I Stochastic calculus: Ito's lemma and differentials

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter cppIStough
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Ito's lemma provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of stochastic processes, particularly in the context of financial modeling. The discussion highlights the importance of using the correct form of the stochastic differential equation (SDE) when simulating processes like Brownian motion. While the equation dS = r dt + σ dW is standard, it may not yield accurate results in Monte Carlo simulations without proper application of Ito's lemma. The participants clarify that using F = log(S) is necessary to correctly apply Ito's lemma for certain calculations, especially in the context of options pricing. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for precise formulation in stochastic calculus to avoid simulation issues.
cppIStough
Messages
24
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Ito's lemma and differentials: what's the difference?
Ito's formula states for some stochastic function F(S,t) where S evolves as dS = f(W,t)dt + g(W,t)dW and W is brownian motion:
$$dF = \partial_t F dt + \partial_xF dx + 1/2 \partial_{xx}F dt$$
So why question is, what does dF really mean here? I see in brownian motion we take $$dS = r dt + \sigma dW$$, but simulating this directly via monte carlo gives problems. Evidently the correct approach is to let F = log(S) and apply Ito's lemma. But why can't we just use $$dS = r dt + \sigma dW$$? I mean, it's an equation given, so why doesn't this work with monte carlo?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did i put this in the wrong section?
 
Ito's Lemma tells you that the Ito Differential of an Ito process is itself an Ito process and describes the form of the latter. The Differential describes an infinitesimal change in the Stochastic process in question.
 
I think some of your formulae are maybe not what you intended. You refer to log(S) as though you are doing some Black Scholes type calculation.

W is the Brownian motion in your examples. Based on what you posted, this
dS_t = \mu dt + \sigma dW_t
means
S_t - S_0 = \mu * ( t - 0 ) + \sigma * ( W_t - W_0)

I put in the 0 and the W_0 just for explanation, but of course both are zero and can disappear.

If you meant the Black-Scholes thing, you include S in both the drift and volatility terms, and of course Monte Carlo works, but I don't know which part you are not clear on
 
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...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
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.