If $(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ and $(N_t)_{tge0}$ are stochastic processes, what is the filtration generated by...
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let
$(Omega,mathcal A)$ and $(E,mathcal E)$ be measurable spaces
$(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ be a $(E,mathcal E)$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
$(N_t)_{tge0}$ be a $mathbb N_0$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
Don't know if it matters, but in my application, $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
Moreover, let $$mathcal F^N_t:=sigma(N_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^Y_n:=sigma(Y_m:minleft{0,ldots,nright});;;text{for }ninmathbb N_0.$$
Now, let $$X_t:=Y_{N_t};;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^X_t:=sigma(X_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$
How can we show that $$sigmaleft(left{Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}:Ainmathcal F^N_t,ninmathbb N_0text{ and }Binmathcal F^Y_nright}right)=mathcal F_t:=sigma(mathcal F_t^Ncupmathcal F_t^X)$$ for all $tge0$?
Let $tge0$. I even fail to show that if $Ainmathcal F^N_t$, $ninmathbb N_0$ and $Binmathcal F^Y_n$, then $Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F_t$. Though, it would be clear, if $Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F^X_t$. I guess we somehow need to use that $X_t$ coincindes with $Y_n$ on $left{N_t=nright}$.
probability-theory measure-theory stochastic-processes
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let
$(Omega,mathcal A)$ and $(E,mathcal E)$ be measurable spaces
$(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ be a $(E,mathcal E)$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
$(N_t)_{tge0}$ be a $mathbb N_0$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
Don't know if it matters, but in my application, $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
Moreover, let $$mathcal F^N_t:=sigma(N_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^Y_n:=sigma(Y_m:minleft{0,ldots,nright});;;text{for }ninmathbb N_0.$$
Now, let $$X_t:=Y_{N_t};;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^X_t:=sigma(X_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$
How can we show that $$sigmaleft(left{Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}:Ainmathcal F^N_t,ninmathbb N_0text{ and }Binmathcal F^Y_nright}right)=mathcal F_t:=sigma(mathcal F_t^Ncupmathcal F_t^X)$$ for all $tge0$?
Let $tge0$. I even fail to show that if $Ainmathcal F^N_t$, $ninmathbb N_0$ and $Binmathcal F^Y_n$, then $Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F_t$. Though, it would be clear, if $Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F^X_t$. I guess we somehow need to use that $X_t$ coincindes with $Y_n$ on $left{N_t=nright}$.
probability-theory measure-theory stochastic-processes
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let
$(Omega,mathcal A)$ and $(E,mathcal E)$ be measurable spaces
$(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ be a $(E,mathcal E)$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
$(N_t)_{tge0}$ be a $mathbb N_0$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
Don't know if it matters, but in my application, $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
Moreover, let $$mathcal F^N_t:=sigma(N_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^Y_n:=sigma(Y_m:minleft{0,ldots,nright});;;text{for }ninmathbb N_0.$$
Now, let $$X_t:=Y_{N_t};;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^X_t:=sigma(X_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$
How can we show that $$sigmaleft(left{Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}:Ainmathcal F^N_t,ninmathbb N_0text{ and }Binmathcal F^Y_nright}right)=mathcal F_t:=sigma(mathcal F_t^Ncupmathcal F_t^X)$$ for all $tge0$?
Let $tge0$. I even fail to show that if $Ainmathcal F^N_t$, $ninmathbb N_0$ and $Binmathcal F^Y_n$, then $Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F_t$. Though, it would be clear, if $Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F^X_t$. I guess we somehow need to use that $X_t$ coincindes with $Y_n$ on $left{N_t=nright}$.
