Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When I have shown, for $s\le t$ and for two continuous stochastic process an inequality:

$$ X_s \le Y_t$$ P-a.s.

How can I deduce that this P-a.s. simultaneously for all rational $s\le t$ ? Thank you for your help

EDIT: According to Ilya's answer, I see that we have $$P(X_s\le Y_t\text{ simultaneously for all rationals }s\le t) = 1.$$ How could we use continuity of $X,Y$ to deduce $P(X_s\le Y_t,s\le t)=1$. Of course we take sequences of rational, however I mess up the details. So a detailed answer how to do this, would be appreciated.

share|improve this question
Hint: there are countably many pairs of rationals $s \le t$. – Robert Israel May 7 '12 at 16:35
I have updated my answer, using outcome-wise approach. – Ilya Jun 26 '12 at 15:44
I think, now it is very explicit. – Ilya Jun 26 '12 at 16:15

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted
+50

If I got you correct, you have $P(X_s\leq Y_t) = 1$ for all $s\leq t$. Recall that if $P(A_n) $ for all $n\in \mathbb N$ then also you have $P(\bigcap_n A_n) = 1$ since $$ P(\bigcap_n A_n) = 1-P(\bigcup_n A^c_n)\geq 1-\sum\limits_n P(A^c_n) =1. $$ Now take $s_n$ be the $n$-th rational number that is less or equal to $t$ and $A_n=\{X_{s_n}\leq Y_t\}$. You can even use continuity of $X,Y$ to show that $P(X_s\leq Y_t,s\leq t) = 1$.

To show the latter, consider two sets: $$ C = \{\omega\in \Omega: X_t(\omega),Y_t(\omega)\text{ are continuous }\} $$ $$ D = \{\omega\in \Omega:X_s(\omega)\leq Y_t(\omega) \text{ simultaneously for all rational }s\leq t\}. $$

It is given to us that $\mathsf P(C) = 1$ and we have proved above that $\mathsf P(D) = 1$. As a result, $$ \mathsf P(C\cap D) = 1-\mathsf P(C^c\cup D^c)\geq 1-\mathsf P(C^c)-\mathsf P(D^c) = 1. $$

Consider now any $\omega\in C\cap D$.

  1. It holds that for this $\omega$: $X_s(\omega)\leq Y_t(\omega)$ for all rational $s\leq t$. Since both $X,Y$ are continuous on $\omega$, it follows that $X_s(\omega)\leq Y_t(\omega)$ for all $s\leq t$. Indeed, if that would not be true, i.e. for some $s'\leq t$ you have $X_{s'}(\omega)>Y_{t}(\omega)$ then $X_s(\omega)>Y_t(\omega)$ in the neighborhood of $s'$ which cannot happen since there will be at least one rational number $s$.

  2. Thus, for any $\omega\in C\cap D$ the desired relation holds: $C\cap D \subseteq \{X_s\leq Y_t,s\leq t\}$, so that $$ 1 =\mathsf P(C\cap D) \leq \mathsf P\{X_s\leq Y_t,s\leq t\}. $$

share|improve this answer
@ Ilya: So I agree we have $P(X_s\le Y_t \mbox{ simultaneously for all rational $s\le t$})$. But how could I use continuity of $X,Y$ to deduce $P(X_s\le Y_t,s\le t)=1$? If you could this explain in a more detailed way, I will accept your answer. Thank you for your help. Sorry for the late response! – hulik Jun 25 '12 at 11:49
   
@hulik: You show that $\{X_s\leq Y_t, s\leq t, s\in\mathbb{Q}\}\subseteq \{X_s\leq Y_t,s\leq t\}$. Pick an $\omega$ in the left-hand set. Then $X_s(\omega)\leq Y_t(\omega)$ for all $s\leq t$ with $s\in\mathbb{Q}$. Now suppose that $u\leq t$ is arbitrary. Then we pick a sequence $(u_n)\subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ such that $u_n\to u$ for $n\to\infty$. Since $X_{u_n}(\omega)\leq Y_t(\omega)$ for all $n$, the continuity gives that $X_u(\omega)=\lim_{n\to\infty} X_{u_n}(\omega) \leq Y_t(\omega)$ and hence $\omega$ is in the right-hand set. – Stefan Hansen Jun 25 '12 at 12:32
@ Stefan Hansen: If I understand you right, you want to show, that $\{X_s\le Y_t,s\le t,s,t\in \mathbb{Q}\}=\{X_s\le Y_t,s\le t\}$ and the first set has measure 1. But why do you take just the set $\{X_s\le Y_t,s\le t,s\in \mathbb{Q}\}$? Thanks for your help – hulik Jun 25 '12 at 15:20
@ Ilya: Thanks for your updated answer. However, please I would like to have a detailed answer of this. I totally agree that the intersection has probability one. But somewhere you need a careful approximation argument as Stefan Hansen suggested. Sorry for nit-picking! But I have troubles showing these things in a detailed way. – hulik Jun 26 '12 at 16:01
@hulik: please, tell me - is anything unclear in the new version – Ilya Jun 27 '12 at 8:01
show 3 more comments

This follows from the fact that the complement of the event $[\forall s\leqslant t,\,X_s\leqslant Y_t]$ is the event $$ \left[\exists s\leqslant t,\,X_s\gt Y_t\right]\ =\left[\exists n\in\mathbb N,\,\exists s\in\mathbb Q,\,\exists t\in\mathbb Q,\,s\leqslant t,\,X_s\geqslant Y_t+\frac1n\right], $$ hence $$ \left[\exists s\leqslant t,\,X_s\gt Y_t\right]\ =\bigcup\limits_{s\leqslant t,\, s\in\mathbb Q,\,t\in \mathbb Q}\ \bigcup_{n\geqslant1}\ \left[X_s\geqslant Y_t+\frac1n\right]. $$ Since $\mathrm P(X_s\leqslant Y_t)=1$ for every $s\leqslant t$, $\mathrm P(X_s\geqslant Y_t+\frac1n)=0$ for every $n\geqslant1$. The union on the RHS of the displayed identity above is countable hence $\mathrm P(\exists s\leqslant t,\,X_s\gt Y_t)=0$. Considering the complement, one gets $$ \mathrm P(\forall s\leqslant t,\,X_s\leqslant Y_t)=1. $$

share|improve this answer
1  
I do not see how I can use this to conclude that $P(X_s\le X_t,s\le t)$ a.s. And shouldn't it be an intersection over $n$ instead of an union? – hulik Jun 26 '12 at 15:34
The union is correct. See Edit. – Did Jun 26 '12 at 16:29

Your Answer

 
discard

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.