0
$\begingroup$

Given $X(t) = t W(1/t)$, I want to show that $X(t)$ is a Brownian Motion. Specifically, I want to show it using Levy's Characterization of Brownian Motion. Levy's Characterization of Brownian Motion states that if a process is almost surely a continuous martingale with $X(0) = 0$ and quadratic variation $t$, then the process is a Brownian Motion. I know how to show the continuity of $X(t)$ and that the quadratic variation is equal to $t$, but it is not clear to me why this process is a martingale. In my attempt to show this I have done the following:

\begin{align} E(X(t) | \mathcal{F}_s) &= E(t W(1/t) | \mathcal{F}_s)\\\\ &= tE(W(1/t) | \mathcal{F}_s)\\\\ &= t W(1/s). \end{align} My understanding is that the martingale property states that $E(X(t) | \mathcal{F}_s) = X(s)$, so, in this case, we would need $E(tW(1/t) | \mathcal{F}_s) = sW(1/s)$ which we do not have. Is this correct or am I mistaken?

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ What is $\mathcal F_s$ here? $\endgroup$ Apr 21 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathcal{F}_s$ is the filtration of sigma algebras defined as $\mathcal{F}_t = \sigma(sW(1/s) | s < t)$ $\endgroup$
    – chris7347
    Apr 24 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, so why is $E[W(1/t)|\mathcal F_s] = W(1/s)$? $\endgroup$ Apr 24 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ I think originally I may have defined $\mathcal{F}$ as $\sigma(W(1/s) | s<t)$. If I define the filtration as I did in my previous comment, would it follow that the process is a martingale? $\endgroup$
    – chris7347
    Apr 24 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ I think those filtrations are the same - scaling the random variables $W(1/s)$ doesn't really affect the information they give. The property you seem to be trying to use is that $E[W(t)|W(s)] = W(s)$ when $s < t$, but here you have something that looks more like $E[W(1/t)|W(1/s)]$ when $s < t$. $\endgroup$ Apr 24 at 15:13

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

We need to compute $E[W(1/t)|W(1/s)]$ for $s < t$, or equivalently we need to compute $E[W(t)|W(s)]$ for $t < s$. We make a guess that $E[W(t)|W(s)] = \beta W(s)$ for some constant (possibly depending on $t$ and $s$) $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$. Now, note that we must have $$0 = E[W(s)(W(t)-E[W(t)|W(s)])] = E[W(s)(W(t)-\beta W(s))],$$ so solving for $\beta$ we have $\beta = \frac{E[W(s)W(t)]}{E[W(s)^2]} = \frac ts$. Furthermore, since $W(s)$ and $W(t)-\beta W(s)$ are jointly normal, the fact that they are uncorrelated implies that they are independent, so we confirm that our guess $E[W(t)|W(s)] = \beta W(s)$ is correct.

Applying this to the problem we had originally, $E[W(1/t)|W(1/s)] = \frac{1/t}{1/s} W(1/s) = \frac st W(1/s)$, so \begin{align*} E[X(t)|\mathcal F_s] &= t E[W(1/t)|W(1/s)] \\ &= t \left( \frac st W(1/s) \right) \\ &= s W(1/s) = X(s). \end{align*}

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .