bio | website | dcsc.tudelft.nl/~itkachev |
---|---|---|
location | Leiden, Netherlands | |
age | 27 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 6 months |
seen | Jun 8 at 6:47 | |
stats | profile views | 1,007 |
I am a PhD student at TU Delft, working in applied probability and stochastic optimal control. My current focus is on approximate model-checking of stochastic systems via bisimulations (a part of computer science). I am interested in a wide field of applications, in particular in some areas of finance, such as risk theory.
Jun 5 |
comment |
Euler-like identity for partition function
Would it be of any help that $f(x)f(-x) = f(x^2)$? |
May 4 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Dec 5 |
comment |
Borel class of a set of measures
I guess you can show that total variation is a measurable function, but not sure whether it will help to answer which Borel class does $B$ belong to. |
Dec 5 |
comment |
Measurability for disintegration of a kernel
Not sure whether this answers your question, but Lemma 2 of "On the existence of good stationary strategies" by Sudderth may be of use. |
Dec 5 |
comment |
Defining density of a random function using Radon-Nikodym Theorem
Density is just one representation of a probability measure (through another measure) and it is useful as a tool, when it comes up naturally, not as a goal: by itself it does not tell anything new about probabilities. Now, in the space you've described a natural measure would be the Wiener measure as @Jochen mentioned, but if I'm not mistaken your $P_X$ is singular w.r.t. the Wiener measure. The question is what were you going to do after you'd get a density - if you specify that, I guess the conclusion would be that you don't really need density. |
Dec 5 |
comment |
Property of relative entropy
It is equivalent to $P = Q$, see p.7 here. The statement "$P=Q$ almost everywhere" does not make sense. |
Dec 5 |
comment |
Papers that debunk common myths in the history of mathematics
@MichaelGreinecker: certainly depends on the tone. you should have taken my original comment with a grain of salty joke :) I'm going to ask a question regarding the history of probability and measure theory on MSE in 5 minutes, may be of your interest. |
Dec 4 |
comment |
Papers that debunk common myths in the history of mathematics
@MichaelGreinecker: oh no, have you just critisized Kolmogorov? |
Sep 24 |
awarded | Autobiographer |
Aug 3 |
comment |
Sufficiency of stationary policy for negative stochastic dynamic programming
@MichaelFanZhang: it may become unbounded ($-\infty$), but that's in fact important to negative dynamic programming. Also, since $g$ is sign-semidefinite, the sum is always negative so its expectation is well-defined, even though it may be $-\infty$ as well. Did I answer your question? |
Jul 22 |
comment |
Quotients of standard Borel spaces
@Burak: I see your point, indeed some Borel selection would be needed. |
Jul 22 |
awarded | Inquisitive |
Jul 21 |
comment |
Uniformization/measurable selection theorems
I am also aware of the updated version of Wagner's paper published in 1979, where he claims to add more results know in the Russian literature by that time, however I do not have an access to that. |
Jul 21 |
asked | Uniformization/measurable selection theorems |
Jul 20 |
revised |
Existence of an universally measurable pullback
deleted 175 characters in body |
Jul 20 |
accepted | Coupling of non-probability/sub-probability measures |
Jul 20 |
accepted | Particular neighborhoods of analytical sets |
Jul 20 |
asked | Stronger version of linearity for functions of measures |
Jul 20 |
comment |
Quotients of standard Borel spaces
@Burak: for some reason I was not notified, so I just came across your comment. Do you mean here, that if $E$ is smooth then $X/E$ is at least analytic, and if $X/E$ is a standard Borel space, then $E$ is smooth? Also, isn't the surjectivity in the 2nd sense (meeting each $F$ class) equivalent to bireducibility by definition? |
Jul 20 |
comment |
Inverse of a Borel surjection
I was exactly trying to use a Borel set which does not have a Borel uniformization, and relate it to a $\mathrm{Gr}(f)^{−1}$ via an isomorphism, however that did not work. Your idea of using a projection is really nice, thanks. Also, there is a survey of measurable selection theorems (Wagner 1977-79). Do you know if there was any progress after that, maybe another survey paper? Please tell me in case I should make it a separate question. |