7
$\begingroup$

Given a one-parametric random function on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$:

$X:U\times\Omega\to \mathbb R \text{ and } (a,w)\mapsto X(a,w), \text{ with } \sigma(X(a))\subseteq \mathcal F\quad\quad\forall a\in U\subseteq\mathbb R, $

Then the following holds:

$E\left[\sup\limits_{a\in U}X(a)\right]=\sup\Bigr\lbrace E\left[X(A)\right]\Bigr|\sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal F},\;A(\omega)\in U\Bigr\rbrace$ and also $E\left[\sup\limits_{a\in U}X(a)\right]=\sup\Bigr\lbrace E\left[X(A)\right]\Bigr|\sigma(A)\subseteq{\bigcup\limits_{a\in U}\sigma(X(a))},\;A(\omega)\in U\Bigr\rbrace$

Proof:

The following holds trivially:

$E[X(A)]\le E[\sup_{a\in U} X(a)]$

it remains to show the other direction. This is done by applying zhoraster's answer:

Clearly, $M(\omega) = \sup_{a\in U} X(a,w)$ is $\mathcal F$-measurable.

Define for $\delta>0$

$\mathfrak A_\delta = \lbrace(a,\omega)\in U\times \Omega\mid X(a,w) >M(\omega)-\delta\rbrace$

This set is in $\mathcal B(\mathbb R)\otimes \mathcal F_t$, and it has a full projection onto $\Omega$. By a measurable selection theorem (which I think one can find in Bogachev Measure Theory) there is an $\mathcal F$-measurable $A_\delta$ such that $(A_\delta(\omega),\omega)\in\mathfrak A_\delta$ almost surely. Hence $E[X(A_\delta)]≥E[M(\omega)]−\delta$. We get the desired statement by letting $\delta\to 0$.

(One can also use Kuratowski--Ryll-Nardzewski theorem to prove the existence of a measurable $A_\delta$.)

After a very good answer of zhoraster, I realized, that my initial question was a mixup of several different things. Thats why I changed it community wiki and clearified the problem.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Looks good, I don't see a mistake. $\endgroup$
    – zhoraster
    Dec 8, 2010 at 10:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Johannes @zhoraster Sorry to be late at the party but I am afraid I do not understand what is going on. Let me stick to the (apparently) definitive version of Johannes' post, above this comment. One starts with $U\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ and with a family $(X_a)$ of real valued random variables $X_a:(\Omega,\mathcal{F})\to(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}))$, indexed by $a\in U$, and one introduces $M=\sup_{a\in U}X_a$. I wonder why $M$ should be measurable in the first place, clearly or not. :-) .../... $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Feb 15, 2011 at 13:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ .../... Assume for instance that $\Omega\subseteq U$ and fix $V\subset\Omega$. Define the family $(X_a)$ by $X_a(\omega)=1$ if $a\in V$ and $\omega=a$, and $X_a(\omega)=0$ otherwise. Then $M(\omega)=1$ if $\omega\in V$ and $M(\omega)=0$ otherwise, hence $M=\mathbf{1}_V$ and, since $V$ can be any subset of $\Omega$, it may well happen that $M:(\Omega,\mathcal{F})\to(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}))$ is not measurable. If you could explain what I miss, I would be grateful. $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Feb 15, 2011 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Johannes: Not interested in answering the question in my comment? Let me recall it: why should $M$ be measurable? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jun 19, 2011 at 10:40
  • $\begingroup$ @zhoraster: Not interested in answering the question in my comment? Let me recall it: in the first line of your answer, why should $M$ be measurable? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jun 19, 2011 at 10:42

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Clearly, $M(\omega) = \sup_{a\in U} g(a,S_t)$ is $\mathcal F_t$-measurable.

Define for $\delta>0$ $$ \mathfrak A_\delta = \{(a,\omega)\in U\times \Omega\mid g(a,\omega)>M(\omega)-\delta\} $$ This set is in $\mathcal B(\mathbb R)\otimes \mathcal F_t$, and it has a full projection onto $\Omega$. By a measurable selection theorem (which I think one can find in Bogachev Measure Theory) there is an $\mathcal F_t$-measurable $A_\delta$ such that $(A_\delta(\omega),\omega)\in \mathfrak A_\delta$ almost surely. Hence $E[g(A_\delta,S_t)]\ge E[M(\omega)]-\delta$. We get the desired statement by letting $\delta\to 0$.

(One can also use Kuratowski--Ryll-Nardzewski theorem to prove the existence of a measurable $A_\delta$.)

UPD: This is perhaps wrong (I just noticed Did's comment).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This looks like it would also work for non-markovian processes $S$ and more general $f$, with arbitrary dependence on the path of $S$. Do you agree that your argument can also be used to show: $E\left[\sup\limits_{a\in U}E\left[f(a,\lbrace S\rbrace)\Bigr|\mathcal F_t\right]\right]=\sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal F_t},\;A(\omega)\in U}E\left[f(A,\lbrace S\rbrace)\right]$ $\endgroup$
    – Johannes
    Dec 4, 2010 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ I would say, that the Markov property of $S$ would further imply that it sufficies to take the supremum over $\left\lbrace A|\sigma(A)\subseteq\sigma(S_t)\right\rbrace$ $\endgroup$
    – Johannes
    Dec 4, 2010 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right. Don't see the reason why it shouldn't work for a non-Markov process (though I didn't check thoroughly). $\endgroup$
    – zhoraster
    Dec 4, 2010 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ I changed the original question and included your answer. Do you agree with the assertion? $\endgroup$
    – Johannes
    Dec 4, 2010 at 17:21
-1
$\begingroup$

I think it is quite easy to show

$E\left[\sup\limits_{a\in U}\;g(a,S_t)\right]\leq \sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal F_t},\;A(\omega)\in U} E\left[g(A,S_t)\right]$

Proof:

$S$ is $\mathcal F$-adapted, which implies: $\sigma(S_t)\subseteq\mathcal F_t$

From that it follows,

$\sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal F_t},\;A(\omega)\in U} E\left[g(A,S_t)\right]\geq \sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq\sigma(S_t),\;A(\omega)\in U} E\left[g(A,S_t)\right]$

the supremum is taken over all $\sigma(S_t)$-measurable $A$.

We know that, for any $S_t$ there exists a increasing sequence $a^{S_t}_n \in U$ with

$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}g(a^{S_t}_n,S_t)=\sup\limits_{a}\;g(a,S_t)$

For every $n$, $a^{S_t}_n$ is clearly a random variable measurable on $\sigma(S_t)$. From that it follows:

$\sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq\sigma(S_t),\;A(\omega)\in U} E\left[g(A,S_t)\right]\geq E\left[g(a^{S_t}_n,S_t)\right] \quad\forall n$

i.e.

$ \sup\limits_{A,\;\sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal F_t},\;A(\omega)\in U} E\left[g(A,S_t)\right]\geq E\left[\sup\limits_{a\in U}\;g(a,S_t)\right]$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ "... clearly a random variable measurable ..." For me, it's not clear at all. Moreover, one needs $g(a_n,S_t)$, not $a_n$, to be increasing. $\endgroup$
    – zhoraster
    Dec 3, 2010 at 5:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for pointing that out, but do you know how it would work? $\endgroup$
    – Johannes
    Dec 3, 2010 at 11:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.