TheoremBase

Proof

Throughout, N\mathbb{N} denotes the natural numbers, N0=N∪{0}\mathbb{N}_0=\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}, B(R)\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}) the Borel σ\sigma-algebra, and Λ\Lambda the mean function of λ\lambda with its properties from Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process: Λ(0)=0\Lambda(0)=0, Λ\Lambda is nondecreasing, and Λ(t)−Λ(s)=∫stλ(u) du≥0\Lambda(t)-\Lambda(s)=\int_s^t\lambda(u)\,du\ge0 for 0≤s≤t0\le s\le t. Set μk=Λ(k+1)−Λ(k)≥0\mu_k=\Lambda(k+1)-\Lambda(k)\ge0 for k∈N0k\in\mathbb{N}_0. We write πa(c)=exp⁡(−a)ac/c!\pi_a(c)=\exp(-a)a^{c}/c! for a≥0a\ge0, c∈N0c\in\mathbb{N}_0, for the probability mass function of the Poisson distribution with parameter aa, with the conventions 0!=10!=1 and x0=1x^{0}=1 of that definition.

Step 1 (Λ\Lambda is continuous on every [0,T][0,T]). Fix T>0T>0. The intensity λ\lambda is continuous on [0,T][0,T], so by the extreme value theorem it attains a maximum M≥0M\ge0 there. For 0≤x≤x′≤T0\le x\le x'\le T, the Riemann integral of λ\lambda over [x,x′][x,x'] lies below the upper sum for the one-interval partition, which is at most M(x′−x)M(x'-x); hence

0≤Λ(x′)−Λ(x)≤M (x′−x).0\le\Lambda(x')-\Lambda(x)\le M\,(x'-x).

Given x∈[0,T]x\in[0,T] and ε>0\varepsilon>0, taking δ=ε/(M+1)\delta=\varepsilon/(M+1) shows that Λ\Lambda is continuous at xx (relative to [0,T][0,T]). Since TT was arbitrary, Λ\Lambda is continuous on [0,∞)[0,\infty) in this sense.

Step 2 (the point distributions νk\nu_k). Fix k∈N0k\in\mathbb{N}_0.

Case μk>0\mu_k>0. For v∈(0,1)v\in(0,1) define

Gk(v)=inf⁡{x∈[k,k+1]:Λ(x)−Λ(k)≥vμk},G_k(v)=\inf\{x\in[k,k+1]:\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k)\ge v\mu_k\},

which exists by the greatest lower bound property: the set is bounded below by kk and contains k+1k+1, since Λ(k+1)−Λ(k)=μk≥vμk\Lambda(k+1)-\Lambda(k)=\mu_k\ge v\mu_k. Thus Gk(v)∈[k,k+1]G_k(v)\in[k,k+1]. We claim: for v∈(0,1)v\in(0,1) and x∈[k,k+1]x\in[k,k+1],

Gk(v)≤x  ⟺  vμk≤Λ(x)−Λ(k).(Q)G_k(v)\le x\iff v\mu_k\le\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k).\tag{Q}

If vμk≤Λ(x)−Λ(k)v\mu_k\le\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k), then xx belongs to the defining set, so its infimum is at most xx. Conversely, suppose Gk(v)≤xG_k(v)\le x and let ε>0\varepsilon>0. By continuity of Λ\Lambda at Gk(v)G_k(v) (Step 1) choose δ>0\delta>0 with Λ(x′)−Λ(Gk(v))<ε\Lambda(x')-\Lambda(G_k(v))<\varepsilon for all x′∈[k,k+1]x'\in[k,k+1] with x′−Gk(v)<δx'-G_k(v)<\delta (such x′x' satisfy Λ(x′)≥Λ(Gk(v))\Lambda(x')\ge\Lambda(G_k(v)) when x′≥Gk(v)x'\ge G_k(v), by monotonicity). Since Gk(v)G_k(v) is the infimum, there is a member x′x' of the defining set with Gk(v)≤x′<Gk(v)+δG_k(v)\le x'<G_k(v)+\delta; then vμk≤Λ(x′)−Λ(k)<Λ(Gk(v))−Λ(k)+εv\mu_k\le\Lambda(x')-\Lambda(k)<\Lambda(G_k(v))-\Lambda(k)+\varepsilon. As ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, vμk≤Λ(Gk(v))−Λ(k)≤Λ(x)−Λ(k)v\mu_k\le\Lambda(G_k(v))-\Lambda(k)\le\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k) by monotonicity. This proves (Q).

