TheoremBase

Proof

Fix a solution and adopt the notation of the statement; in particular ncn_c is the number of clock labels, βˉ=max⁡(B,B~)\bar{\beta}=\max(B,\tilde{B}), and we set θ=1+βˉT≥1\theta=1+\bar{\beta}T\ge1. Throughout, Ω0\Omega_0 is the regular event of the solution; it has probability 11, so expectations are unchanged when integrands are modified off Ω0\Omega_0, and we use this silently. Several pathwise comparisons and the frozen-consumption device below are adapted from Steps 1 and 3 of the published proof of the compensated-counters lemma (version with that label), extended here from indicator multipliers 1D\mathbf{1}_D to general multipliers ZZ.

Step 0: Poisson moment inequalities. Let WW be a random variable with the Poisson distribution with parameter μ∈[0,βˉT]\mu\in[0,\bar{\beta}T], and let j≥1j\ge1 be a natural number with j≤4j\le4. By part (a) of the Poisson factorial-moments lemma, E[∏q=0j−1(W−q)]=μj\mathbb{E}[\prod_{q=0}^{j-1}(W-q)]=\mu^{j}; in particular E[W]=μ\mathbb{E}[W]=\mu and E[W(W−1)]=μ2\mathbb{E}[W(W-1)]=\mu^2. A Poisson variable takes values in the nonnegative integers almost surely, so the pointwise inequalities for nonnegative integers below may be taken in expectation. We also record, from the value P(W=0)=e−μP(W=0)=e^{-\mu} of the Poisson distribution: P(W≥1)=1−e−μ≤μP(W\ge1)=1-e^{-\mu}\le\mu, where the inequality holds for μ≤1\mu\le1 by the alternating series of the exponential and for μ>1\mu>1 trivially, since 1−e−μ<1<μ1-e^{-\mu}<1<\mu. We use four consequences.

(P1) For every nonnegative integer xx,

xj ≤ (2j)j 1{x≥1}+2j∏q=0j−1(x−q).x^{j}\ \le\ (2j)^{j}\,\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge1\}}+2^{j}\prod_{q=0}^{j-1}(x-q).

Indeed, the product vanishes for integer 0≤x≤j−10\le x\le j-1 (the factor x−xx-x occurs) and is positive for x≥jx\ge j, hence is nonnegative for every nonnegative integer xx; for x=0x=0 both sides are 00; for 1≤x≤2j−11\le x\le 2j-1 the first term alone suffices; and for x≥2jx\ge 2j each factor satisfies x−q≥x−j+1>x/2x-q\ge x-j+1>x/2, so 2j∏q=0j−1(x−q)≥2j(x/2)j=xj2^{j}\prod_{q=0}^{j-1}(x-q)\ge2^{j}(x/2)^{j}=x^{j}.

(P2) E[Wj]≤mj μ\mathbb{E}[W^{j}]\le m_j\,\mu with mj=(2j)j+2jθ j−1m_j=(2j)^{j}+2^{j}\theta^{\,j-1}: take expectations in (P1), use P(W≥1)≤μP(W\ge1)\le\mu, the factorial moment μj≤θ j−1μ\mu^{j}\le\theta^{\,j-1}\mu, and monotonicity of the expectation. Explicitly m1=4m_1=4, m2=16+4θm_2=16+4\theta, m3=216+8θ2m_3=216+8\theta^{2}, m4=4096+16θ3m_4=4096+16\theta^{3}, and also E[W]=μ\mathbb{E}[W]=\mu exactly.

(P3) P(W≥2)≤μ2/2P(W\ge2)\le\mu^{2}/2: for nonnegative integers, 1{x≥2}≤x(x−1)/2\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge2\}}\le x(x-1)/2, and E[W(W−1)]=μ2\mathbb{E}[W(W-1)]=\mu^{2}.

(P4) For 2≤j≤42\le j\le4, E[Wj1{W≥2}]≤mj′ μ2\mathbb{E}[W^{j}\mathbf{1}_{\{W\ge2\}}]\le m'_j\,\mu^{2} with mj′=(2j)j/2+2jθ j−2m'_j=(2j)^{j}/2+2^{j}\theta^{\,j-2}: as in (P1), for nonnegative integers xx and j≥2j\ge2, xj1{x≥2}≤(2j)j1{x≥2}+2j∏q=0j−1(x−q)x^{j}\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge2\}}\le(2j)^{j}\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge2\}}+2^{j}\prod_{q=0}^{j-1}(x-q) (the product also vanishes at x=1x=1 since j≥2j\ge2); take expectations and use (P3) and μj≤θ j−2μ2\mu^{j}\le\theta^{\,j-2}\mu^{2}.

