0

I'm reading a proof of the Lévy-Ciesielski construction of the Brownian Motion, from the book by "Brownian Motion: An Introduction To Stochastic Processes" by Schilling. There, the authors state a similar reasoning to the following:

We have a sequence of continuous (in $t$) functions $\{W_n(t)\}$, such that $W_n(t,\omega):=\sum^{n-1}_{i=0} G_i(\omega)S_i(t)$, where $\omega$ is an outcome, $G_i\sim^{iid} N(0,1)$ and $S_i(t)$ is the $i$-th Schauder function at $t$, i.e.

enter image description here

With $N>n$ both in $\mathbb{N}$:

enter image description here

Why is that? What theorem are the authors using?

Edit: So I got a hold of a 2nd edition, and it seems that instead of lim inf, they use lim sup. So, I think we now have a Cauchy sequence, that in a complete space converges... Can we work something out from here? Yes, read the comment section in this question, specially Saz comments.

  • 1
    I am a bit confused about your definition of $\lim\inf_{n,N\rightarrow\infty}a_{n,N}=0$. In your case $a_{n,N}=\sup_{t\in[0,1]}|u_n(t)-u_N(t)|$. In $\epsilon-M$ language, does it mean that for any $\epsilon>0$ and $M>0$, there exists $n,N>M$ such that $|a_{n,N}|<\epsilon$? If this is the case, then $\lim\inf_{n,N\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in[0,1]}|u_n(t)-u_N(t)|=0$ is a trivial result and we can get nothing from it, because it can be easily deduced by the fact that all $a_{n,n}=0$. – Eric Yau Jan 30 '19 at 22:37
  • @EricYau my mistake. I forgot to write something. I've edited the question regarding your valid concern. Thanks ;) – An old man in the sea. Jan 30 '19 at 22:47
  • It still doesn't seem good. What if $f_k$ is a sequence with no uniformly convergent subsequence, and $u_n$ is the sequence $f_1, f_1, f_2, f_2, \dots$. Then for any $M$ we can choose $n,N$ to be two adjacent indices larger than $M$. – Nate Eldredge Jan 30 '19 at 22:58
  • Perhaps it would help if you quote the exact statement from the book, with context. – Nate Eldredge Jan 30 '19 at 23:04
  • @NateEldredge, it comes from the proof of the Lévy-Ciesielski construction of the Brownian Motion, from the book by "Brownian Motion: An Introduction To Stochastic Processes" by Schilling. – An old man in the sea. Jan 30 '19 at 23:13
  • By "quote" I meant that you should copy the relevant text into the body of the question. I don't have the book. – Nate Eldredge Jan 30 '19 at 23:40
  • @NateEldredge I've added some images from the book. Is it helpful? Also, my intuition tells me something like the authors proved that $W_n$ is a Cauchy sequence, then used some theorem to state that in a convergent Cauchy sequence, one can find a subsequence converging uniformly in the compact. – An old man in the sea. Jan 31 '19 at 09:49
  • 1
    @Anoldmaninthesea. I don't really understand your question. In the 2nd edition it reads $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sup_{N>n} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} |W_{2^N}(t,\omega)-W_{2^n}(t,\omega)|=0$$ As far as I can see, this implies immediately that $(W_{2^n}(\cdot,\omega))$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C[0,1]$ and, hence, it converges (by the completeness of $C[0,1]$). – saz Jan 31 '19 at 14:39
  • @saz Thanks for your comment. In the 1st edition it's lim inf that's used... This is a typo that's not on the errata list. I edited the question before your comment. So, know that we know the it's a Cauchy sequence, how do we know that there's a subsequence that converges uniformly? – An old man in the sea. Jan 31 '19 at 14:55
  • @Anoldmaninthesea. $C[0,1]$ is a complete space which means that any Cauchy sequence converges (that's the very definition of completeness). There is no need for a subsequence, as far as I can see. – saz Jan 31 '19 at 14:56
  • @saz, yes, but for the limit to be continuous, we need uniform convergence, not just pointwise convergence. – An old man in the sea. Jan 31 '19 at 14:57
  • @Anoldmaninthesea. It does converge uniformly; just take a look at the equation. There is the "$\sup_{t \in [0,1]}$". If $(f_n)n$ is a sequence in $C[0,1]$ which is Cauchy (w.r.t. to the uniform norm), then $f_n$ converges in $C[0,1]$; in particular, the limit is continuous. Apply this to $f_n(t) := W{2^n}(t,\omega)$ – saz Jan 31 '19 at 15:00
  • @saz =00 =D you're right!!! my bad. – An old man in the sea. Jan 31 '19 at 15:05

2 Answers2

2

My guess is that the first edition meant something like "for all sufficiently large $N$, there exist arbitrarily large $n$ such that $\sup_t |\dots| < \epsilon$" and the liminf was a sloppy way to write it. Formally, something like: $$\forall \epsilon > 0\, \exists N'\, \forall N \ge N'\, \forall n' \ge N\, \exists n \ge n' \sup_{t \in [0,1]} |W_{2^N}(t,\omega) - W_{2^n}(t,\omega)| < \epsilon.$$ Then you could find a subsequence $n_k$ such that $|W_{2^{n_k}}(t,\omega) - W_{2^{n_{k+1}}}(t,\omega)| < 2^{-k}$ and it would follow that this subsequence was uniformly Cauchy, hence (by completeness) converges uniformly.

