User kenneth - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-23T21:47:17Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/5656http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/108777/limit-of-functionals-on-weak-convergent-random-variableslimit of functionals on weak convergent random variableskenneth2012-10-04T03:21:46Z2012-10-04T12:37:04Z
<p>Suppose real value random variables satisfy
$X_{n} \Rightarrow X$ (convergence in distribution)
as $n\to \infty$ in the same probability space
$(\Omega, \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$.
It is well known that $\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb E f(X_{n}) = \mathbb E f(X)$ for all continuous
bounded real functions $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$.</p>
<p>[Q.] If $f$ is continuous and linear growth, i.e. $|f(x)| < K(1 + |x|)$ for
some constant $K$, can you find counter-example for $\lim_{n\to \infty}
\mathbb E f(X_{n}) = \mathbb E f(X)$?
What additional conditions are needed to still
have $\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb E f(X_{n}) = \mathbb E f(X)$?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/108777/limit-of-functionals-on-weak-convergent-random-variables/108793#108793Answer by kenneth for limit of functionals on weak convergent random variableskenneth2012-10-04T09:03:10Z2012-10-04T09:03:10Z<p>Since $f(X_{n}) \Rightarrow f(X)$ as long as $f$ is continuous,
by redefining $X_{n}:= f(X_{n})$, it is
equivalent to ask following question:</p>
<p>[Q1.] If $X_{n}\Rightarrow X$, then what additional condition is needed to
have $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb E[X_{n}] = \mathbb E[X]$?</p>
<p>[Ex.] Let $X_{n}: [0,1] \mapsto \mathbb R$ be given by
$X_{n} (\omega) = n I_{(0,1/n)}(\omega)$ and $\mathbb P$ be
Lesbegue meaure. Then, $X_{n} \Rightarrow X:=0$,
since it is indeed almost sure convergence. However, it violates
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb E[X_{n}] = \mathbb E[X]$.</p>
<p>So one immediate sufficient condition needed to
have $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb E[X_{n}] = \mathbb E[X]$ is that,</p>
<p>$X_{n} \to X$ almost surely, and satisfies other conditions of
Dominated (or Monotone) Convergence Theorem.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/76609/generalized-itos-formulaGeneralized Ito's formulakenneth2011-09-28T07:52:33Z2012-09-22T00:00:31Z
<p>Consider classical statement of Ito's formula: Let $X$ be a continuous
semimartingale and $F \in C^2(\mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R})$; then $F(X)$
is a continuous semimartingale and
$$F(X_t) = F(X_0) + \sum_i \int_0^t {\partial_i F} dX_s^i + \frac 1 2
\sum_{i,j} {\partial^2_{ij} F} d \langle X^i, X^j \rangle_s.$$
In the above Ito formula, how much does function $F$ extendable in a
Sobolev space? For example, is Ito formula true if $F\in W^{2,p}$ for
some $p>1$? Note that, if we use Ito-Tanaka formula, then there exists
some extra term from local time, and we wish to find Sobolev regularity
to make sure this term being zero.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103841/a-wrong-proof-of-squared-bessel-processA wrong proof of Squared Bessel processkenneth2012-08-03T06:09:21Z2012-08-03T09:57:14Z
<p>The squared Bessel process with $\delta$-dimension for $\delta>0$,
denoted by $BESQ^\delta(y)$, is given by
$$d Y_t = \delta t + 2 \sqrt{Y_t} d B_t, \ Y_0 = y\ge 0$$
where $B_t$ is BM under $(\Omega, {\cal F}_t, P)$.
Consider $\tau = \inf[ t>0: Y_t = 0].$</p>
<p>(Claim). $\tau = \infty$ almost surely.</p>
<p>(Proof).
Let $X_t = Y_{\frac 2 \delta t}$. Then,
$$d X_t = 2 t + 2 \sqrt{X_t} d W_t, \ X_0 = y,$$
where $W_t = B_{\frac 2 \delta t}$ is BM under
$(\Omega, {\cal F}_{\frac 2 \delta t}, P)$.
