MHB Notations with Almost everywhere

  • Thread starter Thread starter gnob
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The symbol $dt \otimes dP$ refers to the product measure in the context of stochastic differential equations (SDEs), indicating that certain properties hold almost everywhere with respect to this measure. In the given setting, $X(t,\omega)$ belonging to $\mathcal{D}(A)$ $dt \otimes d\mathbb{P}$-a.e. means it holds true for all but a set of measure zero. The Lebesgue measure $dt$ is used alongside the probability measure $d\mathbb{P}$. For further understanding, consulting a Real Analysis textbook that covers product measures is recommended. The discussion emphasizes the importance of these measures in defining strong solutions to SDEs.
gnob
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Good day! I came across this symbol $dt \otimes dP$-a.e. in the book of Mandrekar (page 72) Stochastic Differential Equations in Infinite Dimensions: With Applications ... - Leszek Gawarecki, Vidyadhar Mandrekar - Google Books.

What does this symbol mean? I understand that in real analysis, given a measure space $(X,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ we say that a property holds $\mu$-a.e. if there is a set $N$ such that $\mu(N)=0$ and the property holds for all $x\in (X\smallsetminus N).$

I am a newbie with the symbols $dt\otimes dP$ since $dt$ and $dP$ aren't measures?
Also, can you suggest a book with detailed explanation on such notation?

Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have not been able to see page 72 in google books. I am pretty sure that those symbols stand for the product measure though, and that by $dt$ they mean the Lebesgue measure.

You should be able to find a section on the product measure in most Real Analysis books (almost everywhere :D).
 
PaulRS said:
I have not been able to see page 72 in google books. I am pretty sure that those symbols stand for the product measure though, and that by $dt$ they mean the Lebesgue measure.

You should be able to find a section on the product measure in most Real Analysis books (almost everywhere :D).

I see. Below is taken from page 72 of the book. It is part of the definition of a strong solution of the semilinear SDE. This is the setting:

Let $K$ and $H$ be real separable Hilbert spaces, and $W_t$ be a $K$-valued $Q$-Wiener process on a complete filtered probability space $\Big(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\{ \mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\leq T},\mathbb{P}\Big)$ with the filtration $\mathcal{F}_t$ satisfying the usual conditions. We consider the semilinear SDEs on $[0,T]$ in $H$ in the general form
\begin{align*}
dX(t) &= (AX(t) +F(t,X))dt + B(t,X)dW_t\\
X(0) &= \xi_0.
\end{align*}
Here, $A: \mathcal{D}(A) \subset H \to H$ is the generator of a $C_0$-semigroup of operators $\{ S_t, t\geq 0\}$ on $H.$ The coefficients $F$ and $B$ are, in general, nonlinear mappings,
\begin{align*}
F&:\Omega\times [0,T] \times C\big([0,T],H\big) \to H\\
B&:\Omega\times [0,T] \times C\big([0,T],H\big) \to \mathcal{L}_{2}(K_Q,H).
\end{align*}
Finally, the initial condition $\xi_0$ is an $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable $H$-valued random variable.

In the definition of a strong solution of the above SSDE, one requirement is the ff:

$X(t,\omega)\in\mathcal{D}(A)$ $dt\otimes d\mathbb{P}$-a.e.

Does this mean that $X(t,\omega)$ belongs to $\mathcal{D}(A)$, except for a set of measure zero? Which measure will we use? The product measure $Leb\otimes\mathbb{P}.$Thanks again for further enlightenment.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
42
Views
10K
Replies
46
Views
8K
Back
Top