Quadratic Variation of a Poisson Process?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the quadratic variation of a Poisson process, with the original poster struggling to apply the general formula correctly. They initially believe their calculations lead to a non-zero answer but are confused when it approaches zero. Other participants clarify that the quadratic variation of a Poisson process is equal to the process itself, as it is a pure jump process with jumps of size one. They explain that the quadratic variation is calculated by summing the squares of the jumps, confirming that the distribution does not affect this outcome. The thread concludes with a consensus that the quadratic variation is indeed the sum of the jumps, reinforcing the original poster's understanding.
RedZone2k2
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

This is my first post on PhysicsForums; my friend said that this was the best place to ask questions about math.

Anyways, I have to find the Quadratic Variation of a Poisson Process.

My professor doesn't have a class textbook (just some notes that he's found online), and although I can find a general formula for quadratic variation, I can't seem to plug it in, and get a non-zero answer. My professor said that this question should be pretty easy, but I'm totally lost.

If you guys could offer any help, that would be great. If you guys have any more questions, let me know!

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So here is what I have so far:

The quadratic variation is the sum of all [N_t_(i+1)-N_t_i]^2, with the max |N_t_(i+1)-N_t_i| --> 0.

Since Poisson distributions are independent, and we want to find N(t), partition the interval [0,t] to n subintervals. Let h = max |N_t_(i+1)-N_t_i|. So, since I'm taking the limit as h becomes arbitrarily tiny, I can rewrite this sum as n*(E(N_h))^2 right? But then, I get n*(lam*(1\n))^2, which goes to zero. This can't be right, so I must have made at least one error here right?
 
First, are you trying to find the expected value of the quadratic variation? Second, are you sure it's not max ti+1-ti --> 0. In other words, the largest subinterval of time goes to zero? If it is N(ti+1) - N(ti) --> 0, then yeah, it looks like the answer would have to be zero.

I am not familiar with the term quadratic variation, but I would guess that it is supposed to result in a Riemann sum, or integral.
 
A Poisson process has quadratic variation equal to itself.

This is because it is a pure jump process with jump sizes equal to 1. If Nt is the Poisson process then the only contribution to the quadratic variation [N] comes from the jumps,

<br /> [N]_t=\sum_{s\le t} \Delta N_s^2 = \sum_{s\le t,\Delta N_s\not=0}1 = \sum_{s\le t}\Delta N_s=N_t.<br />
 
Just to add - the distribution of the process doesn't matter. Once you know that it is piecewise constant then you can conclude that the quadratic variation is just the sum of the squares of the jumps, which is easily calculated as I did above.
 
That makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
 
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...
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.
Back
Top