By (Q), GkG_k is nondecreasing, and for every real xx the set {v∈(0,1):Gk(v)≤x}\{v\in(0,1):G_k(v)\le x\} equals: ∅\emptyset for x<kx<k; the interval {v∈(0,1):v≤(Λ(x)−Λ(k))/μk}\{v\in(0,1):v\le(\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k))/\mu_k\} for x∈[k,k+1]x\in[k,k+1]; all of (0,1)(0,1) for x>k+1x>k+1. In every case {v:Gk(v)>x}\{v:G_k(v)>x\} is an interval contained in (0,1)(0,1), hence a Borel set. Let (Ω1,F1,L)(\Omega_1,\mathcal{F}_1,L) be the probability space with Ω1=(0,1)\Omega_1=(0,1), F1={B∈B(R):B⊆(0,1)}\mathcal{F}_1=\{B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}):B\subseteq(0,1)\}, and LL the restriction of Lebesgue measure, as in Existence of Independent Sequences with Prescribed Distributions. By the generator criterion of Measurable Function and Real-Valued Measurable Function, Gk:Ω1→RG_k:\Omega_1\to\mathbb{R} is measurable. Define

νk(B)=L(Gk−1(B))(B∈B(R)).\nu_k(B)=L\bigl(G_k^{-1}(B)\bigr)\qquad(B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})).

Since preimages commute with countable disjoint unions, νk\nu_k inherits countable additivity from the measure LL, and νk(R)=L((0,1))=1\nu_k(\mathbb{R})=L((0,1))=1 by Existence of Lebesgue Measure on the Real Line; so νk\nu_k is a probability measure. For k≤a≤b≤k+1k\le a\le b\le k+1, writing F(x)=(Λ(x)−Λ(k))/μk∈[0,1]F(x)=(\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(k))/\mu_k\in[0,1], the sets {Gk≤a}⊆{Gk≤b}\{G_k\le a\}\subseteq\{G_k\le b\} have LL-measures F(a)F(a) and F(b)F(b) (each is an interval of the form (0,c](0,c] or (0,c)(0,c) intersected with (0,1)(0,1) with c=F(a)c=F(a) or F(b)F(b), of Lebesgue measure cc by Existence of Lebesgue Measure on the Real Line); by finite additivity,

νk((a,b])=F(b)−F(a)=Λ(b)−Λ(a)μk.(E)\nu_k\bigl((a,b]\bigr)=F(b)-F(a)=\frac{\Lambda(b)-\Lambda(a)}{\mu_k}.\tag{E}

Case μk=0\mu_k=0. Let νk\nu_k be the unit mass at kk: νk(B)=1\nu_k(B)=1 if k∈Bk\in B and 00 otherwise. This is a probability measure (in any sequence of pairwise disjoint Borel sets, at most one contains kk). Note that νk((a,b])=0\nu_k\bigl((a,b]\bigr)=0 for every interval (a,b](a,b] with a≥ka\ge k, since k∉(a,b]k\notin(a,b].

In both cases, for every interval (a,b](a,b] with k≤a≤b≤k+1k\le a\le b\le k+1:

μk νk((a,b])=Λ(b)−Λ(a).(E’)\mu_k\,\nu_k\bigl((a,b]\bigr)=\Lambda(b)-\Lambda(a).\tag{E'}

Indeed, for μk>0\mu_k>0 this is (E); for μk=0\mu_k=0 both sides vanish, the right one because 0≤Λ(b)−Λ(a)≤Λ(k+1)−Λ(k)=μk=00\le\Lambda(b)-\Lambda(a)\le\Lambda(k+1)-\Lambda(k)=\mu_k=0 by monotonicity.

Step 3 (one independent family for all blocks). Every j∈Nj\in\mathbb{N} has a unique representation j=2k(2i+1)j=2^{k}(2i+1) with k,i∈N0k,i\in\mathbb{N}_0: existence follows by strong induction (jj odd gives k=0k=0; jj even gives j=2j′j=2j' with j′<jj'<j, and prepending one factor 22 to a representation of j′j' represents jj); uniqueness holds because 2k(2i+1)=2k′(2i′+1)2^{k}(2i+1)=2^{k'}(2i'+1) with k<k′k<k' would make the odd number 2i+12i+1 equal to the even number 2k′−k(2i′+1)2^{k'-k}(2i'+1). Define a sequence of probability measures (ρj)j∈N(\rho_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} by: ρj=\rho_j= the Poisson distribution with parameter μk\mu_k if j=2kj=2^{k} (that is, i=0i=0), and ρj=νk\rho_j=\nu_k if j=2k(2i+1)j=2^{k}(2i+1) with i≥1i\ge1. By Existence of Independent Sequences with Prescribed Distributions there are a probability space (Ω,F,P)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P) and an independent sequence (Xj)j∈N(X_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} on it with XjX_j of distribution ρj\rho_j. Put

