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.

Given a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ on which we define two random variables $X_1$ and $X_2$.

From the following two independence conditions

  1. $X_1-X_2$ and $X_1$ are independent
  2. $X_1-X_2$ and $X_2$ are independent

How could we deduce that $X_1 - X_2$ is constant almost surely?

I only managed to deal with the case when both $X_1$ and $X_2$ are square integrable:

\begin{align} E[(X_1 -X_2)^2] &= E[(X_1 -X_2)X_1] - E[(X_1 -X_2)X_2] \\ &= E[X_1-X_2]E[X_1] - E[X_1 -X_2]E[X_2] \\&= (E[X_1 -X_2])^2 \end{align}

which means the variance of $X_1 -X_2$ is zero, so $X_1 -X_2$ is a constant almost surely.

But in general, without assumption of integrability on $X_1$ and $X_2$, how could we prove the conclusion? Or is the conclusion still true?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let $\varphi$ denote the characteristic function of $X_1-X_2$, that is, $\varphi(t)=E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm it(X_1-X_2)}]$ for every real number $t$. The independence of $X_1-X_2$ and $X_2$ yields $$E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]=E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm it(X_1-X_2+X_2)}]=\varphi(t)\cdot E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_2}]. $$ Likewise, the independence of $X_1-X_2$ and $X_1$ yields $$E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_2}]=\varphi(-t)\cdot E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]. $$ Thus, $$ E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]=\varphi(t)\cdot \varphi(-t)\cdot E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]=|\varphi(t)|^2\cdot E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]. $$ For every $t$ such that $E[\mathrm e^{\mathrm itX_1}]\ne0$, in particular, for every $t$ in a neighborhood of $0$, one sees that $$|\varphi(t)|=1.$$ This implies that, for every $|t|$ small enough, the support $S$ of the distribution of $X_1-X_2$ is included in $x_t+2\pi\mathbb Z/t$ for some $x_t$. Since this holds for every $t$ when $t\to0$, $S$ intersects every finite interval on at most one point. Thus, $S$ is a singleton.

share|improve this answer
    
Could you "spell" out the last few sentences of the proof and explain how $S$ being a singleton implies whatever you're trying to prove. I'm not sure if this is a counterexample or you're proving something? What is your conclusion? –  user28877 Nov 9 '13 at 23:41
    
@user710587 Really? This is amusing... Say, how would you translate the fact the OP is asking to prove, that is, that $X_1-X_2$ is a constant, in terms of $S$ the support of the distribution of $X_1-X_2$? –  Did Nov 9 '13 at 23:45
    
What is OP? Sorry, I am just unclear of your language. –  user28877 Nov 9 '13 at 23:55
    
@user710587 OP means Opening Poster. –  Davide Giraudo Nov 29 '13 at 12:05

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.