This question arose from attending a seminar about stochastic processes using the book "Introduction to the Theory of Random Processes" by N.V. Krylov. I'm not gonna follow the notation of the book since it is a little outdated.

Let $X_t$ be an infinitely divisible cadlag process on $[0,\infty)$, i.e. a stochastically continuous time-homogeneous process with independent increment (also called a Levy process). For $0 \leq s < t < \infty$, define $\mathcal{F}_{s,t}^X$ as the completion of the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X_r - X_s, r \in [s,t]$.

Here comes the statement in question: Since the increments of $X_t$ are independent, the $\sigma$-fields $\mathcal{F}_{0,t_1}^X, \mathcal{F}_{t_1,t_2}^X,\ldots,\mathcal{F}_{t_{n-1},t_n}^X$ are independent for any $0 < t_1 < \ldots < t_n$.

I'm not sure how to proceed on how to prove it, my plan was to show the independence of the $\sigma$-algebras generated by the first 2 increments, show they are independent, and to show by induction that all these $\sigma$-algebras are pairwise independent, and then extend the result to independence by using Proposition II.5.5 in Cinlar ("The sub-$\sigma$-algebras $\mathcal{F}_1,\mathcal{F}_2,\ldots$ of $\mathcal{H}$ are independent iff $\mathcal{F}_{\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{n+1}$ are independent.")

The other people in the seminar had trouble proving the argument, they defined some set (where some sets were independent, I missed the discussion since I was working on my approach), and then tried showing it is both a $\pi$- and a $\lambda$-system.

  • $\begingroup$ Can you prove that the (uncompleted) $\sigma$-algebras generated by increments independent? $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Sep 11 '15 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know how to proceed for the uncompleted $\sigma$-algebras either, is it very different in this case? $\endgroup$ – Olorun Sep 11 '15 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ No, it follows straight from the definition, this is why I'm asking. $\endgroup$ – zhoraster Sep 11 '15 at 4:04
  • $\begingroup$ Ah..but then the extension to the completion shouldn't be too complicated either - maybe I'm missing something? $\endgroup$ – Olorun Sep 11 '15 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ No, it's not too complicated. Any progress? $\endgroup$ – saz Sep 12 '15 at 6:57

Here's my try on proving it, I might have some mistake in the notation..anyway, I'll be using several well-known results, which we will recall first.

  1. Let $\mathcal{A_1},\ldots,\mathcal{A_n}$ be $\pi$-systems that generate the $\sigma$-algebras $\mathcal{F_1},\ldots,\mathcal{F_n}$, respectively. If $\mathbb{P}(A_1 \cap\cdots \cap A_n) = \mathbb{P}(A_1) \cdots \mathbb{P}(A_n)$ for all $A_i \in \mathcal{A_i}, i=1,\ldots,n$, then $\mathcal{F_1},\ldots, \mathcal{F_n}$ are independent.

  2. If $\mathcal{F_1},\ldots,\mathcal{F_n}$ are independent, then $\overline{\mathcal{F}}_1,\ldots,\overline{\mathcal{F}}_n$, their respective completions, are independent.

So, the crux will be in finding the $\pi$-systems that are independent, which we will then use to generate the $\sigma$-algebras. This is mostly a problem with using the right notation for the process $X$.

For this purpose, let $$\mathcal{A}_k = \bigcup \sigma\left( X_{s_k^1}-X_{t_{k-1}},X_{s_k^2}-X_{t_{k-1}},\cdots,X_{s_k^{l_k}}-X_{t_{k-1}} \right),$$ where $s_k^i \in [t_{k-1},t_k], i=1,\ldots,l_k,$ and $l_k = 1,2,\ldots.$

This generates a $\pi$-system of independent $\mathcal{A}_k$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.