13

Let $\sigma$ and $\tau$ be two stopping times in $\mathscr{F}_t$ and let this filtration satisfy all the usual conditions.

Question: Is $\sigma + \tau$ a stopping time?

Attempt at a solution:

I need to demonstrate that $\{ \sigma + \tau \leq t\}\in \mathscr{F}_t$, or that $\{\sigma \leq t - \tau \} \in \mathscr{F}_t$.

Since $\sigma$ is a stopping time we have that $\{\sigma \leq t - \tau\} \in \mathscr{F}_{t - \tau}$, where $t - \tau \in [0,t]$.

Since $t > t - \tau$, we have that $\mathscr{F}_{t-\tau} \subseteq \mathscr{F}_t$ by the definition of $\mathscr{F}$.

This implies that $\{\sigma \leq t - \tau\} \in \mathscr{F}_t$, and that $\sigma + \tau$ is a stopping time.


Is my attempt correct?

saz
  • 123,507
Jase
  • 644
  • 1
    It seems like you're working with $\tau$ as if it were a constant. For example: "Since $\sigma$ is a stopping time we have that ${\sigma\leq t-\tau}\in\mathscr{F}_{t-\tau}$" - is this clear from the definition of $\sigma$ being a stopping time? – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 08:46
  • I thought that that is true because of the following: Since I'm told that $\sigma$ is a stopping time, then ${\sigma \leq x} \in \mathscr{F}_x$ for any $x \in [0,\infty)$. Now for $x = t - \tau$, it's true that the image $x(\omega)$ satisfies the above, but I'm not sure if $x$ itself does. I'm pretty bad at maths (unfortunately). – Jase Nov 08 '12 at 09:07
  • 2
    The problem is that ${\sigma\leq x}\in\mathscr{F}_x$ holds for any deterministic (constant) $x\in [0,\infty)$. Now $x=t-\tau$ is random, i.e. $x(\omega)=t-\tau(\omega)$, so we cannot apply the definition on this $x$. Actually $x(\omega)$ may even be negative (if $\tau(\omega)>t$). – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 09:12
  • @StefanHansen Okay then I'm lost in this problem unfortunately. – Jase Nov 08 '12 at 09:29

4 Answers4

22

Following did's comment, we could write this a little more simply.

For each fixed $\omega$, I claim $\sigma(\omega) + \tau(\omega) < t$ iff there are positive rationals $r,s$ with $r+s < t$ and $\sigma(\omega) < r$, $\tau(\omega) < s$. Suppose $\sigma(\omega) + \tau(\omega) < t$; we can find a rational $q$ with $\sigma(\omega) + \tau(\omega) < q < t$. Then $\sigma(\omega) < q - \tau(\omega)$, so we can find $r$ with $\sigma(\omega) < r < q - \tau(\omega)$. Setting $s = q-r$ we see that we have $\tau(\omega) < s$. The reverse implication is obvious.

Thus we have $$\{\sigma + \tau < t\} = \bigcup_{r,s \in \mathbb{Q}^+; r+s<t} \{\sigma < r\} \cap \{\tau < s\}.$$ But $\{\sigma < r\} \in \mathcal{F}_r \subset \mathcal{F}_t$; likewise $\{\tau < s\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$. Thus $\{\sigma + \tau < t\}$ is a countable union of events from $\mathcal{F}_t$, and so it itself in $\mathcal{F}_t$.

I'd like to point out that this is a useless fact; as far as I can see, there's no meaningful interpretation of the sum of two stopping times, since stopping times represent absolute rather than relative times. (If the train to Paris leaves at 5:00, and the train to Berlin leaves at 6:00, what happens at 11:00? Nothing.)

