Why Is It Acceptable to Interchange Sum and Integral for Martingale Proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter osprey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Sum
osprey
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Let M_t = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{i} (N_t^i - \lambda t) where \{ N^i \} is a sequence of iid Poisson processes with intensity \lambda. It can be shown that the series converges in the L^2 sense. Why is it ok to write

\int \left ( \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{i} (N_t^i - \lambda t) \right ) dP = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{i} \int (N_t^i - \lambda t) dP?

(I need to show that M is a martingale and to do so, I would like to interchange the sum and the integral, but I cannot find an argument that seems to work...)

Thank you in advance for your help! :-)

/O
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top