If $(Y_n)_{ninmathbb N_0}$ and $(N_t)_{tge0}$ are stochastic processes, what is the filtration generated by...

Multi tool use
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
Post as a guest
iCecJ 2w6tijOt7 oQwP,4XY UMHTdWrJgJWVrJNH9soNiOsB XlQB,eDnzESLvZ5WMhomt ND,tgdKLk,OL8lg3tMu
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