE left( int xi , dM right)=0$$



          which means that



          $$mathbbE(1_F (M_t-M_s)) =0.$$



          Since $F in mathcalF_s$ is arbitrary, this is equivalent to saying that



          $$mathbbE(M_t-M_s mid mathcalF_s)=0,$$



          and so $(M_t,mathcalF_t)_t geq 0$ is a martingale.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
            – 0xbadf00d
            Aug 8 at 20:27














          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Fix $s leq t$. For fixed $F in mathcalF_s$ the process



          $$xi(u,omega) := 1_F(omega) 1_(s,t](u)$$



          is bounded, non-negative and progressively measurable. By assumption, this implies that



          $$mathbbE left( int xi , dM right)=0$$



          which means that



          $$mathbbE(1_F (M_t-M_s)) =0.$$



          Since $F in mathcalF_s$ is arbitrary, this is equivalent to saying that



          $$mathbbE(M_t-M_s mid mathcalF_s)=0,$$



          and so $(M_t,mathcalF_t)_t geq 0$ is a martingale.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
            – 0xbadf00d
            Aug 8 at 20:27












          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Fix $s leq t$. For fixed $F in mathcalF_s$ the process



          $$xi(u,omega) := 1_F(omega) 1_(s,t](u)$$



          is bounded, non-negative and progressively measurable. By assumption, this implies that



          $$mathbbE left( int xi , dM right)=0$$



          which means that



          $$mathbbE(1_F (M_t-M_s)) =0.$$



          Since $F in mathcalF_s$ is arbitrary, this is equivalent to saying that



          $$mathbbE(M_t-M_s mid mathcalF_s)=0,$$



          and so $(M_t,mathcalF_t)_t geq 0$ is a martingale.






          share|cite|improve this answer













          Fix $s leq t$. For fixed $F in mathcalF_s$ the process



          $$xi(u,omega) := 1_F(omega) 1_(s,t](u)$$



          is bounded, non-negative and progressively measurable. By assumption, this implies that



          $$mathbbE left( int xi , dM right)=0$$



          which means that



          $$mathbbE(1_F (M_t-M_s)) =0.$$



          Since $F in mathcalF_s$ is arbitrary, this is equivalent to saying that



          $$mathbbE(M_t-M_s mid mathcalF_s)=0,$$



          and so $(M_t,mathcalF_t)_t geq 0$ is a martingale.







          share|cite|improve this answer













          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer











          answered Aug 7 at 17:56









          saz

          73k552112




          73k552112











          • Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
            – 0xbadf00d
            Aug 8 at 20:27
















          • Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
            – 0xbadf00d
            Aug 8 at 20:27















          Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
          – 0xbadf00d
          Aug 8 at 20:27




          Oops, that was trivial. Thank you for answer, anyway. I've got a related question. Maybe you can help there too.
          – 0xbadf00d
          Aug 8 at 20:27












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2873406%2fstochastic-version-of-the-radon-nikod%25c3%25bdm-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest
































































          Comments

          Post a Comment

          Popular posts from this blog

          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

          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/… – Hector Blandin Nov 17 &
          Read more

          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