3
$\begingroup$

Tomas bjork- arbitrage theory in continuous time. Appendix B, proposition B41 says:

statement

proof

The proof is not clear to me.

Thanks to Gordon's comment below of $E^Q (X/G)$ being $G$ measurable, I think the part where Bjork seems to imply that

$E^Q (X/G) . E^P (L/G) = E^P[(L.E^Q(X/G))/G]$

is valid since $E(x.y/\tau) = yE(x/\tau)$ if $y$ is $\tau$ measurable.

However in the next step, Bjork seems to say

$E^P[(L.E^Q(X/G))/G] = L.E^Q(X/G)$

Why would this be valid?

Moreover the RHS seems to imply

$E^P[(L.X)/G] = L.X$

Why is this valid?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know that $E^Q(X/\Gamma)$ is $\Gamma$ measurable? $\endgroup$ – Gordon Feb 22 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Gordon thanks i think i get the drift, edited the question now. $\endgroup$ – dayum Feb 23 at 0:14
0
$\begingroup$

The last one is valid since it is a defining relation of conditional expectation. Ane also we have $\frac{dQ}{dP} = Z$ and it implies that $dP \thinspace Z = dQ$. And this is the last equation.

Let's consider the first equation: $\mathbb{E}^P[L \thinspace \mathbb{E}^Q(X | G) \thinspace | \thinspace G] = L \thinspace \mathbb{E}^Q(X | G)$

As it was said before, $\mathbb{E}^Q(X | G)$ is G-measurable, so we can take this expression before the whole conditional expectation and again we use defining relation of the conditional expectation $\int_{G} \mathbb{E}(L | G) dP = \int_{G} L dP$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ could you explain what you mean by 'defining relation of conditional expectation' $\endgroup$ – dayum Feb 23 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ The last equation is a defining relation. It is just an equation (almost surely) that is in the definition of conditional expectation. $\endgroup$ – Lipa_FNTE Feb 24 at 9:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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