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.

We've got the usual filtered stochastic basis $(\Omega, \mathcal F, (\mathcal F_n). \mathbb P), \space \tau : \Omega \to \mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty\}, [\tau \le n] \in \mathcal F_n$

($\tau$ is an $\mathcal F_n$ stopping time).

I'm wondering whether the implication below holds:

$$\tau \in L^1 ( \mathbb P) \Rightarrow \mathbb P [\tau < \infty]=1$$

I think it should hold, because

$$\tau \in L^1 ( \mathbb P) \Rightarrow \mathbb E [\tau] =\int_{\Omega}\tau d \mathbb P < \infty \\ \mathbb P [\tau < \infty] = \int_{[\tau < \infty]} d \mathbb P \le \int_{\Omega} d \mathbb P \le \int_{\Omega}\tau d \mathbb P < \infty $$

The only problem I can see is that $$\int_{\Omega} d \mathbb P \le \int_{\Omega}\tau d \mathbb P $$ might not hold in general. For instance if $X \sim N(0,\sigma^2)$ we've got $\mathbb P (\Omega) =1$ and $\mathbb{E} X =0$. So is this the reason why my proof does not work?

share|improve this question
1  
You've identified one problem with your reasoning, but even if that inequality were true I don't see how it would prove that $\tau$ is finite with probability one. –  Gibarian Jun 1 '13 at 10:08

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The implication holds for any random variable, not just stopping times. It easily seen by showing the contrapositive: $$ P(X<\infty)<1\;\Rightarrow\;X\notin L^1(P). $$ So suppose $P(X<\infty)<1$, then $P(X=\infty)>0$ and hence $$ {\rm E}[|X|]\geq{\rm E}[|X|\mathbf{1}_{\{X=\infty\}}]=\infty\cdot P(X=\infty)=\infty, $$ and hence $X\notin L^1(P)$. The other implication, however, does not hold in general.

share|improve this answer
    
not sure if I understand what you mean. I elaborated on my reasoning (see above) –  shimee Jun 1 '13 at 9:29
1  
@shimee: What is it you don't understand? –  Stefan Hansen Jun 1 '13 at 9:31
    
your proof. You're proving it by contradiction? Also, what do you mean by "The other implication, however, does not hold in general."? Have a look on my proof in the original question. Is it correct? –  shimee Jun 1 '13 at 9:37
    
In general, instead of showing that A implies B you can show that not-A implies not-B. See this. What I mean by "the other implication does not hold" is that you can't say $P(X<\infty)=1\;\Rightarrow\; X\in L^1(P)$. I don't get the first line of your proof. –  Stefan Hansen Jun 1 '13 at 9:41
    
the probability measure of tau being less than infinity is equal to the measure of the entire space. I switched it around (just now) for better clarity. –  shimee Jun 1 '13 at 9:47

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.