Let $B$ be a Brownian motion on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal A,(\mathcal F_t)_{t\in[0,\:T]},\operatorname P)$ with $T>0$ and $\Phi\in L^2\left(\operatorname P\otimes\left.\lambda^1\right|_{[0,\:T]}\right)$ be $\mathcal F$-predictable. Now, let $t_0\in[0,T]$ and $X:\Omega\to\mathbb R$ be $\mathcal F_0$-measurable.

I want to show that $$X\int_{t_0}^T\Phi\:{\rm d}B=\int_{t_0}^TX\Phi\:{\rm d}B\;.\tag1$$

If $\Phi$ is elementary, i.e. $$\Phi=\sum_{i=1}^k1_{(s_{i-1},\:s_i]}^{[0,\:T]}\eta_i\tag2$$ for some $k\in\mathbb N$, $0\le s_0<\cdots<s_k\le T$ and $\mathcal F_{s_{i-1}}$-measurable $\eta_i:\Omega\to\mathbb R$ with $|\eta_i(\Omega)|\in\mathbb N$, then it's easy to see that $(1)$ holds.

In the general case, there is a sequence $(\Phi^n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ of elementary processes with $$\left\|\Phi-\Phi^n\right\|_{L^2\left(\operatorname P\otimes\left.\lambda^1\right|_{[0,\:T]}\right)}\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0\tag3$$ and $$\left\|\Phi\cdot B-\Phi^n\cdot B\right\|_{M^2(\operatorname P)}\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0\;,\tag4$$ where $\Phi\cdot B$ denotes the integral process $\left(\int_0^t\Phi\:{\rm d}B\right)_{t\in[0,\:T]}$ and $M^2(\operatorname P)$ denotes the space of square integrable continous $\mathcal F$-martingales.

Let $\tilde\Phi:=1_{(t_0,\:T]}\Phi$ and $\tilde\Phi^n:=1_{(t_0,\:T]}\Phi^n$. By the (omitted) proof of the elementary case, $\tilde\Phi^n$ and $X\tilde\Phi^n$ are elementary (and hence their Itō integral is well-defined). In order to conclude by approximation, we need that $X\tilde\Phi\in L^2\left(\operatorname P\otimes\left.\lambda^1\right|_{[0,\:T]}\right)$ is $\mathcal F$-predictable (such that the Itō integral is well-defined) and $$\left\|X\tilde\Phi-X\tilde\Phi^n\right\|_{L^2\left(\operatorname P\otimes\left.\lambda^1\right|_{[0,\:T]}\right)}\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0\;.\tag5$$

However, I don't see why $X\tilde\Phi$ should even satisfy the integrability assumption, since their is no integrability assumption on $X$. So, is the statement wrong? Do we need $X\in L^\infty(\operatorname P)$? Or is there something that I'm missing?


For $n=1,2,\ldots$ define $X_n:=X1_{\{|X|\le n\}}$. Your argument applies to each $X_n$ to show that the desired result holds a.s. on each $\{|X|\le n\}$, hence a.s. on $\{|X|<\infty\}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure? I think that there is a problem in your argumentation: Even when $\omega\in\left\{|X|\le n\right\}$, $\int_{t_0}^TX\Phi\:{\rm d}B(\omega)$ doesn't depend solely on $\omega$. In any case, your argument cannot work unless you're able to show that $X\tilde\Phi\in L^2\left(\operatorname P\otimes\left.\lambda^1\right|_{[0,\:T]}\right)$ (since otherwise the object $\int_{t_0}^TX\Phi\:{\rm d}B$ is not even defined). $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Sep 30 '17 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ For that object to be defined you only need $X\Phi$ to be locally in $L^2$, which it is. A localizing sequence of stopping times is given by $\tau_n:=T$ on $\{|X|\le n\}$; $\tau_n:=0$ on $\{|X|>n\}$. $\endgroup$ – John Dawkins Oct 1 '17 at 15:37

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.