In other words, $X_t$ is $BESQ^2(y)$ w.r.t. time-scaled filtration
under the same probability measure.
Therefore, {0} is polar set of $X_t$, so is of $Y_t$.
END.</p>
<p>However, it gives a contradiction to the fact
that $\tau = 0$ for $BESQ^1(0)$ due to the properties of
1-D BM. Where is the gap of the above proof?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103755/is-this-process-strictly-positiveIs this process strictly positive?kenneth2012-08-02T03:36:56Z2012-08-02T17:13:03Z
<p>Let $W_t$ is standard Brownian motion under probability measure $P$.
Consider 1-D stochastic differential equation
$$ dY_t = dt + \sigma(Y_t) dW_t, \ Y_0 = y\ge 0.$$
We assume $\sigma(0) = 0$, and $\sigma(x)$ is locally Holder-1/2, i.e.
for any bounded subinterval $I\subset [0,\infty)$,
we assume there exists constant $K_I$ s.t.
$$|\sigma(x_1)- \sigma(x_2)| \le K_I |x_1 - x_2|^{1/2}, \ \forall x_1, x_2 \in I.$$
Note that, the above SDE has strong non-negative solution by comparison with
$d X_t = \sigma(X_t) dW_t$.</p>
<p>[Q1] Define $\tau = \inf[t>0: Y_t = 0]$. Is $\tau>0$ almost surely?</p>
<p>[Q2] Can one show that $Y_t > 0$ almost surely for arbitrary given $t>0$?</p>
<p>In fact, it's enough to show the above results with $y= 0$. </p>
<p>My guess is that, [Q2] is too strong to be true, but [Q1] is correct.
It will be helpful to get a proof of [Q1] at least.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103275/does-this-series-stopping-times-marching-forwardDoes this series stopping times marching forward?kenneth2012-07-27T06:30:57Z2012-07-27T06:30:57Z
<p>Let $W_t$ is standard Brownian motion under probability measure $P$.
Consider stochastic differential equation
$$ dY_t = dt + Y_t dW_t, \ Y_0 = 0.$$
Note that, the above SDE has a strong non-negative solution.</p>
<p>Define stopping times
$$\tau_0 = 0; \tau_{n+1} = \inf [ t>\tau_n: Y_t = 0 ].$$</p>
<p>[Q] Can one show that $\lim_{n\to \infty} \tau_n >1$ almost surely in $P$?</p>
<p>The above question is not true if the underlying SDE is
$$ dY_t = dt + dW_t, \ Y_0 = 0,$$
since $Y_t$ is standard BM under some equivalent probability measure,
and $\tau_n = 0$ for all $n\ge 1$.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90794/is-a-semicontinuous-real-function-borel-measurableIs a semicontinuous real function Borel measurable?kenneth2012-03-10T04:16:09Z2012-03-19T21:46:49Z
<p>Let $f(x,u): [0,1]^2 \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous
function.</p>
<p>[Q] Is $g(x) = \inf_{u\in [0,1]} f(x,u)$ always Borel measurable?
If not, can one find a counter-example?</p>
<p>Note that, for any $c$,
we have
$$(x: g(x) < c) = \text{Proj}_x ((x,u): f(x,u) < c),$$
where $\text{Proj}_x$ is a projection operator to $x$-axis.
In the context of measurable selection theorem,
the projection of Borel set $((x,u): f(x,u) < c)$ of
$\mathbb{R}^2$ is
not necessarily a Borel set of $\mathbb{R}$.
But, I can not find a counter-example.</p>
<p>If there exists a proper counter-example, then it also
implies that a semicontinuous real function is not necessarily Borel measurable.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingaleA non-degenerate martingalekenneth2011-12-24T09:38:46Z2011-12-27T02:53:26Z
<p>Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, on which
$\mathcal{F}_t$ is filtration satisfying general conditions.
$W_t$ is
a standard Brownian motion.