For the second edition, the authors probably realized that they could say something a little stronger (basically a limsup instead of liminf) and thus avoid the need for a subsequence.

Nate Eldredge
  • 102,564
0

This is not an answer for your original problem. After reading the book you mentioned above, I can explain why $\{W_{2^j}(w,t)\}$ has a subsequence that uniformly converges.

Our task is to show there exists $\Omega_0$ with $\mathbb P(\Omega_0)=1$ such that for any $w\in\Omega_0$, the sample paths $\{W_{2^j}(w,t)\}$ has a subsequence that uniformly converges.

For clarity, we let $u_n(w,t):=W_{2^n}(w,t)$ and $X_{n,N}(w):=\sup_{t\in[0,1]}|u_n(w,t))-u_N(w,t)|$ . On Page 25 it has been shown that $$||X_{n,N}||_{L^4}\le3^{1/4}\sum_{j=n+1}^N2^{-j/4}\le 2^{-n/4}C,$$ where $C$ is an absolute constant. Let $Y_n=\liminf_{N\rightarrow\infty}X_{n,N}$. Then by Fatou's Lemma, we have that $$\mathbb{E}|Y_n|^4\le\liminf_{N\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}|X_{n,N}|^4\le 2^{-n}C^4.$$ By Markov's inequality, we have that $$\mathbb{P}(Y_n>2^{-n/8})\le\mathbb{E}|Y_n|^4/2^{-n/2}\le2^{-n/2}C^4.$$ Let $A_n$ be the event that $Y_n>2^{-n/8}$. We see that $\sum_{n\ge1}\mathbb P(A_n)\le\sum_{n\ge1}2^{-n/2}C^4<\infty$. So by Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we can conclude that $$\mathbb P(\bigcap_{k\ge1}\bigcup_{n\ge k}A_n)=0$$ Let $\Omega_0=(\bigcap_{k\ge1}\bigcup_{n\ge k}A_n)^c=\bigcup_{k\ge1}\bigcap_{n\ge k}A_n^c$. Then $\mathbb P(\Omega_0)=1$.

Next we will show for any $w\in\Omega_0$, the sample paths $\{W_{2^j}(w,t)\}$ has a subsequence that uniformly converges.

From the definition of $\Omega_0$, we know that for any $w\in\Omega_0$, there exists $K=K(w)$ such that $Y_n(w)\le2^{-n/8}$ for all $n\ge K$. That is, \begin{equation} \liminf_{N\rightarrow\infty}X_{n,N}(w)\le2^{-n/8},\mathrm{for ~all~} n\ge K.~~~~~~~~(*) \end{equation} Let $n_1=\max\{1,K\}$, then $(*)$ tells us that there exists $n_2\ge\max\{2,K,n_1+1\}$ such that $$X_{n_1,n_2}(w)<2\cdot2^{-n_1/8}\le 2\cdot2^{-1/8}.$$ Iteratively, for every $j\ge3$, by $(*)$ there exists $n_j\ge\max\{j,K,n_{j-1}+1\}$ such that $$X_{n_{j-1},n_j}(w)<2\cdot2^{-n_{j-1}/8}\le 2\cdot2^{-(j-1)/8}.$$ In other words, we find an increasing integer-valued sequence $n_1,n_2,\ldots$ satisfying that for all $j\ge2$, $$\sup_{t\in[0,1]}|u_{n_{j-1}}(w,t)-u_{n_j}(w,t)|\le2\cdot2^{-(j-1)/8}.$$ This could imply that $\{u_{n_j}(w,t)\}$ uniformly converges in $t\in[0,1]$.

Eric Yau
  • 814
  • Eric, thank you for your extended comment (?). However, I have some doubts... How do you go from $(*)$, to stating something about $X_{n_1,n_2}$. I don't see how you're able to state that. Also, the lim inf is taken with respect to both $N$ and $n$. – An old man in the sea. Jan 31 '19 at 09:59
  • Since $n_1\ge K$, by $(*)$ we have that $\liminf_{N\rightarrow\infty} X_{n_1,N}<2^{-n/8}$. So there are infinitely many $N$ such that $X_{n_1,N}\le 2\cdot2^{-n/8}$. Hence we can find a sufficiently large $N=n_2$ (In our case we take some $n_2\ge\max{2,K,n_1+1})$ such that $X_{n_1,n_2}\le 2\cdot2^{-n/8}$. – Eric Yau Jan 31 '19 at 13:29
  • Here the $\liminf$ is taken only for $N$ and it is crucial. We get $(*)$ from the former statement by plugging in the definition of $Y_n$ . – Eric Yau Jan 31 '19 at 13:35