MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Freedman's series of 3 books on Markov processes, I find that I keep on running into terms like:

P[$\max_{0 \leq s \leq 1, s \leq t \leq rs}$ | B(t) - B(s) | > $\epsilon$]

in the background of proofs I'm reading. As Freedman mentions in B+D (19), its easy to see that for all fixed $\epsilon > 0$ this goes to 0 as r goes to 1. Its not so easy for me to see how to get any even somewhat-reasonable bounds on this probability for fixed $\epsilon$ and $r$. Does anybody have any suggestions (or out-of-the-box theorems) for some bounds?

PS: I've tried only a few silly things - e.g. trying to approximate the probability for finite sums and use Donsker's principle, and asking some people around here about martingale tricks, but no luck so far.

EDIT: A clarification in response to the first answer. I know that this probability (call it p(r, $\epsilon$) ) goes to 0 as r goes to 1 for ever fixed $\epsilon$, but I'm interested in statements like p(0.04, 0.000000001) < 0.02, or (more optimistically) p(r, $\epsilon) < 500 \frac{\log(\log(r-1))}{\epsilon}$. I don't have any reason to believe those two bounds are true (though both seem plausible to me), they are merely illustrative.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

If $B$ is a.s.-continuous (and, therefore, uniformly continuous) then the maximum in question converges to $0$ a.s.

Your statement means convergence in probability, and follows automatically.

share|cite|improve this answer
Hi Yuri, thanks for the comment. I was probably not clear enough. I agree that it is easy to show the probability converges to 0, and indeed your comment seems the best/most economical way. My question is (should have been), can we say anything about the rate? e.g. if epsilon = 0.1, r = 1.0000000000001, I guess that the probability is quite small, but I don't see an easy way to get a 'reasonable' upper bound on this number. – little_probabilist Aug 13 '10 at 4:09
these estimates should follow from estimates on the modulus of continuity of B which in turn follow from maximal inequalities. – Yuri Bakhtin Aug 13 '10 at 18:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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