Graduate Smoothness of a value function with discontinuous parameters

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the smoothness of the value function v defined by an expectation involving bounded measurable functions that may be discontinuous. The author confirms that v is well-defined and continuous, but seeks stronger smoothness results, particularly regarding continuous differentiability. A related inquiry addresses whether the differential equation r(x)v(x) = f(x) + μ(x)v'(x) + ½v''(x) holds when the functions μ, f, and r are discontinuous. The key question is whether any meaningful interpretation of the differential equation can be maintained despite the discontinuities in the parameters. Overall, the exploration aims to deepen the understanding of the behavior of the value function under these conditions.
economicsnerd
Messages
268
Reaction score
24
Let ##\mu: \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}##, ##f: \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}##, and ##r: \mathbb{R}\to [1, \infty)## be bounded measurable functions (which may be discontinuous).

I'm interested in the function ##v:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}## given by ##v(x) = \mathbb E \left[ \int_0^\infty e^{-\int_0^t r(X_\tau) d\tau} f(X_t) \bigg| X_0 = x, \ dX_t = \mu(X_t) dt + dB_t \right]##, where ##\{B_t\}_t## is a standard Brownian motion.

I know that ##v## is well-defined, and I'm confident that it's continuous. I'm wondering if I can get any stronger smoothness results than this. For instance, is ##v## continuously differentiable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Related question:

If everything above were ##C^2##, then ##v## would satisfy the DE, ##r(x)v(x) = f(x) + \mu(x)v'(x) + \tfrac12 v''(x)##. I'd love to know if, when ##\mu, f, r## are discontinuous, there's still any meaningful sense in which the DE is satisfied.
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K