Nate Eldredge
  • 101,664
  • 1
    r,s are $\mathbb{R}$-valued - why can you restrict to $\mathbb{Q}$? It seems even though $\mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$ you have issue about precise specification – John Fernley Feb 18 '15 at 17:20
  • 2
    @JohnFernley: I don't understand your comment. I defined $r,s$ to be rational numbers. Can you explain specifically which step of my argument you think is incorrect or insufficiently proved? – Nate Eldredge Feb 18 '15 at 17:25
  • 1
    My issue is that ${\sigma < \sqrt{2}} \cap {\tau < 2-\sqrt{2}} \subset {\sigma + \tau < 2}$ and so I don't see how the union you give is the whole set – John Fernley Feb 23 '15 at 16:15
  • Thank you for the answer! I'd also like to point out that your remark is very witty :) – Sasha Dec 10 '15 at 18:28
  • I can think of a few reasons we might care about the sum of stopping times. (1) If we just take $\tau = c$ is a constant, then $\sigma + \tau$ represents what is happening at some time after $\sigma$ occurred. E.g. if the train leaves to Paris at 5, where is it 2 hours later? Or e.g. how far are you from a set at a fixed time after hitting it? (2) if e.g. $\sigma$ tells me when I have the opportunity to bet and $\tau$ tells me when I have enough money to bet, then $\tau - \sigma$ tells me how long I have to wait from when an opportunity presents itself to when I can take advantage of it – wanderingmathematician Mar 31 '19 at 17:21
  • @user334137 (1) Well, a constant is a very special kind of stopping time, and we don't need anything nearly as difficult as this result to prove that a stopping time plus a constant is a stopping time. (2) $\tau - \sigma$ is not a sum of stopping times, since $-\sigma$ is not a stopping time. And it is not generally the case that $\tau - \sigma$ is a stopping time. – Nate Eldredge Apr 01 '19 at 14:50
  • @user334137: Fundamentally, I think this is about the distinction between what I would call "absolute" and "relative" times. We can say "absolute + relative = absolute". It makes sense to write $\sigma + 2$ but only if you interpret 2 as a relative time, i.e. "a two hour time span" instead of "two o'clock". But it does not make sense to say "the time of the Paris train plus two o'clock", even though it is arithmetic that you can do. However, it does make sense to subtract two absolute times, but you get a relative time, not an absolute time. – Nate Eldredge Apr 01 '19 at 14:54
  • @NateEldredge Ah good point about the subtraction. Still, I can think of other applications of summed stopping times. For instance, suppose I were interested in the total cpu-hours needed to run some distributed randomized algorithm. If I need to run N processes, each of which has its own stopping time, then the sum of those stopping times is of practical and financial interest to me. – wanderingmathematician Apr 01 '19 at 17:53
  • Doesn't this only prove that the sum of two optional time is an optional time? The original question is about stopping times. I am also aware the F-optional = F+-stopping, but it does not help in this case. – suncup224 Jun 01 '24 at 03:19
  • @suncup224: What definitions are you using for "optional time" and "stopping time"? They vary between authors. – Nate Eldredge Jun 01 '24 at 04:35
  • @NateEldredge The definition of "stopping time" I am referring to is the same as in OP's question: ${\tau \le t } \in \mathcal{F}_t$ and "optional time" refers to the expression you used in the proof here: ${\tau < t } \in \mathcal{F}_t$. Let's set aside the point about definition potentially varying between authors. The point here is OP's question uses $\le$ and the answer here uses $<$, and I cannot immediately see how that proves the OP's question – suncup224 Jun 02 '24 at 01:50
  • @NateEldredge ok I realised the others have pointed out that the "usual conditions" of the filtration includes right-continuity of the filtration, in which case then the two are the same – suncup224 Jun 02 '24 at 02:57
10

Revised answer:

I found it easier to look at the complements instead. Then we might as well show that $\{\tau+\sigma>t\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$ for all $t$. For a stopping time $\tau$ we know that $\{\tau<t\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$ and also $\{\tau=t\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$. Now we write our set as

$$ \{\tau+\sigma>t\}=\{\tau=0,\,\tau+\sigma>t\}\cup\{0<\tau<t,\,\tau+\sigma>t\}\cup\{\tau\geq t,\, \tau+\sigma>t\}\\ =\{\tau=0,\,\sigma>t\}\cup\{0<\tau<t,\,\tau+\sigma>t\}\cup\{\tau>t,\,\sigma=0\}\cup\{\tau\geq t,\,\sigma>0\}. $$

Then $\{\tau=0,\,\sigma>t\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$ and $\{\tau>t,\,\sigma=0\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$, since $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are stopping times. Furthermore $\{\tau\geq t,\,\sigma>0\}\in\mathscr{F}_t$ because $\{\sigma>0\}=\{\sigma=0\}^c\in\mathscr{F}_0$ and $\{\tau\geq t\}=\{\tau<t\}^c\in\mathscr{F}_t$. At last we have that $$ \{0<\tau<t,\tau+\sigma>t\}=\bigcup_{r\,\in\, (0,t)\cap\,\mathbb{Q}}\{r<\tau<t,\,\sigma>t-r\}\in\mathscr{F}_t. $$

I hope that this last equality with the union now holds.

