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.
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