For a standard Brownian motion define \begin{align}\mathcal{F}_{0+} &= \bigcap_{t>0} \mathcal{F_t},\\ \mathcal{F_t} &= \sigma(W_s, 0 \le s \le t)\end{align}

Which of the following events belong to $\mathcal{F_{0+}}$?

(i) $$\left\{ W_t > \sqrt{t} \text{ for infinitely many } t>0\} = \limsup \{W_t > \sqrt{t}\right\}$$

(ii) $$\limsup\left\{W_{\frac{1}{n^2}} > \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}\right\}$$

(iii)$$\left\{W_{t_n} > \sqrt{t_n} \text{ for $(t_n)_n$ converging to $0$ monotonically}\right\}$$

First of all I guess that (i) does not belong to $\mathcal{F_{0+}}$, since for a realisation of W, where the "part-event" {$W_t > \sqrt{t}$} occurs infinitely often just for $t>s>0$, one cannot decide with just knowing W at 0 (with an infinitesimal view in the future).

On the other hand, for (ii) and (iii) the "part-events" have to occur infinitely often arbitrary close to 0. So I guess at least (ii) is in $\mathcal{F_{0+}}$ (for (iii) all "part-events" have to occur). This is anyway just my guess, how to show it properly? For sigma-algebras one usually has to argue with the generators of the algebras. The borel algebra of $\mathcal{R}$ is generated (for example) by $\{(a,\infty) , a \in \mathcal{R}\}$. The $\mathcal{F_t}$ are hence generated by $\{ W_s > a, 0 \le s \le t, a \in \mathcal{R}\}$.

So in the case of (ii) we have

$$\left\{W_{\frac{1}{n^2}} > \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } \frac{1}{n^2} \le t$$


$$\bigcup_{m>n}\left\{W_{\frac{1}{m^2}} > \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } \frac{1}{n^2} \le t$$


$$\bigcap_{i>n} \bigcup_{m>i}\left\{W_{\frac{1}{m^2}} > \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } \frac{1}{n^2} \le t$$

For arbitrary $t>0$ chose $n$ big enough and since the intersection goes over monotonically decreasing sets it follows that

$$\bigcap_{i>0} \bigcup_{m>i} \left\{W_{\frac{1}{m^2}} > \sqrt{\frac{1}{m}}\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } 0 < t.$$

In the case of (iii) I just know that for $t>0$,

$$\bigcap_{n \ge m} \left\{W_{t_n} > \sqrt{t_n}\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } t_m \le t$$ since the sequence is monotone.

So $$\bigcap_{n \ge 1} \left\{W_{\hat{t}_n} > \sqrt{\hat{t}_n }\right\} \in \mathcal{F_t} \text{ for } \hat{t}_n = t_{n+m}$$ and $(\hat{t}_n)_n$ is also a monotone decreasing sequence smaller than $t$.

Since $t>0$ was arbitrary (iii) is also in the intersection sigma-algebra.

Is this argumentation okay? And how to show that (i) is not in the sigma-algebra?

Thanks in advance (I'm sorry for missspelling)

One more thing to (iii)

Is not $$\left\{W_{t_n} > \sqrt{t_n} \text{ for a sequence } t_n \to 0\right\} = \bigcup_{(t_n)_n} \bigcap_{n \ge 1} \left\{W_{t_n} > \sqrt{t_n}\right\},$$ so my argument is not working since the union is uncountable?

  • $\begingroup$ I fixed the formatting on your post. Feel free to edit back if I messed anything up. $\endgroup$ – Math1000 Jun 19 '15 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ Another idea: {$W_n > \sqrt{t_n}$ for a monotone sequence $t_n \to 0$} = {inf {$t>0 : W_t > \sqrt{t}$} which is clearly in $ \mathcal{F}_{0+}$ but still, how to show an event is not in a sigma-algebra (for (i)) ? Since I don't know how the elements look like I have to do it implicitly (through contradiction maybe?). $\endgroup$ – crankk Jun 21 '15 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ it should say {$ W_n > \sqrt{t_n}$ for a monotone sequence $t_n \to 0$} = { inf {$ t>0 : W_t > \sqrt{t} $} = 0 } $\endgroup$ – crankk Jun 22 '15 at 6:00

Set $$A := \{W_t < \sqrt{t} \, \text{for infinitely many $t>0$}\}.$$ Since, by the law of the iterated logarithm,

$$\limsup_{t \to \infty} \frac{W_t}{\sqrt{t \log \log t}} = 1 \qquad \text{almost surely}$$

we have $A = \Omega \backslash N$ for some null set $N$. So the trouble is basically: Is $N \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}$? Since $\mathcal{F}_{0+}$ is (in general) not complete, we cannot expect $N \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}$. On the other hand, there are processes for which $N \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}$; just consider the Brownian motion

$$\tilde{W}_t(\omega) := \begin{cases} W_t(\omega), & \omega \in \Omega \backslash N, \\ 2 \sqrt{t}, & \omega \in N \end{cases}.$$ Then $$\{\tilde{W}_t> \sqrt{t} \, \text{for infinitely many $t$}\} = \Omega \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}.$$

Next, consider $$B := \limsup_{n \to \infty} \left\{W_{\frac{1}{n^2}}> \sqrt{\frac{1}{n}} \right\}.$$ Well, by definition,

$$B = \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \underbrace{\bigcup_{k \geq n} \left\{W_{\frac{1}{k^2}}> \sqrt{\frac{1}{k}} \right\}}_{=:B_n}.$$

Since $B_n \downarrow B$, we have

$$B = \bigcap_{n \geq N} B_n$$

for any (fixed) $N \in \mathbb{N}$. Since $B_n \in \mathcal{F}_{\frac{1}{n^2}}$, this implies $B \in \mathcal{F}_{\frac{1}{N^2}}$. Hence, $B \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}.$$

For $$C := \{\exists t_n \downarrow 0: W_{t_n}>\sqrt{t_n}\}$$

we note that

$$C = \bigcap_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \underbrace{ \left\{ \sup_{t \leq \frac{1}{k}} \frac{W_t}{\sqrt{t}}>1 \right\}}_{=:C_k}.$$

Since $C_k \downarrow C$ and $C_k \in \mathcal{F}_{\frac{1}{k}}$, this shows $C \in \mathcal{F}_{0+}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, so basically what I said is right then. $\endgroup$ – crankk Jun 23 '15 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ @crankk Yes. Just as a remark: One possibility to prove that a set $A$ is not contained in $\mathcal{F}_{0+}$ is to show that $\mathbb{P}(A) \notin \{0,1\}$. $\endgroup$ – saz Jun 24 '15 at 5:24

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.