Show that a process is a local martingale The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Show that this continuous local martingale is a martingaleForming a local martingale with continuous increasing processlocal martingale bounded below by a DL processIs this process a martingale?Can Local Martingales be characterized only using their FV process and BM?Stopped local martingale as a martingaleHow can I show that the stochastic integral of a jump process w.r.t. Brownian motion is a local martingale by using this special localizing sequence?Show a Continuous Local Martingale is a MartingaleHow to prove that the process $Y_t$ is martingale?Second order derivatives in Ito formula for Brownian motion and local martingale

How to pronounce 1ターン?

How to test the equality of two Pearson correlation coefficients computed from the same sample?

Can undead you have reanimated wait inside a portable hole?

Why did all the guest students take carriages to the Yule Ball?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?

Simulation of a banking system with an Account class in C++

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?

Why does the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) not include telescopes from Africa, Asia or Australia?

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

How do I add random spotting to the same face in cycles?

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?

Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?

How to delete random line from file using Unix command?

Derivation tree not rendering

He got a vote 80% that of Emmanuel Macron’s

How to stretch delimiters to envolve matrices inside of a kbordermatrix?

Cooking pasta in a water boiler

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Segmentation fault output is suppressed when piping stdin into a function. Why?

How does ice melt when immersed in water?



Show that a process is a local martingale



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Show that this continuous local martingale is a martingaleForming a local martingale with continuous increasing processlocal martingale bounded below by a DL processIs this process a martingale?Can Local Martingales be characterized only using their FV process and BM?Stopped local martingale as a martingaleHow can I show that the stochastic integral of a jump process w.r.t. Brownian motion is a local martingale by using this special localizing sequence?Show a Continuous Local Martingale is a MartingaleHow to prove that the process $Y_t$ is martingale?Second order derivatives in Ito formula for Brownian motion and local martingale










0












$begingroup$


We have the following setting




We have a 2-dimensional Brownian motion $(X,Y)$, and we define the process $M_t$ as $$M_t=e^X_tcos(Y_t)$$




The problem is to show that the process $M_t$ is a local martingale, and that we have that $$langle Mrangle_t=int^t_0e^X_sds$$



I know that $M_t$ would be a local martingale if it is a continuous, adapted process and if there exists a sequence of stopping times $(tau_n)_ngeq0$, such that $tau_nuparrowinfty$ almost surely, and that $(M_tau_nwedge t-M_0)_tgeq0$ is a uniformly integrable martingale for all $n$.



However, I am not aware of any straight forward way to proving that something is a local martingale, and I do not see an easy approach to proving it directly from the definition. Are there ''standard'' routes to follow when trying to prove that a process is/isn't a local martingale?



Moreover, when trying to show that the quadratic variation of $M$ can be written in such a way, I cannot figure out why the cosine term would drop out.



Any help is appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    0












    $begingroup$


    We have the following setting




    We have a 2-dimensional Brownian motion $(X,Y)$, and we define the process $M_t$ as $$M_t=e^X_tcos(Y_t)$$




    The problem is to show that the process $M_t$ is a local martingale, and that we have that $$langle Mrangle_t=int^t_0e^X_sds$$



    I know that $M_t$ would be a local martingale if it is a continuous, adapted process and if there exists a sequence of stopping times $(tau_n)_ngeq0$, such that $tau_nuparrowinfty$ almost surely, and that $(M_tau_nwedge t-M_0)_tgeq0$ is a uniformly integrable martingale for all $n$.



    However, I am not aware of any straight forward way to proving that something is a local martingale, and I do not see an easy approach to proving it directly from the definition. Are there ''standard'' routes to follow when trying to prove that a process is/isn't a local martingale?



    Moreover, when trying to show that the quadratic variation of $M$ can be written in such a way, I cannot figure out why the cosine term would drop out.



    Any help is appreciated!










