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.
Optional stopping under uniform integrability
Statement
Assume AC. Let be a uniformly integrable martingale and let be pointwise ordered, almost-surely finite stopping times. Define and using the fixed cemetery value on the respective null events where the stopping time is infinite. Then and
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.
Closed martingale characterization supplies with and makes conditional expectations of this fixed variable uniformly integrable.
Optional sampling for bounded stopping times handles every truncated time.
Stopped random variable and stopped process gives pointwise stabilization at an almost-surely finite time.
Sigma-algebra at a stopping time gives the stopped-event tests, and Tower property of conditional expectation applies to nested sigma-algebras.
The Axiom of Choice records the background AC hypothesis. The conditional-expectation and representative properties used here are supplied by [F1], [F2], and [F4].
The stopping-time sigma-algebra is a sigma-algebra proves for pointwise .
Proof
Fix a stopping time equal to either or . For , F2 applied to gives Let in using F1 and conditional contraction to obtain
The sigma-algebras increase with . Thus the sequence in step 1.1 is a closed, hence uniformly integrable, martingale by F1. Since almost surely, F3 gives almost surely; F1's UI convergence implication upgrades this to , proving .
For , the event belongs to (check the defining finite-level intersections). Apply the conditional identity in step 1.1 on this event, then let . The left side converges by step 2.1; the right side converges by dominated convergence for . Hence so .
Since pointwise, F6 gives . Apply the tower property in F4 to the two representations from step 3.1: Taking expectations finishes. AC is the background hypothesis recorded in F5; the conditional-expectation identities come from F1 and F4.
Depends on
Used by
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
- van der Vaart, Martingales, Diffusions and Financial Mathematics, Theorem 2.42 and proof, pp. 21–22 (standard reference, not scraped)