Step 1: part (c). By the event count bound (part (iii) of the existence theorem), almost surely Ξt≤Ξt♯\Xi_t\le\Xi^{\sharp}_t for all t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T], where Ξt♯\Xi^{\sharp}_t is the sum, over all ncn_c clock labels, of the variables YBti,σγY^{i,\sigma\gamma}_{Bt} and Y~B~ti,υ\tilde{Y}^{i,\upsilon}_{\tilde{B}t}, each of which has the Poisson distribution with parameter at most βˉt\bar{\beta}t, as recorded there. For nonnegative real numbers x1,…,xnx_1,\dots,x_n one has (x1+⋯+xn)p≤npmax⁡qxqp≤np∑qxqp(x_1+\cdots+x_n)^{p}\le n^{p}\max_q x_q^{p}\le n^{p}\sum_{q}x_q^{p}, since the sum is at most nn times the maximum and the pp-th power is nondecreasing on [0,∞)[0,\infty). Hence, by monotonicity of the expectation and part (b) of the Poisson factorial-moments lemma,

E[Ξt p] ≤ nc p∑labelsE[(clock variable)p] ≤ nc p⋅nc ((2p)p+2p(βˉt)p),\mathbb{E}\big[\Xi_t^{\,p}\big]\ \le\ n_c^{\,p}\sum_{\text{labels}}\mathbb{E}\big[(\text{clock variable})^{p}\big]\ \le\ n_c^{\,p}\cdot n_c\,\big((2p)^{p}+2^{p}(\bar{\beta}t)^{p}\big),

which is the display of (c). For the products: every counter is nonnegative and nondecreasing in tt (off Ω0\Omega_0 the counters vanish, and on Ω0\Omega_0 each agrees with the restriction of a counting path by condition 3 of the solution definition), and every consumed clock time lies in [0,βˉT][0,\bar{\beta}T] by condition 2, so ∣Msa∣≤Nsa+βˉT≤ΞT+βˉT|M^{a}_{s}|\le N^{a}_{s}+\bar{\beta}T\le\Xi_T+\bar{\beta}T for every label aa and s∈[0,T]s\in[0,T], almost surely. Hence ∣Mt1a1⋯Mtkak∣≤(ΞT+βˉT)k≤2k(ΞT k+(βˉT)k)|M^{a_1}_{t_1}\cdots M^{a_k}_{t_k}|\le(\Xi_T+\bar{\beta}T)^{k}\le2^{k}\big(\Xi_T^{\,k}+(\bar{\beta}T)^{k}\big) (the two-term case of the sum-power inequality above), which is integrable by the display with p=kp=k. This proves (c).

Step 2: part (a). Fix a clock label aa and t∈[r,T]t\in[r,T]. The increment Mta−MraM^a_t-M^a_r is square-integrable by part (a) of the compensated-counters lemma, so Z(Mta−Mra)Z(M^a_t-M^a_r) is integrable by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality for the mean-square norm. By that lemma and the averaged form of the martingale property in the definition of a square-integrable martingale, E[(Mta−Mra)1D]=0\mathbb{E}[(M^a_t-M^a_r)\mathbf{1}_D]=0 for every event D∈FrsysD\in\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r, where 1D\mathbf{1}_D is the function equal to 11 on DD and 00 off DD; by linearity the same holds with 1D\mathbf{1}_D replaced by any simple Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable random variable (a finite linear combination of such indicators). Truncating ZZ at level nn and discretizing the truncation's values on a dyadic grid produces simple Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable variables ZnZ_n with ∣Zn∣≤∣Z∣+1|Z_n|\le|Z|+1 and Zn→ZZ_n\to Z pointwise (the device of Step 3 of the published proof cited above). Then E[(Mta−Mra)Z]=E[(Mta−Mra)(Z−Zn)]\mathbb{E}[(M^a_t-M^a_r)Z]=\mathbb{E}[(M^a_t-M^a_r)(Z-Z_n)] for every nn, and by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality this is bounded in absolute value by the mean-square norm of Mta−MraM^a_t-M^a_r times that of Z−ZnZ-Z_n, which tends to 00 by dominated convergence applied to ∣Z−Zn∣2≤(2∣Z∣+1)2|Z-Z_n|^{2}\le(2|Z|+1)^{2}. Hence E[Z(Mta−Mra)]=0\mathbb{E}[Z(M^a_t-M^a_r)]=0.

