Time Series: stationary AR(1) -> MA(infinity)

AI Thread Summary
A stationary AR(1) model can be expressed as an MA(infinity) model, but confusion arises regarding the disappearance of the term Yt-m in the proof. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding limits as m approaches infinity, particularly how φ^m approaches zero while considering the behavior of Yt-m. The potential for an indeterminate form of 0*∞ complicates the conclusion, as Yt-m is a random variable. However, it is noted that if the random variable is stationary and well-behaved, the limit of φ^m Yt-m approaches zero almost surely. This understanding is crucial for grasping the transition from AR(1) to MA(infinity).
kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
Theorem:
A stationary AR(1) model can be expressed in terms of MA(infinity).

Proof:
stat5.JPG


Now I don't understand how they get from the second last line to the last line. Where did the term Yt-m go?

I understand you can keep doing the substitution iteratively, but you always have to end up with a "Y" term no matter how many times you do it, but on the last line of the proof there is no "Y" term, so it magically disappared? I'm really confused.

Hopefully someone can explain this (in simple terms if possible). Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They're taking the limit as \phi goes to infinity. What happens to \phi^m in that limit?
 
I think it's the limit as m->∞.

As m->∞,
φm ->0
BUT you also have to look at what happens to the other term, right? What if Yt-m->∞? Then we have indeterminate form 0*∞, and we just can't conclude that the product->0.
(Also, another complication is that Yt-m is a random variable, so I'm not sure if all of these make sense or not.)
 
kingwinner said:
I think it's the limit as m->∞.
You're right -- sorry.

As m->∞,
φm ->0
BUT you also have to look at what happens to the other term, right? What if Yt-m->∞? Then we have indeterminate form 0*∞, and we just can't conclude that the product->0.

(Also, another complication is that Yt-m is a random variable, so I'm not sure if all of these make sense or not.)
I'll take those two complications in reverse order. First, the equation will in general be true "almost surely", meaning with probability 1. It may be possible for \phi^m y_{t-m} to approach a constant or diverge, but this happens with probability 0. Second, you have to know SOMETHING about the y's. If this is the same book that your random walk problem came from, maybe they left out essential information. But the key fact is there in the word "stationary". It takes a little work to prove it, but If y is a decently-behaved RV (i.e., has a CDF) and is stationary and |\phi|<1, then \lim_{m\to\infty}\phi^m y_{t-m}=0 almost surely.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top