• $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ be a probability space
  • $B=(B_t)_{t\ge 0}$ be a Brownian motion on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$
  • $\mathcal P$ be a sequence of countable subsets $$\mathcal P^n:=\left\{\cdots<t_i^{(n)}<t_{i+1}^{(n-1)}<\cdots\right\}$$ of $[0,\infty)$ such that
    • $0\in\mathcal P^n\subseteq\mathcal P^{n+1}$
    • $\sup\mathcal P^n=\infty$
    • $\displaystyle|\mathcal P^n|:=\sup_{t\in\mathcal P^n}\min_{s\in\mathcal P^n:s\ne t}|s-t|\stackrel{n\to\infty}{\to}0$
  • $\mathcal P_T^n:=\mathcal P^n\cap [0,T)$
  • $t':=t_{i+1}^{(n)}\wedge T$, if $t=t_i^{(n)}$

How can we show, that $$\sum_{t\in\mathcal P_T^n}f(B_t)(B_{t'}-B_t)^2\stackrel{n\to\infty}{\to}\int_0^Tf(B_s)\;ds$$ in probability?

I've found a proof (Theorem 7.12), but I absolutely don't understand what they are doing. They state, that "[if $\tau$ is] the first exit time from a compact interval [...] it suffices to prove the statement for [the] Brownian motion stopped at $\tau$".

What do they mean by "first exit from a compact interval $K$? Maybe $$\tau:=\inf\left\{t\ge 0:B_t\not\in K\right\}\;?$$

Why is that sufficient?


Define $\tau_L = \inf\{t \geq 0, |B_t|>L\}$. Note that $\tau_L \uparrow \infty$ and therefore $\Bbb{P}(\tau_L<n) \xrightarrow[L \to \infty]{} 0$ by the bounded convergence theorem.

That is sufficient because once you prove $$ \lim \sum_{j=1}^n f(B_{t^{(n)}_j})(t^{(n)}_{j+1} \wedge T - t^{(n)}_{j}\wedge T) \xrightarrow[n\to \infty]{\text{prob}}\sum\int_0^{t\wedge T} f(B_s)\, ds$$

You will know that

$$ \Bbb{P}\bigg(\bigg\vert\lim\sum_{j=1}^n f(B_{t^{(n)}_j})(t^{(n)}_{j+1} - t^{(n)}_{j}) -\sum\int_0^{t} f(B_s)\, ds \bigg\vert \geq \epsilon\bigg) \leq \\\Bbb{P}\bigg(\bigg\vert\lim\sum_{j=1}^n f(B_{t^{(n)}_j})(t^{(n)}_{j+1} \wedge \tau_L - t^{(n)}_{j}\wedge \tau_L) -\sum\int_0^{t\wedge \tau_L} f(B_s)\, ds \bigg\vert \geq \epsilon\bigg) + \Bbb{P}(t\geq \tau_L)$$

$\Bbb{P}(t \geq \tau_L) \xrightarrow[L\to \infty]{} 0$

Choose $L $ such that $\Bbb{P}(t \geq \tau_L) <\epsilon/2$ and then choose $n$ such that $$\Bbb{P}\bigg(\bigg\vert\lim\sum_{j=1}^n f(B_{t^{(n)}_j})(t^{(n)}_{j+1} \wedge \tau_L - t^{(n)}_{j}\wedge \tau_L) -\sum\int_0^{t\wedge \tau_L} f(B_s)\, ds \bigg\vert \geq \epsilon\bigg) <\epsilon/2.$$

  • $\begingroup$ What you've written is clear to me. However, I don't see how this is related to the statement. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Jul 9 '15 at 11:02
  • $\begingroup$ So, we' ve got $$\sum_{t\in\mathcal P_T^n}f(B_t)(B_{t'}-B_t)^2\stackrel{n\to\infty}{\to}\int_0^Tf(B_s)\;ds\tag{1}$$ in probability. And by the Itô isometry $$\operatorname E\left[\int_0^T F'(B_s)^2\;ds\right]=\operatorname E\left[\left(\int_0^T F'(B_s)\;dB_s\right)^2\right]\;.\tag{2}$$ Clearly, $(1)$ implies the existence of a almost surely convergent subsequence. But can we conclude by $(2)$, that $$\sum_{t\in\mathcal P_T^n}f(B_t)(B_{t'}-B_t)^2\stackrel{n\to\infty}{\to}\int_0^Tf(B_s)\;dB_s$$ almost surely (for a subsequence)? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Jul 9 '15 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ I will come back in a while. $\endgroup$ – Conrado Costa Jul 9 '15 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ could you supply more background? Is this a theorem in Peres? $\endgroup$ – Conrado Costa Jul 9 '15 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ No, but in the proof of Theorem 7.13 (you can find the link to the textbook below) they state, that by $(1)$ and "the definition of stochastic integral, we can choose a subsequence such that the sum in $(1)$ converges almost surely to $\int_0^T f(B_s)\;dB_s$". I assume that the "definition of stochastic integral "part is referring to the Itô isometry. people.bath.ac.uk/maspm/book.pdf $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Jul 9 '15 at 15:44

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.