1
$\begingroup$

I have the following in my notes and I'm not sure if it's true or not. Any help would be highly appreciated.

If $\{W_t\}_{t\geq0}$ is a standard Brownian motion stochastic process, $\Delta>0$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ then $W_{n\Delta}-W_{(n-1)\Delta}$ is mean zero and variance $\Delta$ normal random variable.

I am using the following definition of Brownian motion, as taken from Harrison's Stochastic flow systems:

A stochastic process $\{W_t\}_{t\geq0}$ has independent increments if the random variables $X_{t_1}-X_{t_0},\ldots,X_{t_n}-X_{t_{n-1}}$ are independent for all $n\geq 1$ and all $0\leq t_0\leq\ldots\leq t_n<\infty$. It has stationary independent increments if the distribution of $X_t-X_s$ depends only on $t-s$. A Standard Brownian motion is a stochastic process that has continuous sample paths, stationary independent increments and $X_t\sim N(0,t)$.

That the difference is mean zero, I can see. What I'm not convinced about is that variance wil be $\Delta$. Any thoughts?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ you mean: normal random variable, not just random variable. $\endgroup$ – Sergio Parreiras Apr 6 '14 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ yes, thanks for pointing out $\endgroup$ – mathemagician Apr 6 '14 at 22:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What is your definition of Brownian motion? To me, this is true by definition. $\endgroup$ – Potato Apr 6 '14 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ I'm starting to understand the source of my confusion. On Wikipedia, a Wiener process is defined as satisfying $W_t-W_s\sim N(0,t-s)$ for $0\leq s<t$. However, Harrison which is the textbook I'm studying from defines the Wiener process (page 1) as $W_t\sim N(0,t)$ Under this definition, we would however have that $W_t-W_s\sim N(0,t+s)$, hence my confusion. Am I missing something here? $\endgroup$ – mathemagician Apr 6 '14 at 22:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your last assertion is not correct, because $W_t$ and $W_s$ are not independent. Can you please type the definition you are using into the body of your question? $\endgroup$ – Potato Apr 6 '14 at 22:49
2
$\begingroup$

$$E[ (W_{n\Delta} - W_{(n-1)\Delta})^2] = E[W_{n\Delta}^2] - 2 E[W_{n\Delta}W_{(n-1)\Delta}] + E[W_{(n-1)\Delta}^2]$$ Use what we know about the second moment of $W_t$, and rewrite the second term. $$ =n \Delta - 2 E\left[\left(W_{(n-1)\Delta} + (W_{n\Delta}-W_{(n-1)\Delta})\right)W_{(n-1)\Delta}\right] + (n-1)\Delta$$ Expand second term and use independence of non overlapping intervals $$ = (2n-1) \Delta - 2 E\left[W_{(n-1)\Delta}^2\right] - 2E[(W_{n\Delta}-W_{(n-1)\Delta})]E[W_{(n-1)\Delta}]$$ The third term above has to be $0$ by properties we prescribed on the first moment of $W_t$. Now just do algebra $$ = (2n -1) \Delta -2(n-1)\Delta = \Delta$$

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Since $X_t$ is $N(0,t)$ for every $t$, one knows that $X_0=0$. Since the distribution of $X_t-X_s$ depends only on $t-s$, one knows that, for every $n$, $X_{n\Delta}-X_{(n-1)\Delta}$ is distributed like $X_{\Delta}-X_0=X_\Delta$, which is $N(0,\Delta)$. In particular, $X_{n\Delta}-X_{(n-1)\Delta}$ is centered with variance $\Delta$, QED.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Even simpler. Didn't notice that he was given that $X_t - X_s$ depends only on $t-s$. Is that a neccessary part of the definition then? Since I didn't use it and I think my calculation is also correct. $\endgroup$ – Kai Sikorski Apr 6 '14 at 23:56

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.