How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A tied jump produces a nonzero cross bracket
Example
Let , , and put with common natural filtration. For each component use and for , , and . Both component contracts hold, but the components jump together. For every , which are nonzero with positive probability. This is why the no-simultaneous-jump condition is required for zero cross brackets.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , a waiting time with density on and tail , and the common filtration generated by the two identical one-event processes.
A unit-jump process with is in the model class when is a square-integrable martingale and . (Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract)
For that contract, and . (Brackets of a compensated simple counting process)
Optional cross brackets are jump-product sums; predictable cross brackets are their continuous predictable martingale compensators. (Optional and predictable brackets for counting-process martingales)
Predictability is generated by time-zero sets and rectangles with ; it is preserved under pointwise limits, products, and deterministic Borel time functions. (Progressively measurable and predictable processes)
AC is inherited through conditional expectation in the model contract. (The Axiom of Choice)
Verification
Each has one unit jump and . For , is predictable by dyadic left-step approximation using [F4]; its time-zero value is predictable on the time-zero generator. Direct integration gives ; left Riemann sums make it adapted, and continuous left-step approximations make it predictable by [F4]. The exponential density gives . If , the martingale increment is zero; if , the residual waiting time is exponential and, for , on that event, since . Hence each is an all-pairs martingale; makes it square-integrable and verifies [F1].
The two component martingales are identical, so [F3] gives . By [F2], and , hence the pair has the same cross-bracket values. For every , and almost surely because almost surely; neither cross-bracket process is identically zero when simultaneous jumps are allowed.
Source notes
Tian states zero cross brackets under a no-simultaneous-jump hypothesis; Andersen–Borgan–Gill–Keiding impose the same condition for multivariate counting processes. This tied-process construction shows the boundary case directly.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
21 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Lu Tian, STAT331 Unit 10: Combining Martingales, Stochastic Integrals, and Applications, PDF p. 4 (standard reference, not scraped)
- P. K. Andersen, Ø. Borgan, R. D. Gill, N. Keiding, Censoring, Truncation and Filtering in Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes, §2, PDF p. 4 (standard reference, not scraped)