Let $Y_t$ be a martingale given by
$$Y_t = \int_0^t \sigma_r d W_r$$
where $\sigma_t$ is a bounded $\mathcal{F}_t$ measurable process.</p>
<p>The question is,
assume $\sigma_t>0$ almost surely for all $t$, then can we
prove
$$P(Y_1 = c) = 0$$
for all constant $c$?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/69005/law-of-iterated-logrithmlaw of iterated logrithmkenneth2011-06-28T07:28:22Z2011-06-28T08:07:52Z
<p>Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, on which
$\mathcal{F}_t$ is filtration satisfying general conditions. $W_t$ is
a standard Brownian motion. By law of iterated logarithm, one has
$$ P\Big(\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{W_t}{t} = 0\Big) = 1 $$
This implies
$$ P\Big(\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t + W_t}{t} = 1\Big) = 1. \quad (1)$$
We have contradiction in this below. By Girsanov theorem, there exists
a probability measure $Q$ equivalent to $P$, such that $t+ W_t$ is a
Brownian motion w.r.t. $Q$. By law of iterated logarithm,
$$ Q\Big(\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t + W_t}{t} = 0\Big) = 1, $$
which implies
$$ P\Big(\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{t + W_t}{t} = 0\Big) = 1, \quad (2)$$
since $P$ is equivalent to $Q$.
Why does this argument leads to a contradiction between (1) and (2)?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/51531/theorems-that-are-obvious-but-hard-to-prove/56871#56871Answer by kenneth for Theorems that are 'obvious' but hard to provekenneth2011-02-28T02:46:04Z2011-02-28T02:46:04Z<p>Dynamic programing principle (DPP) is one of the 'obvious' and also intuitive one, in the control problem. Many papers proves its validity in various setup, and all proofs are very complicated. But, there is rarely a counter example of DPP. I wonder, if there is general framework on it. See, <a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/22689/dynamic-programming-principle-dpp" rel="nofollow">http://mathoverflow.net/questions/22689/dynamic-programming-principle-dpp</a></p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/56741/infimum-of-a-set-of-stopping-timesinfimum of a set of stopping timeskenneth2011-02-26T15:12:21Z2011-02-27T02:25:15Z
<p>Let $(Y^a: a\in \Lambda)$ be a set of random processes given by
$$Y^a(s) = \int_0^s \sigma^a(r) dW(r)$$
where $W$ is Brownian motion w.r.t. filtered probability space
$(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P, \mathcal{F}_t)$, $\sigma^a(\cdot)$ is
uniformly bounded predictable process, s.t. $|\sigma^a(r)|<1$ for all
$r$ and $a$.
Let $\theta^a = \inf(s>0, Y^a(s) \ge 1)$ be a stopping time. </p>
<p>[Q.] Is the following true,
$$\inf_{a\in \Lambda} (\theta^a) >0, \quad a.s.-P$$</p>
<p>When $\Lambda$ is finite set, it is clearly true. But, I am not sure
otherwise. Thanks.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/56743/infimum-of-a-set-of-positive-r-v-with-the-same-distributioninfimum of a set of positive r.v. with the same distributionkenneth2011-02-26T15:30:32Z2011-02-26T15:47:27Z
<p>Let $Y$ be real valued random variable on probability space $(\Omega,
\mathcal{F}, P)$, such that $Y>0$ almost surely. Suppose $(X^a: a\in
\Lambda)$ be a set of random
variables in the same probability space with the same distribution as
$Y$. </p>
<p>[Q.] Is the following true?
$$\inf_a (X^a) >0, \quad a.s.-P$$</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/33923/distribution-of-running-maximum-of-a-local-martingaleDistribution of running maximum of a local martingalekenneth2010-07-30T17:08:22Z2010-09-29T16:29:16Z
<p>Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}, \mathcal{F}_t)$ be a given
probability space with usual conditions, on which $W$ is a standard
Brownian motion. For $x \ge 0$, consider
$$X(t) = x + \int_0^t \sigma (X(s)) dW(s)$$
Assume $\sigma \in C^{0,1/2}_{loc}$, $\sigma(0) = 0$, $\sigma>0$ on $(0,\infty)$.
