4
$\begingroup$

In the paper http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~schachermayer/pubs/preprnts/prpr0154.pdf

you can find a trajectorial version of Doob's inequality. It is given by:

$$\bar{s}^2_T+4\sum_{k=0}^{T-1}\bar{s_k}(s_{k+1}-s_k)\le 4s^2_T$$

$$ \bar{s}_k=\max (s_1,...,s_k) $$

The proof should be straightforward but I am not able to prove it, please help me with that more or less simple inequality.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Induction should be the ticket for an inequality like this. Try the base case - T=1. The proof of the base case would then give some insight into how to prove the induction step. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Spector
    Nov 27, 2012 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ Is it only possible by doing induction? The paper says it should be possible by rearranging terms. $\endgroup$
    – Leitz
    Nov 27, 2012 at 8:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

I think induction over $T$ will be hard. But you can prove the inequality by considering the times $n$ at which the maximum $\bar s_n$ increases. For example, let $ 1 = k_1, \ldots, k_r \le T $ be the different times at which $s_k = \bar s_k$ attains a maximum (with respect to all previous times). Then it holds $$ \sum_{l=k_j}^{k_{j+1}-1} \bar s_l (s_{l+1} - s_l) = \sum_{l=k_j}^{k_{j+1}-1} \bar s_{k_j} (s_{l+1} - s_l) = \bar s_{k_j} (\bar s_{k_{j+1}} - \bar s_{k_j} ). $$ Therefore we see that $$ \bar s_T^2 + 4\sum_{n=1}^{T-1} \bar s_n (s_{n+1} - s_n) = \bar s_{k_r}^2 + 4\sum_{j=1}^{r-1} \bar s_{k_j} (\bar s_{k_{j+1}} - \bar s_{k_j} ) + 4\bar s_{k_r} (s_T - \bar s_{k_r}) $$ Since the $\bar s_{k_j}$ are increasing, we estimate the right hand side by $$ \bar s_{k_r}^2 + 2\sum_{j=1}^{r-1} (\bar s_{k_{j+1}} + \bar s_{k_j}) (\bar s_{k_{j+1}} - \bar s_{k_j} ) + 4\bar s_{k_r} (s_T - \bar s_{k_r}) $$ which by the third binomial formula yields $$ \bar s_{k_r}^2 + 2\sum_{j=1}^{r-1} (\bar s_{k_{j+1}}^2 - \bar s_{k_j}^2) + 4\bar s_{k_r} (s_T - \bar s_{k_r}) = \bar s_{k_r}^2 + 2(\bar s_{k_{r}}^2 - \bar s_{1}^2) + 4\bar s_{k_r} (s_T - \bar s_{k_r}). $$ Obviously, this is bounded by $$ -\bar s_{k_r}^2 + 4\bar s_{k_r} s_T = -(\bar s_{k_r} - 2s_T)^2 + 4s_T^2 \le 4s_T^2, $$ which finishes the proof. For comparison, also refer to the proof of Lemma 2.2 in the paper you quoted.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel Marahrens : Very nice proof. Best regards $\endgroup$
    – The Bridge
    Nov 27, 2012 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer, I just recognized it is also possible by using integrals. $\endgroup$
    – Leitz
    Nov 27, 2012 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel Marahrens and Leitz: There is a little typo I think, $k_1$ should start at 0 and not at 1, but this comes from a typo in the question itself, where the definition of $\bar{s}_k$ should include $s_0$. Best regards $\endgroup$
    – The Bridge
    Nov 28, 2012 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the compliments. I think there is some inconsistency in the question by Leitz, but I simply chose to start the indices at 1 in my answer and I tried to be consistent with it. Probably 0 would have been a better choice as that is the choice in the referenced paper. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    Nov 28, 2012 at 23:06

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.