2

Problem: Given a sequence of independent, non-negative RV $(X_n)_{n\geq 1}$ with $E(X_n)=1$ and the martingale $M_n= \prod_{k=1}^n X_k$, $M_0:=1$ show that: $$E(M_\infty)=1 \implies \prod_{k=1}^\infty a_k>0, \text{ where } 0<a_n:= E(\sqrt{X_n}) \leq 1 $$


My approach:

An infinite product is said to be convergent if the limit exists and is not zero. In the above situation the martingale $M_n$ is positive and therefore it converges with limit $M_\infty \in L^1$. That is $$ M_\infty= \prod_{k=1}^\infty X_k < \infty $$ Furthermore we must have $M_\infty >0$, because if $M_\infty =0$ then this would contradict the assumption that $E(M_\infty)=1$. Bringing this all together we have that the infinite product denoted by $M_\infty$ is indeed convergent given that $E(M_\infty)=1$

To show the implication now I want to relate the product $\prod a_k$ somehow with $M_\infty$.

I am uncertain about swapping the infinite product with expected value is allowed, but I will still do it below: $$ \prod_{k=1}^\infty a_k = \prod_{k=1}^\infty E\left(\sqrt{X_k)}\right) \overset{a)}= E\left( \prod_{k=1}^\infty \sqrt{X_k} \right)=E(\sqrt{M_\infty}) $$ a) I know that this is true in the finite case because my RVs are mutually independent, for the infinite case I would accept it to be a definition but this might be wrong

For $E(\sqrt{M_\infty})$ I can only use Jensen's Inequality for the concave function $\sqrt{.}$ that is $$E(\sqrt{M_\infty}) \leq \sqrt{E(M_\infty)} = 1 $$

Edit: I corrected the above, applied Jensen's Inequality correctly now. See Did's comment below

Hence I obtain the trivial statement that $$\prod_{k=1}^\infty a_k \leq 1 $$

Additionally: If I want to avoid the step a) I can use the finite case and that $\sqrt{M_n}$ is a super-martingale (because $\sqrt{.}$ is concave) that will then give me $$\prod_{k=1}^n a_k = E(\sqrt{M_n}) \geq E(\sqrt{M_0})=E(\sqrt{1})= 1 $$

I am looking for hints only to help me get unstuck or guide me in the right direction because the results above aren't fruitful.

Spaced
  • 3,499
  • Sorry, I do not understand the question. What implication do you want to show? – Jimmy R. Nov 05 '16 at 19:01
  • @JimmyR that's not good, I should work on reformulating the question then. The part after "we have". I will update it accordingly. I replaced it now with "show that". I hope this makes things clearer. – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 19:02
  • Ok, thanks a lot! Sorry for asking again, just to make it clear: this product is certainly $\ge 0$ and you want to show that it is stricly $>0$ and less than $\infty$? Or just $>0$? – Jimmy R. Nov 05 '16 at 19:09
  • You don't need to apologize @JimmyR. after all you are trying to help make things clearer. The exercise only asks me to show that it is strictly positive. It's the last part of 5 equivalent statements that describe "multiplicative" Martingales that have the form as in the problem given.

    In fact, the reverse of the above statement holds too, but I have a hint for that and I am working on it.

    – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 19:15
  • 1
    Ok, thanks a lot! I did not check the rest, but $\sqrt{E(M_{\infty})}=1$ not $\pm1$. The square root gives a positive number. For example $\sqrt{9}=3$ but $(\pm3)^2=9$. So, it seems that you have it. – Jimmy R. Nov 05 '16 at 19:33
  • @JimmyR. thanks a lot, maybe I can ask you about a) in the above, i.e. taking the infinite product inside the expected value. Do you know if this is a valid argument? I couldn't find any source for it and was unable to prove it myself. I might will open a separate question about it. – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 20:51
  • Yes, this is valid, they are independent. But you can also do Jensen earlier on Xk, before the interchange. Do u see it? – Jimmy R. Nov 05 '16 at 20:54
  • 1
    Yes I do, thanks for elaborating :) – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 20:58
  • @OP 1. In the "Additionally" paragraph of your question, one should read $E(\sqrt{M_n})\leqslant1$, not the other way round. 2. The exercise asks for some consequences of $E(M_\infty)=1$ where $M_n\to M_\infty$ and $M_0=1$. Surely you know some conditions equivalent to $E(M_\infty)=1$ when $M_0=1$ and $(M_n)$ is a martingale, what are they? (In case you are wondering, this exercise is mainly meant to check that you know these.) (Re your last comment to me on the now unaccepted answer, I reply to it there.) – Did Nov 06 '16 at 13:25
  • @Did, two equivalent statements would be that $M_n \to M_\infty$ in $L^1$ and $(M_n)_{n \geq 1}$ are uniformly integrable. I am sure there are more, but I wouldn't know them on top of my hat. – Spaced Nov 06 '16 at 13:36
  • OK, so let us keep the convergence $M_n\to M_\infty$ in $L^1$. What does this imply for the convergence $\sqrt{M_n}\to\sqrt{M_\infty}$? – Did Nov 06 '16 at 14:00
  • @Did, the only thing I know for sure is that $M_n \to M_\infty$ in $L^1$ implies $M_n \to M_\infty$ in Probability (which is most likely of no use here). My first impulse was however that since $M_n \to M_\infty$ in $L^1$ we can (maybe) say that $\sqrt{M_n} \to \sqrt{M_\infty}$ in $L^2$ but I couldn't verify that, it might be also absurd because it would than follow that it also converges in $L^1$ – Spaced Nov 06 '16 at 14:44
  • One can go in this direction, yes, but a shortcut appeared below... – Did Nov 06 '16 at 17:59

