I don't understand the following as I read along a proof in a paper:

We denote by $\mathcal{P}({M})$ the space of probability measures on a metric space $M$, equipped with the weak topology.

Let $E$ be a metric space. Let $\{ \mu_n \}$ be a sequence of random measures on $E$, i.e. for each $n$, $\mu_n$ is a $\mathcal{P} (E)$-valued random variable. Also, let $\mathbb{Q}$ be a deterministic probability measure on the same probability space. We can then treat $\delta_{\mathbb{Q}}$ be a constant $\mathcal{P}(E)$-valued random variable.

Since both $\text{Law} ( \mu_n) $ and $\text{Law} ( \delta_{\mathbb{Q}})$ are measures on $\mathcal{P}(E)$, the paper defines that $\mu_n$ converges in law to $\mathbb{Q}$ if $$\text{Law} ( \mu_n) \implies \text{Law} ( \delta_{\mathbb{Q}}). \quad \quad \quad \quad \, \, \, \, (*)$$ However, in the paper, the fact that $\mu_n$ converges in law to $\mathbb{Q}$ is concluded by establishing that $$\mathbb{E} \bigg[ \bigg| \int_E f \,d \mu_n - \int_E f \,d \mathbb{Q} \bigg| \bigg] \rightarrow 0, \quad \quad \quad (**)$$ for all continuous bounded functions $f$ on $E$.

By definition of $(*)$, this is equivalent to saying that $$ \int_{\mathcal{P}(E)} f \, d\text{Law} ( \mu_n) \rightarrow \int_{\mathcal{P}(E)} f \, d \text{Law} ( \delta_{\mathbb{Q}}),$$ for all continuous bounded functions $f$ on $\mathcal{P}(E)$. How does this follow from $(**)$? Any ideas?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You forgot to cite the paper itself for us to look at. $\endgroup$ – MathematicalPhysicist Jan 24 '16 at 20:16

Maybe my answer is not the simplest, but what we have is: for all $f\in \mathcal C_b$, let $\Phi_f : \nu \in \mathcal P(E) \mapsto \int_E f d\nu$ (is continuous and bounded),

$$ E[ \Phi_f(\mu_n)] \to E[ \Phi_f(\mu)] $$

In fact, there is some stuff I never really understand that are Convergent determining function... You can found that in the book of Dawson if I remember. The set $\{ \Phi_f \, : \, f\in \mathcal C_b \} \subset \mathcal C_b(\mathcal P(E),\mathbb R)$ if it separates the points, etc (I imagine your $E$ is a Polish). It is a direction I think...

** EDIT: Ethier & Kurtz Chap. 3 sec 4 on convergent determining set.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I still not have a real answer but in Measure valued Markov process, b Dawson, around Lemma 2.1.2 he construct an algebra.It is in the case of compact space, but... $\endgroup$ – Airlast Jan 25 '16 at 3:45

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.