I understand that the Quadratic Variation of Brownian Motion $B_t$ is $[B_t,B_t]=t$ and I know that the equality is under the meaning of $\mathcal{L}^2$ convergence. Yet I saw in some book saying that $$[B_t,B_t]=t, \text{ a.s.}$$ and I'm just wondering if that is true or not? For one thing I know that $\mathcal{L}^2$ convergence always ensure a sub-sequence which converges almost surely. But that is just a sub-sequence, not the whole. Right?


In general the variation sums

$$\sum_{t_{j-1},t_j \in \Pi_n} |B(t_j)-B(t_{j-1})|^2$$

do not converge almost surely as $|\Pi_n| \to 0$, but there are sufficient coniditions to ensure the pointwise convergence, e.g.

  1. The sequence $(\Pi_n)_n$ satisfies $\sum_n |\Pi_n| < \infty$. This follows rather directly from Borel-Cantelli's Lemma and Markov's inequality. Actually, one can show that $|\Pi_n| = O(1/\log n)$ is sufficient.
  2. The sequence is nested, i.e. $\Pi_n \subseteq \Pi_{n+1}$.

(cf. René L. Schilling/Lothar Partzsch: Brownian motion - An Introduction to Stochastic Processes.)

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't get you. What I'm really wondering is if $[B,B]_t$ converges almost surely. I understand it converges in $L^2$ and hence a sub-sequence of the partition exists to ensure almost surely convergence. Yet what I'm confused is it is just a sub-sequence and so there is still some chance for $[B,B]_t$ to deconverge for some partition. Is that right? $\endgroup$ – user90846 Sep 14 '13 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ @user90846 Yes, that's correct. I rewrote my answer, hopefully it's clearer now. $\endgroup$ – saz Sep 14 '13 at 12:00

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.