Kk=X2k,Uk,i=X2k(2i+1)(k∈N0, i∈N),K_k=X_{2^{k}},\qquad U_{k,i}=X_{2^{k}(2i+1)}\quad(k\in\mathbb{N}_0,\ i\in\mathbb{N}),

and let Ik={2k(2i+1):i∈N0}I_k=\{2^{k}(2i+1):i\in\mathbb{N}_0\}, so that the sets IkI_k, k∈N0k\in\mathbb{N}_0, are pairwise disjoint by uniqueness of the representation. For each kk, the block family (Kk,Uk,1,Uk,2,… )(K_k,U_{k,1},U_{k,2},\dots) is independent (every finite subfamily of an independent family is independent, by Independence of Events and of Random Variables), KkK_k has the Poisson distribution with parameter μk\mu_k, and each Uk,iU_{k,i} has distribution νk\nu_k. Let K~k\widetilde K_k be the truncation of KkK_k as in Thinning: Cell Counts of a Poisson Number of Independent Points, and for a Borel set AA let

Ck(A)=∑i=1K~k1{Uk,i∈A}C_k(A)=\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde K_k}\mathbf{1}_{\{U_{k,i}\in A\}}

be the block-kk cell count of AA, where 1E\mathbf{1}_{E} is 11 on EE and 00 off EE and an empty sum is 00. By Part 1 of Thinning: Cell Counts of a Poisson Number of Independent Points, each Ck(A)C_k(A) is an N0\mathbb{N}_0-valued random variable, measurable with respect to the generated σ\sigma-algebra Gk=σ(Kk,(Uk,i)i∈N)\mathcal{G}_k=\sigma(K_k,(U_{k,i})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}); and Gk=σ(Xj:j∈Ik)\mathcal{G}_k=\sigma(X_j:j\in I_k), since the two generating families coincide. By Grouping Lemma for Independent Random Variables applied to (Xj)j∈N(X_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} and the disjoint blocks (Ik)k∈N0(I_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}_0}, the family (Gk)k∈N0(\mathcal{G}_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}_0} is independent.

Step 4 (the process). For t≥0t\ge0 define

Nt=∑k∈N0,  k<tCk((k,min⁡(t,k+1)]).N_t=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_0,\;k<t}C_k\bigl((k,\min(t,k+1)]\bigr).

By the Archimedean property there is an integer exceeding tt, so the outer sum has finitely many terms; each term is an N0\mathbb{N}_0-valued random variable by Step 3, and a finite sum of N0\mathbb{N}_0-valued random variables is again one (its level sets are finite unions, over decompositions of the value, of finite intersections of level sets of the summands). Hence N=(Nt)t≥0N=(N_t)_{t\ge0} is a stochastic process on (Ω,F,P)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P) in the sense of Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process. For t=0t=0 the index set of the sum is empty, so N0=0N_0=0 identically; this is condition 1 of Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process.

Step 5 (increments are sums of cell counts). Let 0≤s<t0\le s<t and k<tk<t, k∈N0k\in\mathbb{N}_0. If k<sk<s, then (k,min⁡(s,k+1)]⊆(k,min⁡(t,k+1)](k,\min(s,k+1)]\subseteq(k,\min(t,k+1)] and, pointwise on Ω\Omega, subtracting indicator sums gives the count of the set difference

(k,min⁡(t,k+1)]∖(k,min⁡(s,k+1)]=(s,t]∩(k,k+1];(k,\min(t,k+1)]\setminus(k,\min(s,k+1)]=(s,t]\cap(k,k+1];

if s≤k<ts\le k<t, the term for kk is absent from NsN_s and (k,min⁡(t,k+1)]=(s,t]∩(k,k+1](k,\min(t,k+1)]=(s,t]\cap(k,k+1]. In all cases, for every ω\omega,

Nt−Ns=∑k∈N0,  k<tCk((s,t]∩(k,k+1]).(I)N_t-N_s=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_0,\;k<t}C_k\bigl((s,t]\cap(k,k+1]\bigr).\tag{I}

