I was solving questions from the Martingales chapter in "Stochastic Processes" by Richard Bass. There was a question regarding d- dimensional Brownian motions(BM):

Let $(W_t^1,...,W_t^d)$ be a d dimensional Brownian motion. Show that for $i \neq j,\quad W_t^iW_t^j$ is a Martingale.

Just to revise, a d-dimensional Brownian motion is a process of the form $(W_t^1,...,W_t^d)$ where each $W_t^i$ is a Brownian motion wrt filtration $\mathcal{F}_t$ and $W^{1}$,...,$W^{d}$ are mutually independent.

While working it out, I had the following issues:

1) Is the filtration to be chosen for this martingale $\mathcal{F_t}=\sigma(W_u^iW_u^j,\quad 0\leq u \leq t)$ ? Or is it $\sigma(W_u^i,W_u^j,\quad 0\leq u \leq t)$? I feel it is the latter but because the filtration wasn't specified, it could very well be the former.

To understand why this would be a problem, let me share my solution. (I have proved the integrability requirement for a martingale).

Consider w.l.o.g $W_t$ and $V_t$, two Brownian motions mutually independent. It suffices to show $$\mathbb{E}[W_tV_t | \mathcal{F_s}] = W_sV_s$$ Hence consider $$\mathbb{E}[(W_t - W_s)(V_t - V_s)|\mathcal{F}_s]$$ which after some simplification yields $$= \mathbb{E}[W_tV_t | \mathcal{F_s}] - W_sV_s$$

Now I wanted to use the independent increments property of BM to conclude the following*: $$\mathbb{E}[(W_t - W_s)(V_t - V_s)|\mathcal{F}_s] =\mathbb{E}[(W_t - W_s)(V_t - V_s)]$$ Due to independence of $V_t$ and $W_t$ $$=\mathbb{E}[(W_t - W_s)]\mathbb{E}[(V_t - V_s)] = 0$$

At step *, I have used that $(W_t - W_s)$, $(V_t - V_s)$ and $\mathcal{F}_s$ are MUTUALLY independent. Is this sequitur (does it follow) if I assume $\mathcal{F}_t = \sigma(W_u,V_u,\quad 0\leq u \leq t)$?

I would appreciate any help in this regard. Additionally I have googled out d dimension brownian motion martingales but this query was not there. Nor did I find anything like it here.


$$\mathcal F_t=\sigma(W_s\,;\,0\leqslant s\leqslant t)=\sigma(W^i_s\,;\,1\leqslant i\leqslant d,\,0\leqslant s\leqslant t)$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Let me try it with this filtration. $\endgroup$ – Gautam Shenoy Feb 15 '13 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ Wait. I have tried this. @Did : Could you tell me if my arguments at the end follow? The mutual Independence one. $\endgroup$ – Gautam Shenoy Feb 15 '13 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, since four families are globally independent: $(W_u)_{u\leqslant t}$, $(V_u)_{u\leqslant t}$, $(W_u-W_t)_{u\geqslant t}$ and $(V_u-V_t)_{u\geqslant t}$. $\endgroup$ – Did Feb 15 '13 at 13:03
  • $\begingroup$ Great. This is what I was looking for. Thanks $\endgroup$ – Gautam Shenoy Feb 17 '13 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Did Just a curiosity I can't quite figure out on my own: what would happen if we used $\mathcal{G_t}=\sigma(W_s^iW_u^j:\ 0\leq s \leq t, 0\leq u \leq t)$ as our filtration? Would $W_u^iW_u^j$ be a $\mathcal{G_t}$-martingale? $\endgroup$ – AdrianoMeis Jan 26 at 20:02

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.