Why Does Yₙ Converge to Zero for q < 1/2 in a Random Walk?

In summary: So ##Y_{\infty} = \lim_{n\to \infty} Y_n = \infty##, not 0. Therefore, the statement that ##Y_{\infty} = 0## is incorrect and cannot be proven.
  • #1
WMDhamnekar
MHB
381
28
Let ##X_1, X_2, \dots ##be independent, identically distributed random variables with

##P{X_j = 1} = q, P{X_j = −1} = 1 − q.##

Let ##S_0 = 0 ##and for n ≥ 1, ##S_n = X_1 + X_2 + \dots + X_n.## Let ##Y_n = e^{S_n}##
Let ##Y_{\infty} = \lim\limits_{n\to\infty} Y_n.## Explain why ##Y_{\infty} = 0.## (Hint: there are at least two ways to show this. One is to consider ##\log{Y_n}## and use the law of large numbers. Another is to note that with probability one ##Y_{n+1}/Y_n## does not converge.)

My answer:

We can use the law of large numbers to show that ##\log Y_n## converges almost surely to ##-\infty##, which implies that ##Y_n## converges almost surely to 0.
First, note that ##Y_n## is a non-negative random variable, so its logarithm ##\log Y_n## is well-defined. Using the definition of ##Y_n##, we have:
##\log{Y_n}= S_n =\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n X_j##

By the law of large numbers, we know that the sample mean $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}X_j$ converges almost surely to the expected value ##E[X_j] = q - (1-q) = 2q-1.## Therefore, we have:
##\frac{1}{n}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n X_j \to (2q-1)## almost surely

Using this result, we can show that ##\log{Y_n}## converges almost surely to ##-\infty## as follows:
####\begin{align*}
\log Y_n &= \sum_{j=1}^{n} X_j \ \
&= n\cdot\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n} X_j \ \
&\to n(2q-1) \quad \text{almost surely} \ \
&= \infty \quad \text{if } q > \frac{1}{2} \ \
&= -\infty \quad \text{if } q < \frac{1}{2}
\end{align*}####
When ##q < \frac{1}{2}##, we have ##\log{Y_n} \to -\infty## almost surely, which implies that ##Y_{\infty} = 0## almost surely.
Alternatively, we can use the fact that ##Y_n## is a martingale to show that ##Y_n## does not converge almost surely. By definition, ##Y_n## is a martingale because ##E[Y_{n+1} \mid Y_1,\ldots,Y_n] = E[e^{S_{n+1}} \mid Y_1,\ldots,Y_n] = e^{S_n} = Y_n##. Using the martingale convergence theorem, we know that if ##Y_n## converges almost surely to a limit ##Y_{\infty}##, then ##Y_{\infty}## must be a constant because ##Y_n## is a martingale. However, we can show that ##Y_{n+1}/Y_n## does not converge almost surely, which implies that ##Y_n## does not converge almost surely.
To see why ##Y_{n+1}/Y_n## does not converge almost surely, note that:
####\begin{align*}\displaystyle\frac{Y_{n+1}}{Y_n} &= \displaystyle\frac{e^{S_{n+1}}}{e^{S_n}} \ \
&= e^{S_{n+1}-S_n} \ \
&= e^{X_{n+1}}

\end{align*}####
Since ##X_{n+1}## takes on the values 1 and -1 with positive probability, we have ##e^{X_{n+1}} = e## or ##1/e## with positive probability. Therefore, ##Y_{n+1}/Y_n## does not converge almost surely, which implies that ##Y_n ##does not converge almost surely.If q = 1/2, what would be your answer?

If ##q = 1/2##, then ##X_j## is a symmetric random variable with ##E[X_j] = 0##. In this case, ##S_n## is a random walk with mean zero, which means that ##\log{Y_n} = S_n## also has mean zero. By the law of large numbers, we know that ##\frac{1}{n}\cdot S_n## converges almost surely to zero, which implies that ##S_n## converges with probability one to zero. Using the continuous mapping theorem, we have ##\log{Y_n} \to 0## with probability one, which implies that ## Y_n \to 1##with probability one. Therefore, ##Y_n## converges to 1 with probability one when ##q = 1/2##.