Step 6 (finite-dimensional computation). Fix r∈Nr\in\mathbb{N} and real 0≤t0<t1<⋯<tr0\le t_0<t_1<\dots<t_r, and fix an integer m≥trm\ge t_r (Archimedean property). For 1≤i≤r1\le i\le r and 0≤k≤m0\le k\le m define the clamp ck,i=min⁡(max⁡(k,ti−1),ti)c_{k,i}=\min(\max(k,t_{i-1}),t_i), and for 1≤i≤r1\le i\le r and 0≤k≤m−10\le k\le m-1 the cell and associated quantities

Jk,i=(ti−1,ti]∩(k,k+1],Ck,i=Ck(Jk,i),pk,i=νk(Jk,i),ℓk,i=μk pk,i.J_{k,i}=(t_{i-1},t_i]\cap(k,k+1],\qquad C_{k,i}=C_k(J_{k,i}),\qquad p_{k,i}=\nu_k(J_{k,i}),\qquad \ell_{k,i}=\mu_k\,p_{k,i}.

When Jk,i≠∅J_{k,i}\ne\emptyset it equals the interval (ck,i,ck+1,i](c_{k,i},c_{k+1,i}] with k≤ck,i≤ck+1,i≤k+1k\le c_{k,i}\le c_{k+1,i}\le k+1, so by (E') ℓk,i=Λ(ck+1,i)−Λ(ck,i)\ell_{k,i}=\Lambda(c_{k+1,i})-\Lambda(c_{k,i}); when Jk,i=∅J_{k,i}=\emptyset we have ck,i=ck+1,ic_{k,i}=c_{k+1,i} and pk,i=0p_{k,i}=0, so the same identity holds, both sides being 00. Since c0,i=ti−1c_{0,i}=t_{i-1} (as ti−1≥0t_{i-1}\ge0) and cm,i=tic_{m,i}=t_i (as m≥tim\ge t_i), telescoping gives

\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\ell_{k,i}=\Lambda(t_i)-\Lambda(t_{i-1})=:a_i.\tag{T}$$ By (I), pointwise on $\Omega$,

D_i:=N_{t_i}-N_{t_{i-1}}=\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}C_{k,i}\qquad(1\le i\le r),

since blocks with $t_i\le k<m$ have empty cells and contribute the zero count. For each fixed $k$, the cells $J_{k,1},\dots,J_{k,r}$ are pairwise disjoint Borel sets, so Part 2 of [Thinning: Cell Counts of a Poisson Number of Independent Points](/theorems/00076d48-0649-4f07-b086-49621627fd37?v=ad5d94b7-9c7a-485b-b150-0d36db17d6b0) applied to the block family of Step 3 gives, for all $(n_{k,1},\dots,n_{k,r})\in\mathbb{N}_0^{r}$,

P\Bigl(\bigcap_{i=1}^{r}{C_{k,i}=n_{k,i}}\Bigr)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\pi_{\ell_{k,i}}(n_{k,i}).

Each event $\bigcap_{i}\{C_{k,i}=n_{k,i}\}$ lies in $\mathcal{G}_k$ ($\sigma$-algebras are closed under finite intersections, and each level set lies in $\mathcal{G}_k$ by Step 3). Since the $(\mathcal{G}_k)_{k}$ are independent (Step 3), the defining product formula of [Sigma-Algebra Generated by Random Variables and Independence of Sigma-Algebras](/theorems/45cbc037-1cc0-4685-b6f8-c85362ca91c5?v=2972f869-5f7e-4958-a4c2-4e269734b251) yields, for every array $(n_{k,i})\in\mathbb{N}_0^{m\times r}$,

P\Bigl(\bigcap_{k=0}^{m-1}\bigcap_{i=1}^{r}{C_{k,i}=n_{k,i}}\Bigr)=\prod_{k=0}^{m-1}\prod_{i=1}^{r}\pi_{\ell_{k,i}}(n_{k,i}).\tag{A}

**Step 7 (the increments are independent Poisson variables).** Fix $(d_1,\dots,d_r)\in\mathbb{N}_0^{r}$. As every $\omega$ realizes exactly one value array $(C_{k,i}(\omega))$, the event $\bigcap_{i}\{D_i=d_i\}$ is the disjoint union, over the finitely many arrays $(n_{k,i})\in\mathbb{N}_0^{m\times r}$ with column sums $\sum_{k}n_{k,i}=d_i$ for every $i$, of the events in (A). Summing (A) over these arrays, factoring the finite sum over the product of the $r$ independent column-composition sets, and using finite distributivity,

P\Bigl(\bigcap_{i=1}^{r}{D_i=d_i}\Bigr)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\ \sum_{\substack{(n_0,\dots,n_{m-1})\in\mathbb{N}0^{m}\ n_0+\dots+n{m-1}=d_i}}\ \prod_{k=0}^{m-1}\exp(-\ell_{k,i})\frac{\ell_{k,i}^{,n_k}}{n_k!}.