probability-theory measure-theory stochastic-processes
Let
$(Omega,mathcal A)$ and $(E,mathcal E)$ be measurable spaces
$(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ be a $(E,mathcal E)$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
$(N_t)_{tge0}$ be a $mathbb N_0$-valued stochastic process on $(Omega,mathcal A)$
Don't know if it matters, but in my application, $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
Moreover, let $$mathcal F^N_t:=sigma(N_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^Y_n:=sigma(Y_m:minleft{0,ldots,nright});;;text{for }ninmathbb N_0.$$
Now, let $$X_t:=Y_{N_t};;;text{for }tge0$$ and $$mathcal F^X_t:=sigma(X_s:0le sle t);;;text{for }tge0$$
How can we show that $$sigmaleft(left{Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}:Ainmathcal F^N_t,ninmathbb N_0text{ and }Binmathcal F^Y_nright}right)=mathcal F_t:=sigma(mathcal F_t^Ncupmathcal F_t^X)$$ for all $tge0$?
Let $tge0$. I even fail to show that if $Ainmathcal F^N_t$, $ninmathbb N_0$ and $Binmathcal F^Y_n$, then $Acap Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F_t$. Though, it would be clear, if $Bcapleft{N_t=nright}inmathcal F^X_t$. I guess we somehow need to use that $X_t$ coincindes with $Y_n$ on $left{N_t=nright}$.
probability-theory measure-theory stochastic-processes
probability-theory measure-theory stochastic-processes
edited 6 hours ago
asked 8 hours ago
0xbadf00d
1,85541428
1,85541428
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago
add a comment |
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Observe that for any $Ain {cal F}^Y_n$ and any $Bin{cal F}^N_t$, up to null events (not sure if completions were considered here), there exist $tilde Ain {cal E}$ and $tilde Bsubset {mathbb N}_0$ such that
$A = {Y_n in tilde {A}}$.
$B ={N_tin tilde{B}}.$
This should help. Indeed,
$$A cap {N_t=n} ={Y_n in tilde A,N_t=n}={X_t in tilde A,N_t=n}$$
and
$$ B cap {N_t=n} ={N_tin tilde Bcap {n}}.$$
Therefore,
$$ A cap B cap {N_t=n} ={underset{in {cal F}^X_t}{underbrace{ X_t in tilde A}},underset{in {cal F}^Y_t}{underbrace{N_tin tilde B cap {n}}}}.$$
As RHS is an intersection of two events in ${cal F}^N_t$ and ${cal F}^X_t$, it is in $sigma({cal F}^N_tcup {cal F}^X_t)$.
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Observe that for any $Ain {cal F}^Y_n$ and any $Bin{cal F}^N_t$, up to null events (not sure if completions were considered here), there exist $tilde Ain {cal E}$ and $tilde Bsubset {mathbb N}_0$ such that
$A = {Y_n in tilde {A}}$.
$B ={N_tin tilde{B}}.$
This should help. Indeed,
$$A cap {N_t=n} ={Y_n in tilde A,N_t=n}={X_t in tilde A,N_t=n}$$
and
$$ B cap {N_t=n} ={N_tin tilde Bcap {n}}.$$
Therefore,
$$ A cap B cap {N_t=n} ={underset{in {cal F}^X_t}{underbrace{ X_t in tilde A}},underset{in {cal F}^Y_t}{underbrace{N_tin tilde B cap {n}}}}.$$
As RHS is an intersection of two events in ${cal F}^N_t$ and ${cal F}^X_t$, it is in $sigma({cal F}^N_tcup {cal F}^X_t)$.
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Observe that for any $Ain {cal F}^Y_n$ and any $Bin{cal F}^N_t$, up to null events (not sure if completions were considered here), there exist $tilde Ain {cal E}$ and $tilde Bsubset {mathbb N}_0$ such that
$A = {Y_n in tilde {A}}$.
