I quote Øksendal (2003).

Let us consider a probability space $\left(\Omega,\mathbb{P},\mathcal{A},\right)$ and a class of functions $f:\left[0,\infty\right]\times\Omega\mapsto\mathbb{R}$.
For $0\le S<T$, $\left(B(t)\right)_{t\ge0}$ a Brownian motion and $f(t,\omega)$ given, we want to define: $$\int_S^T f(t,\omega)dB(t)(\omega)$$ It is reasonable to start with a definition for a simple class of functions $f$ and then extend by some approximation procedure. First assume that $f$ has the form: $$\phi(t,\omega)=\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\cdot1_{[j\cdot2^{-n}, (j+1)2^{-n})}(t)$$ where $1$ denotes the indicator function and $n$ is a natural number.
For such functions, it is reasonable to define: $$\int_S^T\phi(t,\omega)dB_t(\omega)=\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\left[B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_j}\right](\omega)\tag{1}$$ where: $$t_k=t_k^{(n)}=\begin{cases}k\cdot 2^{-n}\hspace{0.3cm}\text{if } S\le k\cdot 2^{-n}\le T\tag{2}\\ S\hspace{0.3cm}\text{if } k\cdot 2^{-n}<S\\ T\hspace{0.3cm}\text{if } k\cdot 2^{-n}>T \end{cases}$$

My doubts concern the part in italics. Namely:


  1. Why, according to $(1)$: \begin{align}\int_S^T\phi(t,\omega)dB_t(\omega)&=\int_S^T\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\cdot1_{[j\cdot2^{-n}, (j+1)2^{-n})}(t)dB_t(\omega)\\&=\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\left[B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_j}\right](\omega)\end{align}?

    Is that due to the fact that $\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\cdot1_{[j\cdot2^{-n}, (j+1)2^{-n})}(t)$ do not depend on the variable of integration $B_{t}(\omega)$, hence they go outside sign of integration and one has: \begin{align}\int_S^T\phi(t,\omega)dB_t(\omega)&=\int_S^T\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\cdot1_{[j\cdot2^{-n}, (j+1)2^{-n})}(t)dB_t(\omega)\\&=\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\left[B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_j}\right](\omega)\end{align} with $t_k$ as specified in $(2)$ and $\sum_{j\ge0}\left[B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_j}\right]=B_{T}-B_{S}$?
  2. Besides, could you please detail the reason why $(2)$ is defined that way? In particular, is there in place the choice of left-end point of every time interval? Why does the value $t_k$ depend on whether $k\cdot2^{-n}$ is positioned? What I would expect instead is something like: $$t_k=t_k^{(n)}=\begin{cases}t_k\hspace{0.4cm}\text{if } k\cdot 2^{-n}\le t_k \le (k+1)\cdot2^{-n}\tag{2.bis}\\ 0\hspace{0.5cm}\text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am writing an answer, but prior to that, I just want to say that if you read the rest of that same chapter, you could get some insight into question $2$. The intention of stochastic calculus may not always coincide with the intention of usual calculus, so that particular observation of yours is important. $\endgroup$ – Teresa Lisbon Nov 3 '20 at 5:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (1) It is the definition of a stochastic integral for elementary functions w.r.t. a BM. (2) Your "definition" of $t_k$ doesn't make sense (it's circular). $\endgroup$ – d.k.o. Nov 3 '20 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ OK, could you please just explain why is $(2)$ originally defined that way? I cannot understand the undelying "logic" @d.k.o. $\endgroup$ – Strictly_increasing Nov 3 '20 at 11:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Strictly_increasing While I was halfway to writing an answer to this question, the other answer came up, and to be honest I think it is fantastic, so I will not answer the question. Thanks for giving me the opportunity, though. I would still like to provide you with references : "Brownian motion and stochastic calculus" by Schilling and Partzsch is an excellent starting book : it covers both the Ito and Stratonovich integral in separate chapters. Then the introduction to Chapter $3$ of Karatzas-Shreve taks in detail about why this definition is reasonable. $\endgroup$ – Teresa Lisbon Nov 8 '20 at 8:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oksendal is the book to read if you want a quick introduction to the concept of Stochastic calculus. But it is not comprehensive, and does not indulge in discussion beyond a certain point. Better books (i.e. harder to read, but more discussion-based and with better exercises) are the two books I referenced above. They will give you a solid foundation if you want to get into research in the subject as I have done. $\endgroup$ – Teresa Lisbon Nov 8 '20 at 8:36