By [Basic Properties of the Exponential Function](/theorems/745eee19-f7d5-46cb-93c0-bea412b66c84?v=627637d7-8718-4c1a-afc1-3f1747730725), $\prod_k\exp(-\ell_{k,i})=\exp(-\sum_k\ell_{k,i})=\exp(-a_i)$ using (T); and by [Multinomial Theorem](/theorems/5fa77c58-46b2-4838-a0f0-5a7aa48501e2?v=ae51f06e-4c33-49c2-a5ca-da27d87e381d),

\sum_{\substack{n\in\mathbb{N}0^{m}\ n_0+\dots+n{m-1}=d_i}}\prod_{k=0}^{m-1}\frac{\ell_{k,i}^{,n_k}}{n_k!}=\frac{1}{d_i!}\sum_{\substack{n\in\mathbb{N}0^{m}\ n_0+\dots+n{m-1}=d_i}}\frac{d_i!}{n_0!\cdots n_{m-1}!}\prod_{k=0}^{m-1}\ell_{k,i}^{,n_k}=\frac{(\ell_{0,i}+\dots+\ell_{m-1,i})^{d_i}}{d_i!}=\frac{a_i^{,d_i}}{d_i!}.

ThereforeTherefore

P\Bigl(\bigcap_{i=1}^{r}{D_i=d_i}\Bigr)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\pi_{a_i}(d_i).

Each $g_i=\pi_{a_i}$ maps $\mathbb{N}_0$ into $[0,1]$ with $\sum_{c=0}^{\infty}g_i(c)=1$ (total-mass computation of [Poisson Distribution](/theorems/13339035-fea9-4910-b87a-d176a80a7f3b?v=7fc3df59-5000-4178-8d23-5def5d23b0d3)), and each $D_i$ takes all its values in $\mathbb{N}_0$. By [Factorized Joint Probability Mass Function Implies Independence](/theorems/ff1d24d1-04c8-46a2-b7b5-c819b44d6ec5?v=2dfc8e4f-17a7-47fa-9c36-37d7246665c9), the increments $D_1,\dots,D_r$ are independent, and for every Borel set $B$, $P(D_i\in B)=\sum_{c\in B\cap\mathbb{N}_0}\pi_{a_i}(c)$, which is the Poisson distribution with parameter $a_i=\Lambda(t_i)-\Lambda(t_{i-1})$ evaluated at $B$, by [Poisson Distribution](/theorems/13339035-fea9-4910-b87a-d176a80a7f3b?v=7fc3df59-5000-4178-8d23-5def5d23b0d3). Since the grid was arbitrary, $N$ has independent increments (condition 2 of [Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process](/theorems/a9f96609-3aca-49f0-a7d8-c261334d5a0b?v=0280e5e4-70fc-4c52-b45c-ae60fba1263e)); and for $0\le s<t$, the case $r=1$ with $t_0=s$, $t_1=t$ shows that $N_t-N_s$ has the Poisson distribution with parameter $\Lambda(t)-\Lambda(s)$ (condition 3). With Step 4 this proves that $N$ is an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity $\lambda$ on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$. **Step 8 (homogeneous case).** Let $\theta\ge0$ be real and let $\lambda$ be the constant function with value $\theta$. It is nonnegative, and it is continuous on every $[0,T]$ (for any $\varepsilon>0$ every $\delta>0$ works in the definition of [continuity](/theorems/57c56cbb-67a0-4576-829b-60e2eaf9ee96?v=35b25058-b3a6-4e40-8314-d8efabe1b539&show_redacted=true)); so it is an intensity function. By the theorem just proved there is an inhomogeneous Poisson process $N$ with this intensity, and by [Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process](/theorems/a9f96609-3aca-49f0-a7d8-c261334d5a0b?v=0280e5e4-70fc-4c52-b45c-ae60fba1263e) such a process is precisely a homogeneous Poisson process with rate $\theta$. $\blacksquare$

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…