$B ={N_tin tilde{B}}.$
This should help. Indeed,
$$A cap {N_t=n} ={Y_n in tilde A,N_t=n}={X_t in tilde A,N_t=n}$$
and
$$ B cap {N_t=n} ={N_tin tilde Bcap {n}}.$$
Therefore,
$$ A cap B cap {N_t=n} ={underset{in {cal F}^X_t}{underbrace{ X_t in tilde A}},underset{in {cal F}^Y_t}{underbrace{N_tin tilde B cap {n}}}}.$$
As RHS is an intersection of two events in ${cal F}^N_t$ and ${cal F}^X_t$, it is in $sigma({cal F}^N_tcup {cal F}^X_t)$.
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Observe that for any $Ain {cal F}^Y_n$ and any $Bin{cal F}^N_t$, up to null events (not sure if completions were considered here), there exist $tilde Ain {cal E}$ and $tilde Bsubset {mathbb N}_0$ such that
$A = {Y_n in tilde {A}}$.
$B ={N_tin tilde{B}}.$
This should help. Indeed,
$$A cap {N_t=n} ={Y_n in tilde A,N_t=n}={X_t in tilde A,N_t=n}$$
and
$$ B cap {N_t=n} ={N_tin tilde Bcap {n}}.$$
Therefore,
$$ A cap B cap {N_t=n} ={underset{in {cal F}^X_t}{underbrace{ X_t in tilde A}},underset{in {cal F}^Y_t}{underbrace{N_tin tilde B cap {n}}}}.$$
As RHS is an intersection of two events in ${cal F}^N_t$ and ${cal F}^X_t$, it is in $sigma({cal F}^N_tcup {cal F}^X_t)$.
Observe that for any $Ain {cal F}^Y_n$ and any $Bin{cal F}^N_t$, up to null events (not sure if completions were considered here), there exist $tilde Ain {cal E}$ and $tilde Bsubset {mathbb N}_0$ such that
$A = {Y_n in tilde {A}}$.
$B ={N_tin tilde{B}}.$
This should help. Indeed,
$$A cap {N_t=n} ={Y_n in tilde A,N_t=n}={X_t in tilde A,N_t=n}$$
and
$$ B cap {N_t=n} ={N_tin tilde Bcap {n}}.$$
Therefore,
$$ A cap B cap {N_t=n} ={underset{in {cal F}^X_t}{underbrace{ X_t in tilde A}},underset{in {cal F}^Y_t}{underbrace{N_tin tilde B cap {n}}}}.$$
As RHS is an intersection of two events in ${cal F}^N_t$ and ${cal F}^X_t$, it is in $sigma({cal F}^N_tcup {cal F}^X_t)$.
answered 5 hours ago
Fnacool
4,826511
4,826511
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
add a comment |
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
What do you mean with "up to null events"? Only those for which $operatorname P[A]ne0$ and $operatorname P[B]ne0$? Why does that matter?
– 0xbadf00d
4 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
Because it is a normal practice to complete $sigma$-algebras. What this practically means here is that the identification of $A$ and $B$ as given may only hold a.s.
– Fnacool
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
How can we prove that identification? Do you have a reference?
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
I strongly doubt that these identifications are possible. Note that $mathcal F^Y_nnesigma(Y_n)$.
– 0xbadf00d
3 hours ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
But note that $left.sigma(X_t)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}=left.sigma(Y_n)right|_{left{:N_t:=:n:right}}$. Unfortunately, I don't see how this helps.
– 0xbadf00d
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995311%2fif-y-n-n-in-mathbb-n-0-and-n-t-t-ge0-are-stochastic-processes-what%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
We cannot show this because it is not true. Take for example the case $Y_0=Y_1=dots$. Then the $sigma$-algebra generated by the composition is trivial, regardless of what the process ${bf N}$ is.
– Fnacool
7 hours ago
@Fnacool It's claimed here below equation (2.12). Therein $Y$ is a Markov chain and $N$ is a Poisson process, independent from $Y$.
– 0xbadf00d
6 hours ago
My bad. I incorrectly assumed ${cal F}_t = {cal F}^X_t$. Hope my answer below helps.
– Fnacool
5 hours ago