Step 3: part (b). All products of at most four compensated counters at times in [0,T][0,T] are integrable, and squares of products of two of them are integrable, by part (c); in particular MtaMtbM^a_tM^b_t and (Mta−Mra)(Mtb−Mrb)(M^a_t-M^a_r)(M^b_t-M^b_r) are square-integrable, so all products below involving the square-integrable multipliers ZZ, ZMraZM^a_r, ZMrbZM^b_r are integrable by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, and Z(Tta−Tra)Z(\mathcal{T}^a_t-\mathcal{T}^a_r) is integrable since 0≤Tta−Tra≤βˉT0\le \mathcal{T}^a_t-\mathcal{T}^a_r\le\bar{\beta}T everywhere by condition 2 of the solution definition together with the additivity and monotonicity of the Lebesgue integral on a compact interval. Part (b) of the compensated-counters lemma gives, for every D∈FrsysD\in\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r,

E[(MtaMtb−MraMrb) 1D]={E[1D (Tta−Tra)]if a=b,0if a≠b;\mathbb{E}\big[(M^a_tM^b_t-M^a_rM^b_r)\,\mathbf{1}_D\big]=\begin{cases}\mathbb{E}\big[\mathbf{1}_D\,(\mathcal{T}^a_t-\mathcal{T}^a_r)\big]&\text{if }a=b,\\ 0&\text{if }a\neq b;\end{cases}

by linearity the identity holds with 1D\mathbf{1}_D replaced by any simple Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable variable, and passing to the limit along the approximating sequence ZnZ_n of Step 2 extends it to the square-integrable ZZ: on the left, ∣E[(MtaMtb−MraMrb)(Z−Zn)]∣|\mathbb{E}[(M^a_tM^b_t-M^a_rM^b_r)(Z-Z_n)]| tends to 00 by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and dominated convergence as in Step 2, using square-integrability of MtaMtbM^a_tM^b_t and MraMrbM^a_rM^b_r; on the right, E[(Z−Zn)(Tta−Tra)]→0\mathbb{E}[(Z-Z_n)(\mathcal{T}^a_t-\mathcal{T}^a_r)]\to0 by dominated convergence with dominating function (2∣Z∣+1) βˉT(2|Z|+1)\,\bar{\beta}T. Now the algebraic identity

(Mta−Mra)(Mtb−Mrb)=MtaMtb−MraMrb−Mra (Mtb−Mrb)−Mrb (Mta−Mra)(M^a_t-M^a_r)(M^b_t-M^b_r)=M^a_tM^b_t-M^a_rM^b_r-M^a_r\,(M^b_t-M^b_r)-M^b_r\,(M^a_t-M^a_r)

holds pointwise (expand the right-hand side). Multiplying by ZZ and taking expectations termwise (each term integrable as noted), the last two terms vanish by part (a) applied with the square-integrable multipliers ZMraZM^a_r and ZMrbZM^b_r, which are Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable since MraM^a_r and MrbM^b_r are (adaptedness, part (iv) of the existence theorem). This proves (b).