2 Answers2

2

Because $E(M_\infty)=1$, you have $P(M_\infty>0)>0$. Thus $E(\sqrt{M_\infty})>0$. Because $M_\infty=\lim_nM_n$ a.s., you can use Fatou's lemma to relate $E(\sqrt{M_\infty})$ to $\prod_{n=1}^\infty a_n$.

John Dawkins
  • 25,733
  • $$E[\sqrt{M_{\infty}}] = \int_0^{\infty} P(\sqrt{M_{\infty}} > x) dx > 0 $$ because $$P(\sqrt{M_{\infty}} > x) > 0$$ because $$P(\sqrt{M_{\infty}} > 0) > 0$$? – BCLC Nov 06 '16 at 18:29
  • 1
    Because if $E(\sqrt{M_\infty})=0$ then $P(\sqrt{M_\infty}=0)=1$. – John Dawkins Nov 06 '16 at 18:41
0

Jensen's Inequality is what I thought to do. Then

$$\prod_{k=1}^{n} a_k \ge 1 \to \lim_n \prod_{k=1}^{n} a_k \ge \lim_n 1 = 1 \ ?$$

LHS exists as you proved.

Also, why $\pm 1$?

$$\sqrt{E[M_{\infty}]} = \sqrt{1} = 1$$

Also

$$\sqrt{E[M_{0}]} = \sqrt{1} = 1$$

BCLC
  • 13,459
  • 1
    I don't know if this reasoning will work here, it might be up for debate according the definition of taking square roots. For me, while working in $\mathbb{R}$ the equation $x^2=a$ for $a>0$ has two solutions, $\pm \sqrt{a}$ – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 18:20
  • @Spaced of course $x^2 = 4$ has solutions $x=2$ and $x=-2$ but $\sqrt{4} = 2$. No offense, but how did you pass algebra without knowing this? Are you saying $y=\sqrt{x}$ is not a function? – BCLC Nov 05 '16 at 18:24
  • 1
    No offense taken, I keep forgetting elementary stuff all the time, at least I got the martingale part right then. To answer your question, I was quite handy with Sylow Theorems. (BTW: the downvote isn't/wasn't from me) – Spaced Nov 05 '16 at 18:33
  • To stay focussed on the first line (since this is where one can find the first major mathematical absurdity in this answer), note that the only case when $\prod a_k\geqslant1$ is when every $a_k=1$, which in turn is when $P(X_k=1)=1$ almost surely for every $k$. In every other case, the hypothesis that $\prod a_k\geqslant1$ does not hold. So, sorry to be blunt (and my question applies to the OP as well, who accepted this), what are we talking about here? – Did Nov 06 '16 at 09:57
  • 1
    @Spaced For your interest, Jensen (actually, Cauchy-Schwarz) yields that, if $E(M)=1$ then $E(\sqrt{M})\leqslant1$, not the other way round. Rather than letting yourself being dragged by this OP into dubious considerations about upvotes and downvotes, you might want to concentrate on the validity of the mathematical arguments presented, and to try to avoid accepting blatantly absurd answers. – Did Nov 06 '16 at 10:02
  • @Did why are you telling me and not the OP? Assuming product up to n is greater than or equal to 1 then the product up to infinity is greater than or equal to one and hence positive. Is it my fault if the assumption is incorrect? – BCLC Nov 06 '16 at 10:08
  • I am telling you what concerns you, which are the fallacies in your answers, that are your responsability. Didn't you get after all this time that this is how the site functions? Or are you, as usual, simply trying to do some damage control? – Did Nov 06 '16 at 10:10
  • @Did what's the fallacy? If 1=2 then birds are bees right? – BCLC Nov 06 '16 at 10:11
  • Sure. If you do not understand anything about a question, why not avoid "answering" it? For the love of noise? – Did Nov 06 '16 at 10:16
  • @Did, I apologize. I find it currently very hard to filter through all the information provided in this comments (which are to be honest currently rather distracting). I accepted this answer because it did clear up with my flaw of taking $\pm$ signs for the square roots, which I shouldn't have. I thought the first line in this post came from reciting my calculations in the OP.

    Would you mind to highlight my fallacy (other than accepting this answer) in a comment in my OP? Better yet, would you provide me with a hint on how to continue because that was the main question all along.

    – Spaced Nov 06 '16 at 12:25
  • @Spaced Sorry but I find your last comment slightly displaced. Remember that you saw fit to accept this answer (and rather quickly, if I may add). Doing so, you stated unequivocally that it answered fully your question. You even signalled to other users that adding their own answer was not useful, right? Hence, no, the main information now provided in the comments, which is that this "answer" is crap, was not "distracting" at all, rather it was crucial, due to your own behaviour. Now that you got the message, we can start envision doing some maths... For this, see my comment on main. – Did Nov 06 '16 at 13:32