One can rather easily show that E[$\sum_{i = 0}^{i = n - 1}W_{t_i}(W_{t_{i + 1}} - W_{t_i})]$ = -T + $W_T^2$.

What I'm confused about is why we can't simply say that for each i, $W_{t_{i}}$ is independent of $(W_{t_{i + 1}} - W_{t_i})$, so that upon interchanging sums and expectations, and using independence we have E[$\sum_{i = 0}^{i = n - 1}W_{t_i}(W_{t_{i + 1}} - W_{t_i})]$ = $\sum_{i = 0}^{i = n - 1}E[W_{t_{i}}]E[W_{t_{i + 1}} - W_{t_i}]$ = 0?

In this problem, we have naturally partitioned an interval as $0 = t_{0} < t_{1} < ... < t_{n} = T$, and $W_{t}$ is a Brownian motion.


closed as off-topic by Ric, Bob Jansen Apr 23 '15 at 7:13

  • This question does not appear to be about quantitative finance within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Question closed. Answer provided on math.stackexchange is sufficient. $\endgroup$ – user7348 Feb 21 '15 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ Where on math.stackexchange can we find the answer? The question as posted here must be wrong as in the first line you have an ordinary expectation (thus a real number) on the lhs and a random variable on the rhs. $\endgroup$ – Ric Apr 23 '15 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ The question is cross-posted here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1159240/… user7348: please mind your manners and stop cross posting questions. $\endgroup$ – Bob Jansen Apr 23 '15 at 7:12
  • $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's cross-posted here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1159240/… $\endgroup$ – Bob Jansen Apr 23 '15 at 7:13

$W_{t_i}$ and $W_{t_i}$ are not independent (in fact $W_{t_i}=W_{t_i}$), e.g. $$E[W_t^2]=t^2\neq E[W_t]\cdot E[W_t]=0$$ So you cant separate the expectation in your equation.

  • $\begingroup$ My comment said the question is closed, and I didn't want any additional answers.Furthermore, you're wrong. ($W_{t_{i}} - W_{t_{0}})(W_{t_{i + 1}} - W_{t_{i}})$ can be split because the increments are independent by definition of Brownian Motion. $\endgroup$ – user7348 Feb 22 '15 at 17:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user7348 I don't understand your comments, and the increments you quote are not same as in the question. $\endgroup$ – emcor Feb 22 '15 at 19:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.