Step 4: the fresh-start frame for (d), (e), (f). Fix r∈[0,T)r\in[0,T) and 0<δ≤T−r0<\delta\le T-r, write μ=βˉδ≤βˉT≤θ\mu=\bar{\beta}\delta\le\bar{\beta}T\le\theta, and for clock labels bb write ΔNb=Nr+δb−Nrb\Delta N^b=N^b_{r+\delta}-N^b_r, ΔTb=Tr+δb−Trb\Delta\mathcal{T}^b=\mathcal{T}^b_{r+\delta}-\mathcal{T}^b_r, ΔMb=ΔNb−ΔTb\Delta M^b=\Delta N^b-\Delta\mathcal{T}^b. (For r=Tr=T there is no admissible δ\delta and parts (d), (e), (f) are vacuous.) Let Y^b\hat{Y}^b be the residual clocks of the fresh-start property at time rr: rate-11 Poisson processes with counting paths, mutually independent and jointly independent of Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r. Since the paths of Y^b\hat{Y}^b are counting paths, Y^0b=0\hat{Y}^b_0=0, so Y^ub=Y^ub−Y^0b\hat{Y}^b_{u}=\hat{Y}^b_{u}-\hat{Y}^b_{0} is an increment and has the Poisson distribution with parameter uu by the increment law of the Poisson process definition; thus Step 0 applies to Y^μb\hat{Y}^b_{\mu}. Three pathwise facts: (i) 0≤ΔTb≤μ0\le\Delta\mathcal{T}^b\le\mu at every outcome, by condition 2 of the solution definition (integrand in [0,βˉ][0,\bar{\beta}]) and the integral toolkit; (ii) on Ω0\Omega_0, 0≤ΔNb≤Y^μb0\le\Delta N^b\le\hat{Y}^b_{\mu}, since by condition 3 the increments of NbN^b over (r,r+δ](r,r+\delta] are increments of the clock path YbY^b over (Trb,Tr+δb]⊆(Trb,Trb+μ](\mathcal{T}^b_r,\mathcal{T}^b_{r+\delta}]\subseteq(\mathcal{T}^b_r,\mathcal{T}^b_r+\mu]; (iii) hence ∣ΔMb∣≤Y^μb+μ|\Delta M^b|\le\hat{Y}^b_{\mu}+\mu on Ω0\Omega_0.

Step 5: part (d). Fix the label aa and suppose ∣Z∣≤ζ|Z|\le\zeta. Write ΔN=ΔNa\Delta N=\Delta N^a, ΔT=ΔTa\Delta\mathcal{T}=\Delta\mathcal{T}^a, ΔM=ΔMa\Delta M=\Delta M^a, Y^=Y^a\hat{Y}=\hat{Y}^a, and let k∈{3,4}k\in\{3,4\}. Integrability of Z((ΔM)k−ΔT)Z((\Delta M)^k-\Delta\mathcal{T}) is integrable by part (c), boundedness of ZZ and ΔT\Delta\mathcal{T}, and the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality for the mean-square norm.

(d1) From (ΔM)k(\Delta M)^{k} to 1{ΔN≥1}\mathbf{1}_{\{\Delta N\ge1\}}. Expand (ΔN−ΔT)k(\Delta N-\Delta\mathcal{T})^{k} by the binomial theorem. For 0≤j≤k−10\le j\le k-1, the term with jj factors ΔN\Delta N consists of (kj)\binom{k}{j} equal monomials, each bounded in absolute value on Ω0\Omega_0 by μk−jY^μ j\mu^{k-j}\hat{Y}_{\mu}^{\,j} (with Y^μ0=1\hat{Y}^{0}_{\mu}=1), whose expectation is at most mjθ k−j−1μ2m_j\theta^{\,k-j-1}\mu^{2} by (P2) and μ≤θ\mu\le\theta (for j=0j=0, with m0=1m_0=1, since μk≤θ k−2μ2≤θ k−1μ2\mu^{k}\le\theta^{\,k-2}\mu^{2}\le\theta^{\,k-1}\mu^{2}); so the whole term contributes at most (kj)mjθ k−j−1μ2\binom{k}{j}m_j\theta^{\,k-j-1}\mu^{2}. For the term j=kj=k: for nonnegative integers xx, 0≤xk−1{x≥1}≤xk1{x≥2}0\le x^{k}-\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge1\}}\le x^{k}\mathbf{1}_{\{x\ge2\}} (equality holds at x=0,1x=0,1), and on Ω0\Omega_0, (ΔN)k1{ΔN≥2}≤Y^μ k1{Y^μ≥2}(\Delta N)^{k}\mathbf{1}_{\{\Delta N\ge2\}}\le\hat{Y}_{\mu}^{\,k}\mathbf{1}_{\{\hat{Y}_{\mu}\ge2\}} since ΔN≤Y^μ\Delta N\le\hat{Y}_{\mu} are integers; so by (P4) the replacement of (ΔN)k(\Delta N)^{k} by 1{ΔN≥1}\mathbf{1}_{\{\Delta N\ge1\}} costs at most mk′μ2m'_k\mu^{2} in expectation. Altogether

∣E[Z(ΔM)k]−E[Z 1{ΔN≥1}]∣ ≤ ζ ck(1) μ2,ck(1)=mk′+∑j=0k−1(kj) mj θ k−j−1.\Big|\mathbb{E}\big[Z(\Delta M)^{k}\big]-\mathbb{E}\big[Z\,\mathbf{1}_{\{\Delta N\ge1\}}\big]\Big|\ \le\ \zeta\,c^{(1)}_k\,\mu^{2},\qquad c^{(1)}_k=m'_k+\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\binom{k}{j}\,m_j\,\theta^{\,k-j-1}.

