Is the second moment enough to characterize the Brownian motion?

1.1k Views Asked by At

In the page 14 of the book "The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics" from Nualart one reads:

enter image description here

I understand that if $Z_t \sim N(0,t)$ then

$$\Bbb{E}[Z_t^{2k}] = \frac{(2k)!}{2^k k!}t^k$$

However, I can't see why this follows from the single fact that $\Bbb{E}[(W_t-W_s)^2] = t-s$

1

There are 1 best solutions below

8
On BEST ANSWER

For each $i$, he defines $\{W^i(t), t \in \mathbb{R}^+\}$ to be a zero-mean Gaussian process with covariance function $E[W^i(s)W^i(t)] = s \wedge t$. This means that we know that $W^i(t) - W^i(s)$ is a normal random variable with mean zero; therefore, once we know what it's variance is, we've characterized the distribution entirely. The point of this section is to use Kolmogorov's continuity criterion to show that we can make $W^i$ continuous almost surely.


EDIT: Here's a process that has independent increments, mean zero, and the variance of increments is $t - s$ but isn't Brownian motion:

Consider a Poisson process on $\mathbb{R}^+$ with intensity $1$, and let $X_t$ denote the number of points in $[0,t]$. Define $Z_t = X_t - t$. Then $$\mathbb{E}[(Z_t - Z_s)^2] = \mathbb{E}[((X_t - X_s) - (t-s))^2] = \mathrm{Var}[\mathrm{Poisson}(t-s)] = t-s$$