- #1
junglebeast
- 515
- 2
A random walk can be defined by the following recurrence relation,
[tex]
X_{t+1} = X_t + \Delta X
[/tex]
where [tex] \Delta X \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)[/tex].
At any time [tex]t1 \geq 0[/tex] a strategist may enter, and at any time [tex]t2 > t1[/tex] a strategist may exit. The resulting profit p is given by:
[tex]
p(t1,t2) = X_{t2} - X_{t1}.
[/tex]
Because each recursive step is IID, a sequence of n steps may equivalently be written as
[tex]
X_{t+n} = X_t + Y
[/tex]
where [tex] Y \sim \mathcal{N}(0, n \sigma^2)[/tex].
Thus, the expected value for profit if you buy at any [tex]t1[/tex] and sell at [tex]t2+n[/tex] (for any n) is zero,
[tex]
E(p(t1, t2)) = E(Y + X_t - X_t) = E(Y) = 0
[/tex]
A strategy is a method for choosing t1 and t2 without future knowledge. For example, a strategy could be:
I do not know how to calculate the expected value of that strategy but I think it is zero.
Conjecture:
Now this seems like an intuitively obvious statement -- but can it be proven mathematically?
[tex]
X_{t+1} = X_t + \Delta X
[/tex]
where [tex] \Delta X \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)[/tex].
At any time [tex]t1 \geq 0[/tex] a strategist may enter, and at any time [tex]t2 > t1[/tex] a strategist may exit. The resulting profit p is given by:
[tex]
p(t1,t2) = X_{t2} - X_{t1}.
[/tex]
Because each recursive step is IID, a sequence of n steps may equivalently be written as
[tex]
X_{t+n} = X_t + Y
[/tex]
where [tex] Y \sim \mathcal{N}(0, n \sigma^2)[/tex].
Thus, the expected value for profit if you buy at any [tex]t1[/tex] and sell at [tex]t2+n[/tex] (for any n) is zero,
[tex]
E(p(t1, t2)) = E(Y + X_t - X_t) = E(Y) = 0
[/tex]
A strategy is a method for choosing t1 and t2 without future knowledge. For example, a strategy could be:
t1 = 0
if [tex]t > 0[/tex] and: [tex]X_t > X_{t1} + 50[/tex] or [tex]X_t < X_{t1} - 100[/tex] then [tex]t2 = t[/tex]
I do not know how to calculate the expected value of that strategy but I think it is zero.
Conjecture:
There is no strategy for entering and exiting that has a non-zero expected value for profit.
Now this seems like an intuitively obvious statement -- but can it be proven mathematically?