Throughout, linearity refers to claim 2 of Linearity and Monotonicity of the Lebesgue Integral: finite sums and real scalar multiples of integrable functions are integrable, the integral of the combination is the combination of the integrals, and ∣∫fdρ∣≤∫∣f∣dρ for integrable f. Domination refers to the following consequence of claim 1 of that theorem (monotonicity for nonnegative functions) and of Integrable Function and the Lebesgue Integral (a measurable f is integrable if and only if ∫∣f∣dρ<∞): if f is measurable and ∣f∣≤g pointwise with g integrable, then f is integrable and ∣∫fdρ∣≤∫∣f∣dρ≤∫gdρ.
Step 1 (claim 1). Fix q,q′. Claim 3 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity, applied to the triple (μ,μq,μq′) with the lower bound μ for μ, gives: ℓ>0; Lq and Lq′ are measurable; ℓ, ℓq, ℓq′, ℓqℓq′/ℓ and ℓ(1−Lq)(1−Lq′) are integrable; μ~qq′ is the causal intensity of claim 1 of that lemma for the exponents (−1,1,1), whose exponent function is Eqq′ as displayed in the statement; and the pair identity
∫Rℓ(1−Lq)(1−Lq′)dρ=∫Rℓℓqℓq′dρ−1.
Since ℓLqLq′=ℓqℓq′/ℓ pointwise, this reads ∫ℓLqLq′dρ=1+Cqq′. The normalizations ∫ℓdρ=1 and ∫ℓLqdρ=∫ℓqdρ=1 are claim 4 of Survival Identity, Measurability, Event-Count Recursion, and Normalization of the Likelihood of a Causal Intensity. By claim 1 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity, μ~qq′ is a causal intensity with bound μˉqμˉq′/μ, Eqq′ is measurable with ∣Eqq′∣≤l~T(μˉqμˉq′/μ+μˉ+μˉq+μˉq′), and ℓqℓq′/ℓ=ℓμ~qq′exp(Eqq′) pointwise; by claim 4 of Survival Identity, Measurability, Event-Count Recursion, and Normalization of the Likelihood of a Causal Intensity applied to μ~qq′, ∫ℓμ~qq′dρ=1, so ℓμ~qq′ is integrable, hence so is ℓμ~qq′(exp(Eqq′)−1)=ℓqℓq′/ℓ−ℓμ~qq′, with integral (1+Cqq′)−1=Cqq′. The symmetry Cqq′=Cq′q is immediate from the definition, and Varq=Cqq=∫ℓ(1−Lq)2dρ≥0 is finite as an integral of an integrable function; ℓLq=ℓq is integrable.
Step 2 (claim 2). Pointwise on R, expanding the square of the finite sum,
ℓ(∑qwq(1−rqLq))2=∑q,q′wqwq′ℓ(1−rqLq)(1−rq′Lq′),ℓ(1−rqLq)(1−rq′Lq′)=ℓ−rqℓLq−rq′ℓLq′+rqrq′ℓLqLq′.
Each of the four functions on the right is integrable by Step 1, so every term, and hence the left side, is integrable, and by linearity and Step 1,
∫Rℓ(1−rqLq)(1−rq′Lq′)dρ=1−rq−rq′+rqrq′(1+Cqq′)=(1−rq)(1−rq′)+rqrq′Cqq′.
Summing with the weights wqwq′ and using ∑q,q′wqwq′(1−rq)(1−rq′)=(∑qwq(1−rq))2 gives claim 2.
Step 3 (two inequalities for the exponential). For every real x,
∣exp(x)−1∣≤exp(∣x∣)−1and∣exp(x)−1−x∣≤21x2exp(∣x∣).
Indeed, by The Real Exponential Function, exp(x)=∑k≥0xk/k! as a convergent series, so exp(x)−1=∑k≥1xk/k! and exp(x)−1−x=∑k≥2xk/k! (the partial sums differ from those of the series for exp(x) by the omitted initial terms, and limits respect this by Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences). The absolute value of a limit of partial sums is at most the limit of the partial sums of absolute values (triangle inequality for finite sums, continuity of the absolute value under limits by Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences, and claim 1 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences), so ∣exp(x)−1∣≤∑k≥1∣x∣k/k!=exp(∣x∣)−1 and ∣exp(x)−1−x∣≤∑k≥2∣x∣k/k!. For k≥2, k!≥2(k−2)! (as k(k−1)≥2), so ∣x∣k/k!≤21x2∣x∣k−2/(k−2)!; comparing partial sums and passing to the limit (Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences), ∑k≥2∣x∣k/k!≤21x2∑j≥0∣x∣j/j!=21x2exp(∣x∣).
Step 4 (claim 3). Let Eˉ and N be as in claim 3, and write ℓqq′=ℓμ~qq′ and E=Eqq′. Since E is measurable and bounded and ℓqq′ is integrable, ℓqq′E is integrable by domination. Let M and M′ be bounds for ∣exp(E)−1∣ and ∣exp(E)−1−E∣ on R (they exist since E is bounded). On R∖N, Step 3 and the monotonicity of exp (claim 4 of Basic Properties of the Exponential Function) give ∣exp(E)−1∣≤exp(Eˉ)−1 and ∣exp(E)−1−E∣≤21Eˉ2exp(Eˉ). First, ∫ℓqq′1Ndρ=0: for every natural number k, min(ℓqq′,k)1N≤k1N, so by monotonicity (claim 1 of Linearity and Monotonicity of the Lebesgue Integral) and the integral of a multiple of an indicator (Simple Function and Its Integral), ∫min(ℓqq′,k)1Ndρ≤kρ(N)=0 (the map min(ℓqq′,k) being measurable by claim 4 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions), and Monotone Convergence Theorem applies as k→∞. Put g1=(exp(Eˉ)−1)ℓqq′1R∖N+Mℓqq′1N; then ∣ℓqq′(exp(E)−1)∣≤g1 pointwise, g1≤max(exp(Eˉ)−1,M)ℓqq′ is integrable, and by linearity ∫g1dρ=(exp(Eˉ)−1)∫ℓqq′1R∖Ndρ+M⋅0≤exp(Eˉ)−1, using ∫ℓqq′1R∖Ndρ≤∫ℓqq′dρ=1. Hence, by Step 1 and domination, ∣Cqq′∣=∣∫ℓqq′(exp(E)−1)dρ∣≤∫g1dρ≤exp(Eˉ)−1. The same argument with ℓqq′(exp(E)−1−E) and the majorant g2=21Eˉ2exp(Eˉ)ℓqq′1R∖N+M′ℓqq′1N gives ∣∫ℓqq′(exp(E)−1−E)dρ∣≤21Eˉ2exp(Eˉ), and by linearity ∫ℓqq′(exp(E)−1−E)dρ=Cqq′−∫ℓqq′Edρ, which is the second inequality. ■