Numerically, c3(1)≤θ2+12θ+3(16+4θ)+108+8θ≤29θ2c^{(1)}_3\le\theta^{2}+12\theta+3(16+4\theta)+108+8\theta\le2^{9}\theta^{2} and c4(1)≤θ3+16θ2+6(16+4θ)θ+4(216+8θ2)+2048+16θ2≤212θ3c^{(1)}_4\le\theta^{3}+16\theta^{2}+6(16+4\theta)\theta+4(216+8\theta^{2})+2048+16\theta^{2}\le2^{12}\theta^{3}.

(d2) Freezing. Let ca∈[0,μ]c^a\in[0,\mu] be the frozen consumption: the integral over (r,r+δ](r,r+\delta] of the rate obtained by freezing the time-rr states and observation record. As in Step 1 of the published proof cited above, cac^a is Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable: the time-rr states are Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable and the observation-event count, event times, and channels up to rr are measurable for the observation filtration, which is contained in Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r, by part (iv) of the existence theorem; the frozen rate path is a measurable function of these data by composition measurability and the policy definition, and its integral is measurable by Tonelli. Let Rb={Y^μb≥1}R_b=\{\hat{Y}^b_{\mu}\ge1\}, so P(Rb)=1−e−μ≤μP(R_b)=1-e^{-\mu}\le\mu (Step 0), and R=⋃b≠aRbR=\bigcup_{b\neq a}R_b. The pathwise claim of that proof applies verbatim:

{ΔN≥1} △ {Y^caa≥1} ⊆ R∩Ra.\{\Delta N\ge1\}\ \triangle\ \{\hat{Y}^a_{c^a}\ge1\}\ \subseteq\ R\cap R_a .

Indeed, off RR no clock b≠ab\neq a rings in (r,r+δ](r,r+\delta]; then up to the first ring of aa in the interval (or up to r+δr+\delta if there is none) no counter jumps, the states and record stay at their time-rr values, and the consumed time of aa follows the frozen schedule, so aa rings in the interval if and only if Y^caa≥1\hat{Y}^a_{c^a}\ge1; thus on either difference set the outcome lies in RR, and in both cases Y^μa≥1\hat{Y}^a_{\mu}\ge1 (once because aa rings within budget μ\mu, once because ca≤μc^a\le\mu). By the pairwise independence of the residual clocks, P(R∩Ra)≤∑b≠aP(Rb)P(Ra)≤ncμ2P(R\cap R_a)\le\sum_{b\neq a}P(R_b)P(R_a)\le n_c\mu^{2}. Hence ∣E[Z1{ΔN≥1}]−E[Z1{Y^caa≥1}]∣≤ζncμ2|\mathbb{E}[Z\mathbf{1}_{\{\Delta N\ge1\}}]-\mathbb{E}[Z\mathbf{1}_{\{\hat{Y}^a_{c^a}\ge1\}}]|\le\zeta n_c\mu^{2}.

