1
$\begingroup$

The p-th total variation is defined as $$|f|_{p,TV}=\sup_{\Pi_n}\lim_{||\Pi_n||\to n}\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}|f(x_{i+1}-f(x_{i})|^p$$

And I know how to calculate the first total variation of the standard Brownian motion. But when dealing with high order TV, there are some problem.

At first we assume that p is even.

First I define $$\xi_i=|B_{\frac{i+1}{n}}-B_{\frac{i}{n}}|^p$$ then we can get that $$E[\xi_i]=\left(\frac1n\right)^{\frac p2}(p-1)!!$$ and $$E[\xi_i^2]=\left(\frac1n\right)^{p}(2p-1)!!$$

Next, we define $V_n=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\xi_i$

Then we have$$E[V_n]=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\left(\frac 1n\right)^{\frac p2}(p-1)!!$$

But there's something wrong in the following step, when calculating $E[V_n^2]$ $$\begin{align} E[V_n^2] &= E\left[\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\xi_i\sum^{n-1}_{j=0}\xi_j\right]\\ &=E\left[\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\sum^{n-1}_{j=0}\xi_i\xi_j\right]\\ &=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\sum^{n-1}_{j=0}E\left[\xi_i\xi_j\right]\\ &=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}E[\xi_i^2]+\sum_{i\neq j}E[\xi_i]E[\xi_j]\\ &=\left(\frac1n\right)^{p-1}(2p-1)!!+n(n-1)\left(\frac1n\right)^{p}\left[(p-1)!!\right]^2 \end{align}$$

And then the question is I have no idea that how to deal with this awesome equation. Do I need to brute it out or if there is any method more efficient to prove it?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, there is some more efficient way to prove this. Do you know the total variation for $p=2$? (And what about $p$? Is $p \in (0,2)$ or $p>2$ or...? Please add this information to your question.) $\endgroup$ – saz Mar 5 '15 at 8:05
  • $\begingroup$ @saz sorry I forgot that. p>2 in this case $\endgroup$ – zhshr Mar 5 '15 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ I see. And what about $p=2$, do you know the total variation for this particular case? $\endgroup$ – saz Mar 5 '15 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ @saz I only know the case for standard brownian motion but I have no idea how to apply that for this problem $\endgroup$ – zhshr Mar 5 '15 at 15:33
3
$\begingroup$

It is widely known that for $p=2$ the quadratic variation

$$S_{\Pi} := \sum_{t_i \in \Pi} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^2$$

converges to $T$ in $L^2$ as $|\Pi| \to 0$. Here $\Pi = \{0=t_0<\ldots< t_n \leq T\}$ denotes a partition of the interval $[0,T]$ with mesh size

$$|\Pi| = \max_i |t_{i+1}-t_i|.$$

For a proof of this statement see any book on Brownian motion (e.g. René L. Schilling/Lothar Partzsch: Brownian Motion - An Introduction to Stochastic Processes, Chapter 9). Since $L^2$-convergence implies almost sure convergence of a subsequence, we may assume that

$$S^{\Pi_n} \to T \qquad \text{almost surely} \tag{1}$$

for a (given) sequence of partitions $(\Pi_n)_n$ satisfying $|\Pi_n| \to 0$. Now, as $p>2$,

$$\begin{align*} \sum_{t_i \in \Pi_n} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^p &= \sum_{t_i \in \Pi_n} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^{p-2} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^2 \\ &\leq \sup_{s,t \leq T, |s-t| \leq |\Pi_n|} |B_t-B_s|^{p-2} S_{\Pi_n}. \tag{2}\end{align*}$$

Since $(B_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a Brownian motion, we know that $t \mapsto B_t(\omega)$ is continuous almost surely; hence, $[0,T] \ni t \mapsto B_t(\omega)$ is uniformly continuous. This implies in particular

$$\sup_{s,t \leq T, |s-t| \leq |\Pi_n|} |B_t-B_s| \stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to} 0 \qquad \text{almost surely}$$

as the mesh size $|\Pi_n|$ tends to $0$. Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ yields

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{t_i \in \Pi_n} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^p = 0.$$

This finishes the proof.

Remark: For a more general statement see this question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah got it. I knew how to prove quadratic variation is 0 with finite total variation. But what I was missing is $$\begin{align*} \sum_{t_i \in \Pi_n} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^p &= \sum_{t_i \in \Pi_n} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^{p-2} |B_{t_{i+1}}-B_{t_i}|^2 \\ &\leq \sup_{s,t \leq T, |s-t| \leq |\Pi_n|} |B_t-B_s|^{p-2} S_{\Pi_n}. \tag{1}\end{align*}$$ It holds not only for p=2 $\endgroup$ – zhshr Mar 5 '15 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ @user2841003 Yes. If you find the answer helpful, you can upvote/accept it by clicking on the tick/arrow next to it. $\endgroup$ – saz Mar 5 '15 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ @saz doesn't this only show that the $p$-variation is 0 along a subsequence of $\Pi_n$? In other words, doesn't your proof only show convergence in probability to 0? $\endgroup$ – user217285 Jul 5 '18 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Nitin Yeah, that's true... to get rid of this problem one could use that the Brownian motion has (with probability $1$) $\beta$-Hölder continuous sample paths for any $\beta<1/2$... choosing $\beta \in (1/p,1/2)$ should give the desired a.s. convergence of the total variation. $\endgroup$ – saz Jul 5 '18 at 17:45
2
$\begingroup$

Note that $2$-variation is not the same as quadratic variation. For the quadratic variation you take the limit as the partition gets finer, whereas for $p$-variation you take the supremum over all partitions. In particular, the Brownian motion has finite quadratic variation on any finite interval but infinite $2$-variation (link).

Now coming to your question and assuming the interval $[0,1]$, we have that $$\|B\|_{p-\text{var}} \geq |B_1|,$$ because the supremum is larger or equal to taking the partition that only contains $0$ and $1$.

So, the $p$-variation of Brownian motion for any $p\geq 1$ is clearly not converging to zero in any sense.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.