A variant of Kac's theorem for conditional expectations?

394 Views Asked by At

This is part of the proof of the Strong Markov property of Brownian motion given in Schilling's Brownian motion.

Here $B_t$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion with admissible filtration $\mathscr{F}_t$ and some a.s. finite stopping time $\sigma$. Let $t_0=0<t_1<\cdots t_n$ and $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $F\in \mathscr{F}_{\sigma +}$. Then $$E\left[e^{i\sum_{j=1}^n \langle \xi_j, B_{\sigma+t_j} - B_{\sigma+t_{j-1}} \rangle} 1_F \right]=\prod_{j=1}^n E\left[e^{i \langle \xi_j, B_{t_j - t_{j-1}} \rangle} \right]P(F).$$

The book states that this shows that the increments $B_{\sigma+{t_j}}-B_{\sigma+t_{j-1}}$ are independent and distributed like $B_{t_j - t_{j-1}}$. Moreover, all increments are independent of $F\in \mathscr{F}_{\sigma +}$. The identical distribution is clear if we take $F=\Omega$ and using the uniqueness of Fourier Transform, and independence follows from Kac's theorem. However, I'm not sure about the statement "all increments are independent of $F\in \mathscr{F}_{\sigma +}$." I'm not familiar with any theorem that guarantees this property. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could explain this property.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

Lemma: Let $X \in L^1$ be an $\mathbb{R}^k$-valued random variable and $\mathcal{F}$ a $\sigma$-algebra. Then $X$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are independent if, and only if, $$\forall F \in \mathcal{F}, \xi \in \mathbb{R}^k: \, \, \mathbb{E}(e^{i \xi X} 1_F) = \mathbb{P}(F) \mathbb{E}(e^{i \xi X}). \tag{1}$$

Proof: If $X$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are independent, then clearly $(1)$ holds. Now suppose that $(1)$ holds and fix some $F \in \mathcal{F}$. For any $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^k$ and $\eta \in \mathbb{R}$ we have

$$ \exp \left( i \xi X + i \eta 1_F\right) = e^{i \xi X} (e^{i \eta} 1_F + 1_{F^c})$$

and therefore

$$\begin{align*} \mathbb{E}\exp(i \xi X + i \eta 1_F) =e^{i \eta} \mathbb{E}(e^{i \xi X} 1_F) + \mathbb{E}(e^{i \xi X} 1_{F^c}) &\stackrel{(1)}{=} e^{i \eta} \mathbb{P}(F) \mathbb{E}e^{i \xi X} + \mathbb{P}(F^c) \mathbb{E}e^{i \xi X} \\ &= \mathbb{E}(e^{i \eta 1_F}) \mathbb{E}(e^{i \xi X}). \end{align*}$$ Applying Kac's theorem we find that $F$ and $X$ are independent. As $F \in \mathcal{F}$ is arbitrary, this finishes the proof.


Now back to your question: The stated identity shows that

$$\mathbb{E} \left( \exp \left[ i \sum_j \langle \xi_j, B_{\sigma+t_j}- B_{\sigma+t_{j-1}} \rangle \right] 1_F \right) = \mathbb{E} \left( \exp \left[ i \sum_j \langle \xi_j, B_{\sigma+t_j}- B_{\sigma+t_{j-1}} \rangle \right] \right)\mathbb{P}(F)$$

for all $F \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma+}$, and now the independence is a direct consequnce of the above lemma