(1) It is the definition of a stochastic integral for elementary functions w.r.t. a BM. (See the beginning of the next section.) Why is it reasonable? Consider a discrete-time analogue. Let $\{X_n\}$ be a martingale adapted to $\{\mathcal{F}_n\}$ and let $\{H_n\}$ be a bounded, previsible process, i.e., $H_n\in\mathcal{F}_{n-1}$. Then we define $$ (H\cdot X)_n:=\sum_{i=1}^n H_i \Delta X_i,\quad (H\cdot X)_0=0 $$
as our discrete time stochastic integral (in fact, it is called the martingale transform of $X$). The standard example is that if you bet 1\$ each time (i.e., $H_n=1$), your total gain/loss at time $n$ is exactly $(H\cdot X)_n$. A nice property of this process is that it is a martingale (is it crucial that $H$ is predictable; take, for example, $H_n=\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta X_n)$). The corresponding processes in your case are $H_n=e_{n-1}$ and $X_n=B_{t_n}$ (setting $S=0$).

(2) The "logic" behind the definition of $t_k$ is related to the definition of elementary functions. For each $k$, such a function is constant on $[k 2^{-n},(k+1)2^{-n})$ and $(B_t)$ is "sampled" at the corresponding end-points.

  • $\begingroup$ My question $(1)$ specifically refers to the "passage" $\int_S^T\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\cdot1_{[j\cdot2^{-n}, (j+1)2^{-n})}(t)dB_t(\omega)=\sum_{j\ge0}e_j(\omega)\left[B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_j}\right](\omega)$. Why does that hold true mathematically speaking? $$$$ As to my question $(2)$, what I mean is: why $t_k=S$ if $S>k2^{-n}$ and $t_k=T$ if $T<k2^{-n}$. That sounds "counterintuitive" to me (if I try, for example, to visually imagine the situation) $\endgroup$ – Strictly_increasing Nov 3 '20 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ (1) It holds by definition. (2) Why is it "counterintuitive"? To visually imagine the situation look at the graph of $t\mapsto 2^{-n}\lfloor t 2^n\rfloor$ between $S$ and $T$. $\endgroup$ – d.k.o. Nov 3 '20 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ yeah, you said "Look at the graph of .... $\color{red}{\text{between }S \text{ and }T}$" and that sounds good to me. But the point is exactly that I cannot understand why one has to focus on the points $k2^{-n}$ outside the interval $[S,T]$. $$$$ What's the point in having a focus on $S>k2^{-n}$ (for which $t_k=S$) and on $T<k2^{-n}$ (for which $t_k=T$)? $\endgroup$ – Strictly_increasing Nov 7 '20 at 11:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see. The sequence $\{k2^{-n}:k\ge 0\}$ creates a partition of $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$. For small and large $k$, most of these points lie outside of $[S,T]$ and need to be truncated. This partition could be equivalently defined as follows: $\{S, k_{min}2^{-n}, \ldots, k_{max}2^{-n},T\}$, where $k_{min}$ ($k_{max}$) is the minimal (maximal) $k$ s.t. $k2^{-n}>S$ ($k2^{-n}<T$). $\endgroup$ – d.k.o. Nov 7 '20 at 13:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No. Suppose that $t_k\le S$ for $k=0, \ldots, K$. Then $B_{t_{k+1}}-B_{t_{k}}=B_S-B_S=0$ for all $k=0,\ldots, K-1$ and so $\sum_{j=0}^{K-1}e_j(B_{t_{j+1}}-B_{t_{j}})=0$. $\endgroup$ – d.k.o. Nov 7 '20 at 15:30

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.