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      We have the following setting




      We have a 2-dimensional Brownian motion $(X,Y)$, and we define the process $M_t$ as $$M_t=e^X_tcos(Y_t)$$




      The problem is to show that the process $M_t$ is a local martingale, and that we have that $$langle Mrangle_t=int^t_0e^X_sds$$



      I know that $M_t$ would be a local martingale if it is a continuous, adapted process and if there exists a sequence of stopping times $(tau_n)_ngeq0$, such that $tau_nuparrowinfty$ almost surely, and that $(M_tau_nwedge t-M_0)_tgeq0$ is a uniformly integrable martingale for all $n$.



      However, I am not aware of any straight forward way to proving that something is a local martingale, and I do not see an easy approach to proving it directly from the definition. Are there ''standard'' routes to follow when trying to prove that a process is/isn't a local martingale?



      Moreover, when trying to show that the quadratic variation of $M$ can be written in such a way, I cannot figure out why the cosine term would drop out.



      Any help is appreciated!










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      We have the following setting




      We have a 2-dimensional Brownian motion $(X,Y)$, and we define the process $M_t$ as $$M_t=e^X_tcos(Y_t)$$




      The problem is to show that the process $M_t$ is a local martingale, and that we have that $$langle Mrangle_t=int^t_0e^X_sds$$



      I know that $M_t$ would be a local martingale if it is a continuous, adapted process and if there exists a sequence of stopping times $(tau_n)_ngeq0$, such that $tau_nuparrowinfty$ almost surely, and that $(M_tau_nwedge t-M_0)_tgeq0$ is a uniformly integrable martingale for all $n$.



      However, I am not aware of any straight forward way to proving that something is a local martingale, and I do not see an easy approach to proving it directly from the definition. Are there ''standard'' routes to follow when trying to prove that a process is/isn't a local martingale?



      Moreover, when trying to show that the quadratic variation of $M$ can be written in such a way, I cannot figure out why the cosine term would drop out.



      Any help is appreciated!







      probability-theory stochastic-processes stochastic-calculus martingales local-martingales






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 31 at 15:18







      S. Crim

















      asked Mar 31 at 14:33









      S. CrimS. Crim

      4081212




      4081212




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          If we apply Ito's lemma to the function $f(x,y) = e^x cos(y)$ you'll find that
          $$dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$$
          since $langle X rangle_t = langle Y rangle_t = t$ and $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$. Since the stochastic integral against a continuous local martingale is again a local martingale, this shows that $M_t$ is a continuous local martingale. We also deduce from this that
          $$d langle M rangle_t = M_t^2 d langle X rangle_t + e^2X_t sin(Y_t)^2 dlangle X rangle_t = e^2X_t (cos^2(Y_t) + sin^2(Y_t))dt = e^2X_t dt$$
          (where we have again used that $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$) and so
          $$langle M rangle_t = int_0^t e^2X_s ds$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:22







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:25







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:40







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:10











          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%2f3169450%2fshow-that-a-process-is-a-local-martingale%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









          1












          $begingroup$

          If we apply Ito's lemma to the function $f(x,y) = e^x cos(y)$ you'll find that
          $$dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$$
          since $langle X rangle_t = langle Y rangle_t = t$ and $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$. Since the stochastic integral against a continuous local martingale is again a local martingale, this shows that $M_t$ is a continuous local martingale. We also deduce from this that
          $$d langle M rangle_t = M_t^2 d langle X rangle_t + e^2X_t sin(Y_t)^2 dlangle X rangle_t = e^2X_t (cos^2(Y_t) + sin^2(Y_t))dt = e^2X_t dt$$
          (where we have again used that $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$) and so
          $$langle M rangle_t = int_0^t e^2X_s ds$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:22







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:25







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:40







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:10















          1












          $begingroup$

          If we apply Ito's lemma to the function $f(x,y) = e^x cos(y)$ you'll find that
          $$dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$$
          since $langle X rangle_t = langle Y rangle_t = t$ and $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$. Since the stochastic integral against a continuous local martingale is again a local martingale, this shows that $M_t$ is a continuous local martingale. We also deduce from this that
          $$d langle M rangle_t = M_t^2 d langle X rangle_t + e^2X_t sin(Y_t)^2 dlangle X rangle_t = e^2X_t (cos^2(Y_t) + sin^2(Y_t))dt = e^2X_t dt$$
          (where we have again used that $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$) and so
          $$langle M rangle_t = int_0^t e^2X_s ds$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:22







