Reflexion principle equivalence of statements












2












$begingroup$


$B_t$ is a Brownian motion, $S_t$ is defined as
$$ S_t := sup_{0 leq s leq t} B_s $$
I want to show that
$$ P(S_tgeq b , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq 2b-a) $$
for $a leq b$ implies
$$ P(S_t geq a) = 2 P (B_t geq a).$$
I have tried posing $b=a$, however this leads to
$$ P(S_tgeq a) = P(S_tgeq a , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq a) $$
Which is different from the second statement.
One of those four must be wrong:




  1. My one-line conclusion

  2. The first statement (page 2 of https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~mischler/Enseignements/ProcContM1/PrincipeReflexion.pdf)

  3. The second statement (page 2 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-070j-advanced-stochastic-processes-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT15_070JF13_Lec7.pdf)

  4. Mathematics (we are still unsure whether mathematics is consistent, right?).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    $B_t$ is a Brownian motion, $S_t$ is defined as
    $$ S_t := sup_{0 leq s leq t} B_s $$
    I want to show that
    $$ P(S_tgeq b , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq 2b-a) $$
    for $a leq b$ implies
    $$ P(S_t geq a) = 2 P (B_t geq a).$$
    I have tried posing $b=a$, however this leads to
    $$ P(S_tgeq a) = P(S_tgeq a , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq a) $$
    Which is different from the second statement.
    One of those four must be wrong:




    1. My one-line conclusion

    2. The first statement (page 2 of https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~mischler/Enseignements/ProcContM1/PrincipeReflexion.pdf)

    3. The second statement (page 2 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-070j-advanced-stochastic-processes-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT15_070JF13_Lec7.pdf)

    4. Mathematics (we are still unsure whether mathematics is consistent, right?).










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      $B_t$ is a Brownian motion, $S_t$ is defined as
      $$ S_t := sup_{0 leq s leq t} B_s $$
      I want to show that
      $$ P(S_tgeq b , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq 2b-a) $$
      for $a leq b$ implies
      $$ P(S_t geq a) = 2 P (B_t geq a).$$
      I have tried posing $b=a$, however this leads to
      $$ P(S_tgeq a) = P(S_tgeq a , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq a) $$
      Which is different from the second statement.
      One of those four must be wrong:




      1. My one-line conclusion

      2. The first statement (page 2 of https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~mischler/Enseignements/ProcContM1/PrincipeReflexion.pdf)

      3. The second statement (page 2 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-070j-advanced-stochastic-processes-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT15_070JF13_Lec7.pdf)

      4. Mathematics (we are still unsure whether mathematics is consistent, right?).










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      $B_t$ is a Brownian motion, $S_t$ is defined as
      $$ S_t := sup_{0 leq s leq t} B_s $$
      I want to show that
      $$ P(S_tgeq b , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq 2b-a) $$
      for $a leq b$ implies
      $$ P(S_t geq a) = 2 P (B_t geq a).$$
      I have tried posing $b=a$, however this leads to
      $$ P(S_tgeq a) = P(S_tgeq a , B_t leq a) = P(B_t geq a) $$
      Which is different from the second statement.
      One of those four must be wrong:




      1. My one-line conclusion

      2. The first statement (page 2 of https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~mischler/Enseignements/ProcContM1/PrincipeReflexion.pdf)

      3. The second statement (page 2 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-070j-advanced-stochastic-processes-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT15_070JF13_Lec7.pdf)

      4. Mathematics (we are still unsure whether mathematics is consistent, right?).







      probability-theory stochastic-processes brownian-motion






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 2 at 11:11









      ThePunisherThePunisher

      609616




      609616






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Your (my) one-line conclusion is wrong:
          $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a).$$
          I don't know why on earth you (I) assumed that $P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = 0$.



          Since $B_t > a$ implies $S_t >a$, then
          $$ P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = P(B_t geq a).$$
          Hence
          $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a) = 2 P(B_t geq a). $$
          The consistency of mathematics is saved... at least for now...






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059351%2freflexion-principle-equivalence-of-statements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            Your (my) one-line conclusion is wrong:
            $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a).$$
            I don't know why on earth you (I) assumed that $P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = 0$.



            Since $B_t > a$ implies $S_t >a$, then
            $$ P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = P(B_t geq a).$$
            Hence
            $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a) = 2 P(B_t geq a). $$
            The consistency of mathematics is saved... at least for now...






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              Your (my) one-line conclusion is wrong:
              $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a).$$
              I don't know why on earth you (I) assumed that $P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = 0$.



              Since $B_t > a$ implies $S_t >a$, then
              $$ P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = P(B_t geq a).$$
              Hence
              $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a) = 2 P(B_t geq a). $$
              The consistency of mathematics is saved... at least for now...






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                Your (my) one-line conclusion is wrong:
                $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a).$$
                I don't know why on earth you (I) assumed that $P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = 0$.



                Since $B_t > a$ implies $S_t >a$, then
                $$ P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = P(B_t geq a).$$
                Hence
                $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a) = 2 P(B_t geq a). $$
                The consistency of mathematics is saved... at least for now...






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Your (my) one-line conclusion is wrong:
                $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a).$$
                I don't know why on earth you (I) assumed that $P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = 0$.



                Since $B_t > a$ implies $S_t >a$, then
                $$ P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) = P(B_t geq a).$$
                Hence
                $$ P(S_t geq a) = P(S_t geq a, B_t > a) + P(S_t geq a, B_tleq a) = 2 P(B_t geq a). $$
                The consistency of mathematics is saved... at least for now...







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 2 at 11:27









                ThePunisherThePunisher

                609616




                609616






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059351%2freflexion-principle-equivalence-of-statements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                    ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                    Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?