By [Karatzas and Shereve 98], there exists a unique strong solution with
absorbing state at zero. Denote the running maximum by $X^*(T) =
\sup_{s\in [0,T]} X(s)$.</p>
<p>Question: For a fixed $T$, is this possible to show that
$\mathbb{P} ( X^*(T) \ge \beta) = o(\beta^{-1})$ as $\beta \to \infty$?</p>
<p>I am trying to use time-changed Brownian motion, i.e. $X(t) = x +
B([X]_t)$, where $B$ is BM, and $[X]$ is quadratic variation. There is
also density function available for running maximum $B^* (T)$, i.e.
$\mathbb{P}(B^*(T) \ge \beta) = 2 - 2 \Phi(\beta/\sqrt{T}) =
o(\beta^{-1})$, where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is c.d.f of standard normal
distribution. But, I could not succeed using those facts to prove it. </p>
<p>Thank you for your time.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/27042/is-the-truncated-brownian-motion-of-the-class-dlIs the truncated Brownian motion of the class DL?kenneth2010-06-04T12:26:24Z2010-09-29T05:43:35Z
<p>Let $W$ be a standard Brownian motion under given probability space.
For a given constant $a$, $W^a$ is a truncated Brownian motion by stopping time
$T^a = \inf(t>0:W(t) = a)$. That is, $W^a(t) = W(t \wedge T^a)$.<br>
We want to consider the following question: Is the process $W^1$ of <a href="http://almostsure.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/class-d-processes/" rel="nofollow">the class DL</a>?</p>
<p>(Solution1): Yes. Indeed, for any fixed $t>0$, we can prove the collection of random variables
$( W(s), 0< s< t)$
is uniformly integrable by definition, since $E [|W^1(t)|] < \infty$.</p>
<p>We provide completely different answer using the following proposition from the Problem 1.5.19 (i) of Book [Karazas and Shereve 98].</p>
<p>[Proposition] A local martingale of class DL is martingale.</p>
<p>(Solution2): No. $W^1$ is strict local martingale, since $E [W^1(T^1)] = 1> E [W(0)]$. By [Proposition], $W^1$ is not of class DL.</p>
<p>In the above, we obtained completely two different solutions. Where is wrong?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/34032/continuity-in-intial-state-of-brownian-motionContinuity in intial state of Brownian Motionkenneth2010-07-31T15:33:48Z2010-08-01T18:27:07Z
<p>$ B = (B_t, \mathcal{F}_t; t\ge 0 ) $ is a 1-d Brownian family on a
measurable space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ with a family of probability
measures ${\mathbb{P}^x}$, i.e. $\mathbb{P}^x(B_0
= x) = 1$, and $B$ is 1-d BM starting from $x$ under $\mathbb{P}^x$.</p>
<p>Let $\tau$ be a given stopping time w.r.t. underlying filtration, $f$ be a given continuous bounded real function. Consider $V(x) = \mathbb{E}^x [f(B_\tau)]$, where
$\mathbb{E}^x$ is the expectation under $\mathbb{P}^x$.</p>
<p>[Question] Is $V(\cdot)$ continuous for any given stopping time
$\tau<\infty$? If not, is there any counter example? Or does continuity
hold with further conditions?</p>
<p>If $\tau$ is deterministic, then $V$ has no doubt to be continuous. I
am not sure, even if the problem is well formulated with the extension
to stopping time $\tau$. Thanks for any of your comments.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/22689/dynamic-programming-principle-dppDynamic programming principle (DPP)kenneth2010-04-27T06:26:39Z2010-04-27T08:59:18Z
<p>In stochastic control problem, one shall use the measurable selection theorem to prove DPP. It was discussed in discrete time case in [Bertsekas and Shreve 1978]. Is there unified framework in continuous time problem, to derive sufficient condition under which DPP is valid? Is there an easy way to explain why measurable selection theorem is important in DPP?</p>
<p>For ex., here is one control problem:
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}, \mathbb{F})$ be a filtered probability space. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be admissible control space, and $X^{t,x,\alpha}(s)$ be a controlled Markov process with initial $(t,x)$ and control $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$. The value function is
