2
$\begingroup$

Let

  • $b\in C^1(\mathbb R)$ be Lipschitz continuous
  • $\sigma\in C^2(\mathbb R)$ be Lipschitz continuous with $\sigma(\mathbb R)\subseteq\mathbb R\setminus\left\{0\right\}$ and $\sigma''$ being bounded
  • $Lf:=bf'+\frac12\sigma^2f''$ for $f\in C^2(\mathbb R)$ and $L^\ast g:=\frac12(\sigma^2g)''-(bg)'$ for $g\in C^2(\mathbb R)$
  • $(\kappa_t)_{t\ge0}$ be a semigroup of Markov kernels on $(\mathbb R,\mathcal B(\mathbb R))$ and $$\kappa_t f:=\int\kappa_t(\;\cdot\;,{\rm d}y)f(y)\tag1$$ for bounded Borel measurable $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$.

Assume $(\kappa_t)_{t\ge0}$ is a strongly continuous semigroup (via $(1)$) on $C_0(\mathbb R)$ (continuous functions on $\mathbb R$ vanishing at infinity equipped with the supremum norm) with infinitesimal generator $(\mathcal D(A),A)$ given by the restriction $A$ of $L$ to $$\mathcal D(A):=\left\{f\in C_0(\mathbb R)\cap C^2(\mathbb R):Lf\in C_0(\mathbb R)\right\}.$$ Moreover, assume there is a Borel measurable $p_t:\mathbb R\times\mathbb R\to[0,\infty)$ with $$\kappa_t(x,B)=\int_Bp_t(x,y)\:\lambda({\rm d}y)\;\;\;\text{for all }(x,B)\in\mathbb R\times\mathcal B(\mathbb R)\tag2,$$ where $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure, for all $t\ge0$ with

  1. $[0,\infty)\ni t\mapsto p_t(x,y)$ is differentiable for all $x,y\in\mathbb R$ and $$[0,\infty)\times\mathbb R\ni(t,y)\mapsto\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(t,x,y)\tag3$$ is locally bounded for all $x\in\mathbb R$
  2. $\mathbb R\ni y\mapsto p_t(x,y)$ is twice continuously differentiable for all $(t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb R$.

We can observe the following: Fix $f\in C_c^2(\mathbb R)$. Then, $$\frac{\kappa_{t+h}f-\kappa_tf}h\xrightarrow{h\to0}A(\kappa_tf)=\kappa_t(Af)\tag4,$$ where the convergence is with respect to the supremum norm, for all $t\ge0$. Fix $(t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb R$. On the one hand, $$\frac{(\kappa_{t+h}f)(x)-(\kappa_tf)(x)}h\xrightarrow{h\to0}\int\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(t,x,y)f(y)\:{\rm d}y\tag5$$ by 1. and the dominated convergence theorem. On the other hand, $$\left(\kappa_t\left(Af\right)\right)(x)=\int f(y)\left(L^\ast\left(p_t(x,\;\cdot\;)\right)\right)(y)\:{\rm d}y\tag6$$ by 2. and integration by parts. Thus, $$\int\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(t,x,y)f(y)\:{\rm d}y=\int f(y)\left(L^\ast\left(p_t(x,\;\cdot\;)\right)\right)(y)\:{\rm d}y\tag7.$$ Are we able to conclude $$\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(t,x,y)=\left(L^\ast\left(p_t(x,\;\cdot\;)\right)\right)(y)\tag8$$ (since $f$ was arbitrary)?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Essentially your question is whether $C_c^2(\mathbb{R})$ is measure-determining and the answer is "yes".

Definition Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be (non-negative) measures on a measurable space $(X,\mathcal{A})$. A family $\mathcal{D} \subseteq L^1(\mu) \cap L^1(\nu)$ is called determining if $$\left\{ \forall f \in \mathcal{D}: \quad \int f \, d \mu = \int f \, d\nu \right\} \implies \mu = \nu.$$

It is known that $C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is determining for all measures which are finite on compact sets, see e.g. Theorem 17.12 in $\{1\}$. The idea is to use the fact that $C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is dense in $L^1(\mu)$ for any measure $\mu$ which is finite on compacts. As a consequence of this, we get that $\mathcal{D}=C_c^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is determining, i.e.

$$\left\{\forall f \in C_c^2(\mathbb{R}^n): \quad \int f \, d\mu = \int f \, d\nu \right\} \implies \mu=\nu \tag{1}$$

for any (non-negative) measures $\mu$, $\nu$ which are finite on compacts. Alternatively, $(1)$ can be proved by noting that it suffices to show $\mu(K)=\nu(K)$ for any compact set $K$ and applying Urysohn's lemma to approximate the indicator function $1_K$ by (sufficiently) smooth functions.

In your case we are not dealing with non-negative measures but that's not much of a bother. If $p$, $q$ are two locally bounded functions such that $$\int f(x) p(x) \, dx = \int f(x) q(x) \, dx, \qquad f \in C_c^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$$ then $$\int f(x) (p^+(x)+q^-(x)) \, dx = \int f(x) (p^-(x)+q^+(x)) \, dx$$ where $\pm$ denotes the positive and negative part, respectively. Applying $(1)$ we get

$$\int_B (p^+(x)+q^-(x)) \, dx = \int_B (p^-(x)+q^+(x)) \, dx$$

for any Borel set $B$, i.e.

$$\int_B p(x) \, dx= \int q(x) \, dx.$$

Choosing $B=\{p>q\}$ and $B=\{q<p\}$ this yields $p=q$ (Lebesgue)-almost everywhere. If $p$ and $q$ are continuous, then this, in turn, entails that $p=q$.

Hence, $(7)$ gives $(8)$ provided that $\partial_t p(t,x,\cdot)$ and $L^* p_t(x,\cdot)$ are locally bounded and continuous.

Reference

$\{1\}$ R. Schilling: Measures, integrals and martingales, Cambridge, 2nd edition.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I've only got a copy of the 1st edition. The relevant chapter is completely new, right? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Jan 25, 2019 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d Seems so, yes. You can take a look at this question which gives two references (though not exactly for the statement which I mentioned above; since I don't have copies of the books I can't check what material they contain about determining families). $\endgroup$
    – saz
    Jan 25, 2019 at 17:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Which version of Urysohn's lemma do you've got in mind? (Surely not the one from Wikipedia.) $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Jan 26, 2019 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d For instance something like this $\endgroup$
    – saz
    Jan 26, 2019 at 7:42

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.