Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Let $X_1,X_2,X_3,\ldots$ be IID r.v. with

\begin{equation} P(X_i<-1)=0 \end{equation} \begin{equation} P(X_i<0)>0 \end{equation} \begin{equation} P(X_i>0)>0. \end{equation}

Define \begin{equation} F_t = \prod_{i=1}^t(1+\frac{1}{2}X_i) \end{equation} \begin{equation} G_t = \prod_{i=1}^t(1+\frac{1}{4}X_i). \end{equation}

How can we show, for some integer $S>0$, that \begin{equation} P\left(\sup_{s\in[1,S]} \left[\sup_{t\in[1,s]} \frac{F_t-F_s}{F_t}\right] > \frac{1}{3}\right) > P\left(\sup_{s\in[1,S]} \left[\sup_{t\in[1,s]} \frac{G_t-G_s}{G_t}\right] > \frac{1}{3}\right) \end{equation}

Thanks in advance for any hints to get me started, or possibly a draft of a solution. I simply have no clue about how to proceed.

Update:

I have been thinking. Instinctvly, this problem seems to hold true because for any negative $X_i$, this holds:

\begin{equation} (1+\frac{1}{2}X_i) < (1+\frac{1}{4}X_i). \end{equation}

This should mean that $F_t$ will usually be dropping faster than $G_t$. I still wonder how to formalize these instincts.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

Hint: For every $x_k\gt-\frac12$, $1+2x_k\leqslant(1+x_k)^2$ hence $\prod\limits_k(1+2x_k)\leqslant \left(\prod\limits_k(1+x_k)\right)^2$.

Application: The event in the LHS is $\bigcup\limits_{t<s}B^a_{t,s}$ and the event in the RHS is $\bigcup\limits_{t<s}C^a_{t,s}$ with $$ B^a_{t,s}=\left[\prod_{k=t+1}^s(1+2x_k)< a\right], \quad C^a_{t,s}=\left[\prod_{k=t+1}^s(1+x_k)< a\right],\quad a=\tfrac23,\quad x_k=\tfrac14X_k. $$ For every $t<s$, $C^a_{t,s}\subseteq B^{a^2}_{t,s}$ and $B^{a^2}_{t,s}\subseteq B^{a}_{t,s}$ since $a<1$. The result follows (and the number $\frac13$ in the LHS may be replaced by $\frac59$).

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, I will have to think about your hint. I'm also wondering if the problem can be boiled down to a simpler number theory problem, as here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/177658/… –  godel68 Aug 1 '12 at 17:01
    
Indeed, the proof above shows that the result is entirely deterministic (what you call number theory, I guess). –  Did Aug 1 '12 at 18:49
    
Do you know how the result could be made more general, using not just 1/2 vs. 1/4, but rather any number $q$ vs. any other number $p<q$? (with $0<p,q<1$) –  godel68 Aug 1 '12 at 23:09
    
Yes, start from $0\leqslant1+qx_k\leqslant(1+px_k)^{q/p}$ for every $x_k\geqslant-1/q$ and proceed as above. –  Did Aug 2 '12 at 7:43

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.