2
$\begingroup$

Hi,

I am just starting to study the theory of Brownian motion and I was wondering whether the following was true.

We consider a one-dimensional, one sided, Brownian motion process.

For $A$ an event on $\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R^+})$ (space of continuous functions from $\mathbb{R^+}$ to $\mathbb{R}$) we denote, for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$, by $\mathbb{P}(x,A)$ the probability that a Brownian path starting at $x$ (at time $0$) belongs to $A$. For a given time $\tau$, we denote by $A_{\tau}$ the event $t \mapsto B(t -\tau) \in A$" ($t$ varying from $\tau$ to $\infty$).

Now, given an event $A$ which only depends on the values of $B(t)$ for $t > \varepsilon$ ($\varepsilon > 0$ being fixed), then for any $x$ and any $0 \leq \tau < \varepsilon$, the following relation holds: $$ \mathbb{P}(x,A) = \int_{y \in \mathbb{R}} \mathbb{P}(x+y,A_\tau) \cdot \frac{e^{-y^2/(2\tau)}}{\sqrt{2\pi \tau} } dy $$

My intuition (hopefully not too naive) is that if we take a path with value $x$ at time $0$ at random, and observe its value at time $\tau$, this value, as a random variable, obeys a normal distribution of mean $x$ and variance $\tau$. Now, knowing that the value of the path is $x+y$ at time $\tau$, the probability that the path is in $A$ is $\mathbb{P}(x+y,A_\tau)$.

So first of all: is this indeed correct? If so, the next question: can someone give me a short proof of this fact or, even better, a reference for this formula? (I cannot find it in the books I've been reading on the subject).

Many thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This does not seem to be right. Fix some $x$ and let $A = \{ \omega : \omega(0) = x\}$, i.e. $A$ is the event $\{B_0 = x\}$. Then $P(x,A) = 1$. Now $A_\tau$ is the event $\{B_\tau = x\}$; so for any $\tau \ne 0$ and any $y \in \mathbb{R}$ we have $P(x+y, A_\tau) = 0$, so the equation doesn't hold. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 20 '12 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, thanks. I fixed my hypotheses to address your comment. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Bienvenu May 20 '12 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ It is still does not seem correct with the correction, you should request that $A$ depends on $(B_t)_{t\ge\tau}$ only. Anyway, I think what you are trying to formulate is the \emph{Markov property} of Brownian motion, I therefore recommend you to inform yourself about the basics of Markov processes (or, to start with, about Markov chains). $\endgroup$ – Pascal Maillard May 21 '12 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ I did request that. And no, it does not seem to just be a reformulation of the Markov property, even though it must be of crucial use to prove the equality (if correct). $\endgroup$ – Laurent Bienvenu May 23 '12 at 21:18

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.