1
$\begingroup$

Let $\{X_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be iid and non-negative.

Let $$N(t): = \max \{n: \ X_1 + \cdots + X_n \le t \}.$$

Is $N(t)$ a stopping moment with respect to the natural filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ generated by $\{X_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ ? How about $N(t) + 1$?

I think that both are stopping moments.

Here is my solution:

$$\{N(t) \le k \} = \{N(t) =0 \} \cup \cdots \cup \{N(t) = k \}$$

Is $\{N(t) =0 \} = \{ X_0 \le t\} \cap \bigcap_{n \ge 1} \{S_n > t\} \in \mathcal{F}_0 $? We know for sure that $\{ X_0 \le t\} \in \mathcal{F}_0$.

Next, $$\{N(t) =1 \} = \{ X_0 \le t\} \cap \{ X_0 + X_1 \le t\} \cap \bigcap_{n \ge 2} \{S_n > t\}$$

And again, by measurability of $X_0, X_1, \ldots$ and the fact that we have the natural filtration, we have: $\{ X_0 \le t\}\in \mathcal{F}_0 \subset \mathcal{F}_1$ and $ \{ X_0 + X_1 \le t\} \in \mathcal{F}_1$.

$$\{N(t) = k \} = \bigcap_{0 \le n \le k} \{S_n \le t\} \cap \bigcap _{n \ge k+1} \{S_n > t\},$$ where $\bigcap_{0 \le n \le k} \{S_n \le t\} \in \mathcal{F}_n$ but I'm not sure about the second intersection.

When it comes to that infinite intersections, I know that each of $\{S_n > t \}$ is measurable in $\mathcal{F}_n$, but for the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_n \} _{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ we have that $\mathcal{F}_n \subset \mathcal{F}_{n+1}$ not the other way around.

And when it comes to $N(t) + 1$ it is a general fact that $\tau$ - stopping time $\implies \tau +1$ is a stopping time.

So could you tell me what I can do with the infinite intersections?

Or maybe my reasoning is incorrect and there should be no infinite intersections here?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

No, $N(t)$ is, in general, not a stopping time. The condition $\{N(t) \leq k\} \in \mathcal{F}_k$ means, roughly, that we can decide whether $N(t)(\omega) \leq k$ given the information up to time $k$, i.e. the values $X_1(\omega),\ldots,X_k(\omega)$. This is obviously not satisfied here because in order to decide whether $N(t)(\omega) \leq k$ we need to know whether $S_{k+1}(\omega) > t$ (and for this we also need $X_{k+1}(\omega)$).


As you already noted, we have

$$\{N(t)=0\} = \{X_0 \leq t\} \cap \bigcap_{n \geq 1} \{S_n>t\}.$$

Since $\{S_1>t\} \subseteq \{S_2>t\} \subseteq \dots$ (because of the non-negativity of $X_n$), this simplifies to

$$\{N(t)=0\} = \{X_0 \leq t\} \cap \{S_1>t\} = \{X_0 \leq t\} \cap \{X_0+X_1 > t\};$$

this set is, in general, not contained in $\mathcal{F}_0$. This implies that $N(t)$ is not a stopping time. However, using the formula

$$\{N(t)=k\} = \bigcap_{0 \leq n \leq k} \{S_n \leq t\} \cap \{S_{k+1}>t\}$$

it is not difficult to see that $N(t)+1$ is a stopping time.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Could you tell me why $\{X_0 + X_1 \}$ doesn't have to be in $\mathcal{F}_0$? Does it suffice to say that $\mathcal{F}_0$ is such that $X_0$ (and not necessarily $X_1$) is measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}_0$ ? Or do we need to construct a counterexample? $\endgroup$ – Don Nov 11 '15 at 19:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Don In my oppinion, it suffices to say that $X_1$ need not to be measurable wrt to $\mathcal{F}_0$. If you are looking for a concrete counterexample: Set e.g. $X_0 := 0$ and let $X_n \sim \frac{1}{2} \delta_0 + \frac{1}{2} \delta_1$ iid. Then $\mathcal{F}_0$ is the trivial $\sigma$-algebra; however, $X_1$ cannot be measurable wrt to $\mathcal{F}_0$ because only constant random variables are measurable wrt to the trivial $\sigma$-algebra. $\endgroup$ – saz Nov 11 '15 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ Great, thank you a lot for your help! $\endgroup$ – Don Nov 11 '15 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Don You are welcome. $\endgroup$ – saz Nov 11 '15 at 20:34

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.