Is (Wt)2 a Brownian Motion? Analyzing the Distribution of Vt+s - Vs

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the assertion that (Wt)² is a Brownian motion, which is established as false. The user, RGV, seeks to demonstrate that Vt = (Wt)² does not satisfy the properties of a Brownian motion. Key points include the transformation of the standard Brownian motion W into Vt and the realization that the distribution of Vt is not normally distributed, as it resembles a chi-squared distribution instead. The conversation emphasizes the need to identify which properties of Brownian motion are violated by Vt.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Brownian motion properties
  • Knowledge of normal and chi-squared distributions
  • Familiarity with random variable transformations
  • Basic statistical concepts regarding variance and distribution
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Brownian motion and their definitions
  • Study the characteristics of chi-squared distributions and their relation to normal distributions
  • Explore random variable transformations and their impact on distribution
  • Learn about the implications of variance in transformed random variables
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, statisticians, and students studying stochastic processes or financial mathematics who are interested in the properties of Brownian motion and its transformations.

Firepanda
Messages
425
Reaction score
0
I need to show that (Wt)2 is a brownian motion

So let Vt = (Wt)2

I need to first show that Vt+s - Vs ~ N(0,t)

Vt+s - Vs = (Wt+s)2 - (Ws)2 = (Wt+s + Ws)(Wt+s - Ws)

(Wt+s - Ws) ~ N(0,t)

But is (Wt+s + Ws) ~ N(0,t)?

If it is what happens when I multiply two RV's that are normally distributed together? What can I say about the variance of the new distribution?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Firepanda said:
I need to show that (Wt)2 is a brownian motion

So let Vt = (Wt)2

I need to first show that Vt+s - Vs ~ N(0,t)

Vt+s - Vs = (Wt+s)2 - (Ws)2 = (Wt+s + Ws)(Wt+s - Ws)

(Wt+s - Ws) ~ N(0,t)

But is (Wt+s + Ws) ~ N(0,t)?

If it is what happens when I multiply two RV's that are normally distributed together? What can I say about the variance of the new distribution?

Thanks

You are being asked to show something that is FALSE: W_t^2 is not a Brownian motion, unless you are using an unusual definition of Brownian motion. The square of a normal random variable is essentially a chi-squared random variable with parameter 1; that is N(0,1)^2 = Chi^2(1).

RGV
 
Hi Ray

Thanks for responding!

Yeah sorry, the question was show if it is or is not a Brownian Motion, for some odd reason I assumed it was because the rest of the examples were

How do I show it is not a brownian motion then, which property of a BM does not hold?
Thanks
 
Firepanda said:
Hi Ray

Thanks for responding!

Yeah sorry, the question was show if it is or is not a Brownian Motion, for some odd reason I assumed it was because the rest of the examples were

How do I show it is not a brownian motion then, which property of a BM does not hold?
Thanks

What properties of BM are you trying to verify or deny? I have seen alternative definitions of BM; which one are you using?

RGV
 
These:

2q1updw.png


Also in the question I should note that W is a standard brownian motion
 
Firepanda said:
These:

2q1updw.png


Also in the question I should note that W is a standard brownian motion

Does property (i) hold?

RGV
 
That's what I was attempting in my original post.

So my brownian motion V is not normally distributed? Not sure how to show that (apart from my earlier attempt)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K