2
$\begingroup$

I ran into a step in an argument that I can't quite figure out. It's basically how they use a limit that I don't seem to understand. The context is local-to-unity asymptotics in vector autoregressions, so I figured some people doing empirical work might know.

We have a $K \times K$ diagonal matrix $\Lambda := \text{diag}\left( \lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_K \right)$ and we define $h := \left[ \delta T \right]$ where $[.]$ refers to the integer part of a number and $\delta \in (0,1)$ is some fraction. We'd like to know what happens to $\Lambda^h$ as $T \rightarrow \infty$. The textbook notes that \begin{align*} \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \left( 1 + \frac{\delta \lambda_k}{T} \right)^T = e^{\delta \lambda_k} \; \forall k=1,\dots,K \end{align*} and infers that $\Lambda^h \rightarrow e^{\delta \Lambda} := \text{diag}\left( e^{\delta \lambda_1}, \dots, e^{\delta \lambda_K} \right)$. I don't quite follow what is going on. I see that the first limit is correct, but I fail to see how the conclusion follows. If it helps, later the authors actually use the reasoning to claim that $C^h \rightarrow e^{\delta C}$, but $C := I_K + \Lambda/T$. Now, in that case we have $\left( C^h \right)_{k,k} = \left( 1 + \frac{\lambda_k}{T} \right)^{[\delta T]}$. I still am having trouble seeing how the hell $\delta$ can be brought inside to invoke the above argument, but the expression is closer.

Anyone can help me out here?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

It makes no sense to write $C^h \to e^{\delta C}$ as $T \to \infty$ when $C = I_K +\Lambda/T$ since $e^{\delta C}$ on the right-hand side depends on $T$.

What can be confirmed is $(C^h)_{k,k} \to e^{\delta \lambda_k}$ as $T \to \infty$ with $\delta$ fixed. Note that

$$\log (C^h)_{k,k} = \lfloor \delta T\rfloor \log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_k}{T}\right) = \frac{\lfloor \delta T\rfloor}{T} \log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_k}{T}\right)^T$$

As $T \to \infty$ we clearly have $\log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_k}{T}\right)^T \to \log e^{\lambda_k} = \lambda _k$, since $\log(\cdot)$ is continuous.

Since $ \lfloor \delta T\rfloor \leqslant \delta T < \lfloor \delta T\rfloor +1$, it follows that $ \delta T -1 < \lfloor \delta T\rfloor \leqslant \delta T$, and $$\delta - \frac{1}{T} < \frac{\lfloor \delta T\rfloor}{T} \leqslant \delta$$.

Hence, by the squeeze theorem, $ \frac{\lfloor \delta T\rfloor}{T} \to \delta$ as $T \to \infty$, and

$$\lim_{T \to \infty}\log (C^h)_{k,k} = \lim_{T \to \infty}\frac{\lfloor \delta T\rfloor}{T} \lim_{T \to \infty}\log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_k}{T}\right)^T = \delta \lambda_k$$

Therefore, by continuity of $\log(\cdot)$,

$$\lim_{T \to \infty} (C^h)_{k,k} = e^{\delta \lambda_k}$$

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.