Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Isometry for elementary predictable counting-process integrals

Statement

Under the finite-horizon contract, for every bounded predictable step integrand H, the elementary process It(H)=∫0tHs dMs is a square-integrable martingale and E[IT(H)2]=E∫0THs2 dAs. The terminal L2 class is independent of the chosen finite-step representation of the same integrand in the compensator L2 seminorm.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A simple counting-process contract M=N−A, the martingale M2−A, and a bounded predictable step integrand Hj∈Ftj on a finite deterministic partition.

[F1]

M is square-integrable, and M2−A is an integrable martingale on the finite horizon. (Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract Brackets of a compensated simple counting process)

[F2]

The elementary integral is the finite sum of coefficients times martingale increments. (Elementary predictable integral against a counting-process martingale)

[F3]

If X is integrable, a bounded Ftj-measurable factor Z can be taken out of conditional expectation given Ftj. The same holds for a finite real such Z when ZX is integrable; then ZE[X∣Ftj] is integrable too. (Taking out what is known)

[F4]

The elementary integral process is a square-integrable martingale. (Elementary predictable counting-process integrals are martingales)

[F5]

Products of two L2 random variables are integrable by Cauchy–Schwarz. (Cauchy-Schwarz for random variables)

[A1]

AC is inherited through the conditional-expectation interface. (The Axiom of Choice)

Proof

1.1A1F1F3F5givenalgebra

On each (tj,tj+1], write ΔMj=Mtj+1−Mtj and ΔAj=Atj+1−Atj. The martingale M2−A gives E[Mtj+12−Mtj2∣Ftj]=E[ΔAj∣Ftj]; expand the left square as (ΔMj)2+2MtjΔMj. Since Mtj and ΔMj are in L2, their product is integrable by [F5], so [F3] applies with the possibly unbounded factor Mtj. Use E[ΔMj∣Ftj]=0 to get E[(ΔMj)2∣Ftj]=E[ΔAj∣Ftj]. By [F3], E[Hj2(ΔMj)2]=E[Hj2ΔAj].

2.1F1F2F3F4F5step 1.1algebra

If i<j, then HiΔMiHj is Ftj-measurable and its product with ΔMj is integrable by boundedness of H and [F5]; [F3] and E[ΔMj∣Ftj]=0 give E[HiΔMiHjΔMj]=0. Expanding the finite-sum square [F2], all off-diagonal terms vanish, and step 1.1 gives E[IT(H)2]=∑jE[Hj2(ΔMj)2]=∑jE[Hj2ΔAj]=E∫0THs2 dAs; the martingale assertion is [F4].

3.1step 2.1algebra∎

If two step representations agree in the compensator L2 seminorm, their difference has seminorm zero; applying the isometry in step 2.1 to the refined difference representation makes the squared L2 norm of their terminal-integral difference zero, so they define the same terminal class.

Source notes

Tian’s Unit 9, PDF p. 12, states the scalar bracket result. Unit 10, Theorems 12.3–12.4, PDF pp. 5 and 12, states the bounded predictable-integral martingale and integral-bracket results, referring full proofs to Fleming–Harrington; Theorem 12.4 additionally assumes bounded N. The local finite-step proof here uses the stated square-integrable model contract without that extra boundedness assumption. Bass describes the same L2 completion route for jump martingales. The conditional-variance and orthogonal-increment calculation above supplies the finite-step proof.

Depends on

Used by

Cited to discharge well-definedness by Elementary predictable integral against a counting-process martingale.

Dependency tree · two levels

26 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