Stefan Hansen
  • 26,160
  • 7
  • 62
  • 95
  • 1
    There is no such $s$ when $\sigma+\tau=t$ and $t$ is not rational hence this identity does not hold. You might want to use $\lt t+1/n$ instead of $\leqslant t$, and then consider the intersection of these over $n$. – Did Nov 08 '12 at 10:37
  • 1
    @did, I'm sorry that you, yet again, have to clean up in my answers. I think you should post the answer instead of me, because i'm not entirely sure, and then I will delete this. – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 10:42
  • 2
    Stefan: PLEASE do not feel sorry for these one or two occurrences (of something I would not describe as you do). Why not revise your answer, I am sure you can do that, and then everybody shall be happy. (Oh, and I forgot to say: your answers are good, from what I have seen... :-)) – Did Nov 08 '12 at 10:54
  • @did: Thanks for the cheering up! However, I can't seem to express ${\sigma+\tau<t+1/n}$ as a countable union of sets belonging to $\mathscr{F}_t$. I think you might as well post it :) – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 11:36
  • Use your idea: $\sigma+\tau\lt t$ if and only if there exists $r$ and $s$ rational numbers such that $r+s\lt t$, $\sigma\leqslant r$, $\tau\leqslant s$. – Did Nov 08 '12 at 11:40
  • Yes, but now (with $t+1/n$) we can have that $r>t$, right? Isn't that a problem when we want to conclude that ${\sigma\leq r,\tau\leq s}\in\mathscr{F}_t$? – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 11:53
  • @did Thanks for your help mate! – Jase Nov 08 '12 at 16:24
  • @did and Jase: I tried a different approach. Hopefully the argument holds now. – Stefan Hansen Nov 08 '12 at 17:22
  • There's a typo in the union index, $s$ should be $r$. Other than that I like this answer, because it works also for filtrations that are not necessarily right-continuous and it uses only one auxiliary rational number index. – Gibarian Aug 07 '13 at 22:56
  • @Gibarian: Thanks for the correction. – Stefan Hansen Aug 08 '13 at 05:21
3

Nates' answer is on the right track but assumes right continuity. The definition of stopping time is $\{\sigma \le t\}\in \mathcal{F}_t$ (instead of $\{\sigma < t\}\in \mathcal{F}_t$). Stefan's uses of $\{\tau < t\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$ and $\{\tau = t\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$ for stopping time $\tau$ are correct, but the lemmas can use some extra proof. The following is a proof hopefully with the issues avoided.

We claim that $$\{\sigma + \tau > t\} = \left(\bigcup_{r,s \in Q^+, r + s > t, r\le t, s\le t}\{\sigma > r\} \cap \{ \tau > s \}\right)\cup\{\sigma > t\}\cup\{\tau > t\}. $$

It is trivial to see that the RHS $\subset$ LHS, RHS $ \in\mathcal{F}_t$ (note $\{\sigma > r\}\in \mathcal{F}_r \subset \mathcal{F}_t$ for $r \le t$). It remains to show LHS $\subset$ RHS to conclude $\{\sigma + \tau > t\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$.

For any $\omega \in $ LHS, if $\sigma(\omega) = 0$ or $\tau(\omega) = 0$, then $\omega \in \{\sigma > t\} \cup \{\tau > t\}\subset$RHS. Otherwise, we have $\sigma(\omega) + \tau(\omega) >t, \sigma(\omega) > 0, \tau(\omega) > 0.$ We can always find two rational numbers $r, s$ so that $r + s > t, r\le t, s\le t,$ $\sigma(\omega) > r \ge 0,$ $\tau(\omega) > s \ge 0.$ Hence $\omega \in \{\sigma > r\} \cap \{ \tau > s \} \subset$ RHS. This completes the proof that LHS = RHS = $\{\sigma + \tau > t\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$.

It follows that $\{\sigma + \tau \le t\}\in \mathcal{F}_t$, i.e. $\sigma + \tau$ is a stopping time.

  • Nate’s answer is complete. Because the filtration satisfies the usual conditions, the filtration is right-continuous. It is therefore sufficient to show that ${\sigma + \tau < t} \in \cal F_t$. – Theoretical Economist Oct 16 '19 at 05:48
  • You are correct if "usual conditions" is interpreted as including the filtration being right-continuous. It is still worthwhile to prove/show the conclusion holds without right continuity. – Xiaohai Zhang Oct 16 '19 at 22:20
  • That is part of the standard interpretation of the phrase “usual conditions”. I agree that it is worthwhile to show this, but perhaps you can remove the statement that Nate’s answer is incomplete, as that is not the case. – Theoretical Economist Oct 17 '19 at 00:31
  • Just modified the statements a bit. – Xiaohai Zhang Oct 17 '19 at 01:01
3

There is a brief proof in the book ``S. W. He et al., Semimartingale Theory and Stochastic Calculus, CRC Press Inc, 1992.''(p.84, Th.3.7.(3)).

The proof is based on following fact(Th.3.7.(1)): If $S$ is a stopping time, r.v. $ T\in\mathscr{F}_S $ and $ T\ge S $, then $ T $ is a stopping time.(Proof of this fact: For each $ t\ge 0 $, $ [T\le t]\in\mathscr{F}_S$, and by the definition of $\mathscr{F}_S $ we have $ [T\le t]=[T\le t][S\le t]\in\mathscr{F}_t $, hence $ T $ is a stopping time.)

$ S+T $ is a stopping time: Since $ S+T\ge S \lor T $ and $ S+T\in \mathscr{F}_{S\lor T} $($ S\in \mathscr{F}_S\subset \mathscr{F}_{S\lor T}$), then $ S+T $ is a stopping time.

JGWang
  • 5,601