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:25







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:40







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:10













          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          If we apply Ito's lemma to the function $f(x,y) = e^x cos(y)$ you'll find that
          $$dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$$
          since $langle X rangle_t = langle Y rangle_t = t$ and $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$. Since the stochastic integral against a continuous local martingale is again a local martingale, this shows that $M_t$ is a continuous local martingale. We also deduce from this that
          $$d langle M rangle_t = M_t^2 d langle X rangle_t + e^2X_t sin(Y_t)^2 dlangle X rangle_t = e^2X_t (cos^2(Y_t) + sin^2(Y_t))dt = e^2X_t dt$$
          (where we have again used that $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$) and so
          $$langle M rangle_t = int_0^t e^2X_s ds$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          If we apply Ito's lemma to the function $f(x,y) = e^x cos(y)$ you'll find that
          $$dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$$
          since $langle X rangle_t = langle Y rangle_t = t$ and $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$. Since the stochastic integral against a continuous local martingale is again a local martingale, this shows that $M_t$ is a continuous local martingale. We also deduce from this that
          $$d langle M rangle_t = M_t^2 d langle X rangle_t + e^2X_t sin(Y_t)^2 dlangle X rangle_t = e^2X_t (cos^2(Y_t) + sin^2(Y_t))dt = e^2X_t dt$$
          (where we have again used that $langle X,Y rangle_t = 0$) and so
          $$langle M rangle_t = int_0^t e^2X_s ds$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 31 at 21:56









          Rhys SteeleRhys Steele

          7,9051931




          7,9051931







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:22







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:25







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:40







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:10












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:22







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:25







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 1 at 15:40







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
            $endgroup$
            – Rhys Steele
            Apr 3 at 18:10







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:22





          $begingroup$
          Sure. Written out fully $dM_t = M_t dX_t - e^X_t sin(Y_t) dY_t$ means $M_t - M_0 = int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s$ and so $langle M rangle_t = bigg langle int_0^t M_s dX_s - int_0^t e^X_ssin(Y_s) dY_s bigg rangle_t$. Now use bilinearity and symmetry of the quadratic variation since $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ for continuous local martingale $N,K$ and an adapted process $F$ such that $int F dN$ makes sense. Note that we don't get any cross terms between $X$ and $Y$ since $langle X,Y rangle =0$
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:22





          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:25





          $begingroup$
          I've just seen the edit to your comment. It looks like you didn't know about the behaviour of the Ito integral with respect to the quadratic variation. This is an important property to keep in mind. In fact $int_0^t F_s dN_s$ is the unique process such that for all continuous local martingales $K_t$ we have $langle int_0^t F_s dN_s, K_s rangle_t = int_0^t F_s d langle N,K rangle_s$ (and one can even use this observation to give an alternative construction of the Ito integral).
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:25





          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:40





          $begingroup$
          Oh shoot, the $t$ in my comment should be a $cdot$, I just copy-pasted that expression and forgot to change it. The thing inside the covariation should always be a process and not a fixed random variable; that $cdot$ just means you consider the integral as a process and not the integral at any fixed time. You're completely right to point this out. Sorry for the source of confusion.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 1 at 15:40





          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 3 at 18:08




          $begingroup$
          It's nothing to do with that. Try applying Ito's lemma to both of them and then use the resulting formula to compute the covariation. Recall that $langle X,Y rangle = 0$ and that if $V_t$ is a finite variation process then $langle M,V rangle = 0$ for any semimartingale $M$.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 3 at 18:08




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 3 at 18:10




          $begingroup$
          In general, when you see a function of a continuous local martingale (/semimartingale) then you should almost immediately try seeing if applying Ito's lemma can help you.
          $endgroup$
          – Rhys Steele
          Apr 3 at 18:10

















          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%2f3169450%2fshow-that-a-process-is-a-local-martingale%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

          Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

          Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

          Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