$V(t,x) = \inf \mathbb{E}[ g(X^{t,x, \alpha}(\tau)) ]$, where $\inf$ is over $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$, and $\tau$ is a given stopping time. The question is, what is the sufficient condition for $V(\cdot)$ to have $V(t,x) = \inf \mathbb{E}[V(\theta, X^{t,x,\alpha}(\theta))]$ for all stopping time $\theta \in [t,\tau]$?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/108777/limit-of-functionals-on-weak-convergent-random-variables/108814#108814Comment by kennethkenneth2012-10-06T06:56:48Z2012-10-06T06:56:48Zthanks, Alexanderhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/108777/limit-of-functionals-on-weak-convergent-random-variables/108814#108814Comment by kennethkenneth2012-10-04T14:45:10Z2012-10-04T14:45:10Zthanks for your answerhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/76609/generalized-itos-formula/107810#107810Comment by kennethkenneth2012-09-26T05:32:52Z2012-09-26T05:32:52ZThank you. I also actually found that from that book.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103841/a-wrong-proof-of-squared-bessel-process/103849#103849Comment by kennethkenneth2012-08-03T12:04:51Z2012-08-03T12:04:51Z@Mateusz, Thanks for your answerhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/103755/is-this-process-strictly-positiveComment by kennethkenneth2012-08-03T03:31:10Z2012-08-03T03:31:10Z@Steve, It's helpful to have the paper. I guess you are saying Cor 3.6 of the paper. However, the probability is about
the probability of $Y_u$ hits zero during $0\le u \le t$. In particular, if $y = 0$, then this probability is 1 always. In fact, we need the same hitting probability during $0< u \le t$.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103755/is-this-process-strictly-positiveComment by kennethkenneth2012-08-03T02:11:07Z2012-08-03T02:11:07Z@George, I apologize for [Q2], which seems trivial. I meant to ask, instead
[Q2'] If $\tau = \infty$ almost surely?
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103755/is-this-process-strictly-positiveComment by kennethkenneth2012-08-02T13:02:02Z2012-08-02T13:02:02Z@Mike, could you be more specific? I have difficulty use scale function, since $\sigma^{-2}$ may not be locally integrable at $0$.
I am assuming initial $y = 0$.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/103275/does-this-series-stopping-times-marching-forwardComment by kennethkenneth2012-07-27T13:30:41Z2012-07-27T13:30:41Z@George, oops, you are right.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90794/is-a-semicontinuous-real-function-borel-measurable/90799#90799Comment by kennethkenneth2012-03-11T04:32:30Z2012-03-11T04:32:30ZGH. thanks for your answer.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84289#84289Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-28T06:21:58Z2011-12-28T06:21:58Z@James, Thanks for the proof. It seems correct to me. I originally confused why we only need to show uniform upper bound for some $0<a<1$, not for all $a$. Levy Zero-one law plays a role here.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84289#84289Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-28T06:20:09Z2011-12-28T06:20:09Z@George, Thanks for the explanations, it does help.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84289#84289Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-27T06:07:56Z2011-12-27T06:07:56Z@George, I appreciate if you can post a short hint in the case of $\sigma$ is bounded away from zero. Thanks.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84289#84289Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-26T14:56:29Z2011-12-26T14:56:29ZHi James, Thanks for the hint. Unfortunately, I could not follow your idea completely. Could you make it a bit more detail?http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84289#84289Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-26T07:10:17Z2011-12-26T07:10:17ZDear James, Elegant example. In the above,$\sigma_t$ in the
first half shall be $\sigma_t = \sqrt{\alpha_n}$? Also, if we
restrict $\alpha_t >K>0$ for some constant $K$, then is it possible to prove the above claim $P(Y_1 = c) = 0$?http://mathoverflow.net/questions/84216/a-non-degenerate-martingale/84290#84290Comment by kennethkenneth2011-12-26T03:37:31Z2011-12-26T03:37:31ZDear Yuri, $\sigma_t$ shall be given bounded as condition,
but your example has to make $\sigma_t$ blow up near 1,
as you mentioned.