Is the above answer correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Any reason it shouldn't be ?

Where's my magnifier ?

##\ ##
 
  • #3
BvU said:
Any reason it shouldn't be ?

Where's my magnifier ?

##\ ##
Please open images in new tabs and zoom them in 125% or larger than 125%. No need for magnifier.:smile:
 
  • #4
WMDhamnekar said:
Please open images in new tabs and zoom them in 125% or larger than 125%. No need for magnifier.:smile:
DId just that and full is my screen with just the first few lines. But already doubt creeps in:
Any limitations on ##q## ? If not, for ##q=1## disaster looms ...

Or did my magnifier disrupt something ?

##\ ##
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes WMDhamnekar and FactChecker
  • #5
BvU said:
DId just that and full is my screen with just the first few lines. But already doubt creeps in:
Any limitations on ##q## ? If not, for ##q=1## disaster looms ...

Or did my magnifier disrupt something ?

##\ ##
I have written the answer in LaTeX form now. :smile:
 
  • #6
WMDhamnekar said:
I have written the answer in LaTeX form now. :smile:
But the question is lost ... and I think there's somethimg very wrong with it ...

1679744096360-png.png
 
  • #7
BvU said:
But the question is lost ... and I think there's somethimg very wrong with it ...

View attachment 324043
I have written question also in LaTeX form now.
 
  • #8
You need to address the issue that @BvU brought up in post #4. It's hard to prove something that is incorrect. When ##q=1##, ##S_n = n## and ##Y_n = e^n \rightarrow \infty##.
 
  • Like
Likes WMDhamnekar
  • #9
FactChecker said:
You need to address the issue that @BvU brought up in post #4. It's hard to prove something that is incorrect. When ##q=1##, ##S_n = n## and ##Y_n = e^n \rightarrow \infty##.
Sorry, I forgot to provide one additional information. For ##q =\displaystyle\frac{1}{e+1}, Y_n## is a martingale.
 

FAQ: Why Does Yₙ Converge to Zero for q < 1/2 in a Random Walk?

What is a random walk?

A random walk is a mathematical model that describes a path consisting of a succession of random steps. In the context of probability theory, it often represents the movement of a particle or a financial market, where each step is determined by a random process. The simplest form is a one-dimensional random walk, where an object moves left or right with equal probability at each time step.

What does Yₙ represent in a random walk?

In a random walk, Yₙ typically represents the position of the walker after n steps. It is a stochastic process that can be analyzed to understand the behavior of the walk over time, particularly its convergence properties and long-term behavior.

What does it mean for Yₙ to converge to zero?

When we say that Yₙ converges to zero, we mean that as the number of steps n approaches infinity, the probability distribution of Yₙ becomes increasingly concentrated around the value zero. In practical terms, this indicates that the walker tends to return to the origin or remains close to it over time, rather than drifting away indefinitely.

Why does Yₙ converge to zero for q < 1/2?

For a random walk, q represents the probability of moving in one direction (e.g., right), while (1-q) is the probability of moving in the opposite direction (e.g., left). When q < 1/2, the walker has a higher probability of moving left than right, which leads to a tendency to drift towards the origin. This imbalance in probabilities causes the expected position of Yₙ to decrease over time, resulting in convergence to zero.

What are the implications of this convergence in real-world scenarios?

The convergence of Yₙ to zero in a random walk with q < 1/2 has important implications in various fields, such as finance, physics, and ecology. For example, in financial markets, it suggests that certain assets may exhibit mean-reverting behavior, where prices tend to return to a long-term average. In ecology, it can indicate that populations may stabilize around a certain level rather than experiencing unbounded growth or decline.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
743
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top