(d3) Exponential formula. Splitting Z=Z+−Z−Z=Z^{+}-Z^{-} into positive and negative parts, the joint measurability of (c,ω^)↦Y^ca(c,\hat{\omega})\mapsto\hat{Y}^a_{c} (right-continuity and grid limits), the independence of Y^a\hat{Y}^a from Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r, and the Tonelli theorem on the product of the two laws give, as in the published Step 1, E[Z1{Y^caa≥1}]=E[Z(1−e−ca)]\mathbb{E}[Z\mathbf{1}_{\{\hat{Y}^a_{c^a}\ge1\}}]=\mathbb{E}[Z(1-e^{-c^a})]. Moreover ∣1−e−c−c∣=c−(1−e−c)≤c2/2|1-e^{-c}-c|=c-(1-e^{-c})\le c^{2}/2 for every c≥0c\ge0: for 0≤c≤20\le c\le2 by the alternating series of the exponential (from the quadratic term on, the term magnitudes cn/n!c^{n}/n! are nonincreasing when c≤3c\le3), and for c>2c>2 trivially, since then 0≤c−(1−e−c)≤c≤c2/20\le c-(1-e^{-c})\le c\le c^{2}/2; the nonnegativity of c−(1−e−c)c-(1-e^{-c}) is the bound 1−e−c≤c1-e^{-c}\le c of Step 0. Hence ∣E[Z1{Y^caa≥1}]−E[Z ca]∣≤ζμ2/2|\mathbb{E}[Z\mathbf{1}_{\{\hat{Y}^a_{c^a}\ge1\}}]-\mathbb{E}[Z\,c^a]|\le\zeta\mu^{2}/2, using ca∈[0,μ]c^a\in[0,\mu].

(d4) Unfreezing the compensator. On the complement of R∪RaR\cup R_a no clock rings in (r,r+δ](r,r+\delta], so the states and record stay at their time-rr values there and ΔT=ca\Delta\mathcal{T}=c^a; always ∣ca−ΔT∣≤2μ|c^a-\Delta\mathcal{T}|\le2\mu, both lying in [0,μ][0,\mu]. Hence ∣E[Z(ca−ΔT)]∣≤ζ⋅2μ P(R∪Ra)≤2ζncμ2|\mathbb{E}[Z(c^a-\Delta\mathcal{T})]|\le\zeta\cdot2\mu\,P(R\cup R_a)\le2\zeta n_c\mu^{2}.

Combining (d1)--(d4),

∣E[Z((ΔM)k−ΔT)]∣ ≤ ζ (ck(1)+3nc+1) μ2 ≤ ζ 213(nc+1) θ3 βˉ2 δ2 ≤ C⋆ ζ δ2,\Big|\mathbb{E}\big[Z\big((\Delta M)^{k}-\Delta\mathcal{T}\big)\big]\Big|\ \le\ \zeta\,\big(c^{(1)}_k+3n_c+1\big)\,\mu^{2}\ \le\ \zeta\,2^{13}(n_c+1)\,\theta^{3}\,\bar{\beta}^{2}\,\delta^{2}\ \le\ C_\star\,\zeta\,\delta^{2},

using ck(1)+3nc+1≤212θ3(nc+1)+4(nc+1)≤213(nc+1)θ3c^{(1)}_k+3n_c+1\le2^{12}\theta^{3}(n_c+1)+4(n_c+1)\le2^{13}(n_c+1)\theta^{3}, βˉ2≤(1+βˉ)2\bar{\beta}^{2}\le(1+\bar{\beta})^{2}, and θ3≤(1+βˉT)4\theta^{3}\le(1+\bar{\beta}T)^{4}.

Step 6: part (e). Let ZZ be square-integrable and let κ=1/δ\kappa=1/\sqrt{\delta}. The truncation Z(κ)=max⁡(−κ,min⁡(κ,Z))Z^{(\kappa)}=\max(-\kappa,\min(\kappa,Z)) is Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable with ∣Z(κ)∣≤κ|Z^{(\kappa)}|\le \kappa, so part (d) gives ∣E[Z(κ)((ΔM)k−ΔT)]∣≤C⋆κδ2=C⋆δ3/2|\mathbb{E}[Z^{(\kappa)}((\Delta M)^{k}-\Delta\mathcal{T})]|\le C_\star \kappa\delta^{2}=C_\star\delta^{3/2}. For the remainder, ∣Z−Z(κ)∣≤Z2/κ|Z-Z^{(\kappa)}|\le Z^{2}/\kappa pointwise (the left side vanishes when ∣Z∣≤κ|Z|\le \kappa and is at most ∣Z∣≤Z2/κ|Z|\le Z^{2}/\kappa otherwise), and ∣(ΔM)k−ΔT∣≤(Y^μ+μ)k+μ|(\Delta M)^{k}-\Delta\mathcal{T}|\le(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{k}+\mu on Ω0\Omega_0 by Step 4(iii). By the independence of Y^=Y^a\hat{Y}=\hat{Y}^a from Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r (fresh-start property) and the Tonelli theorem on the product of the laws (both factors nonnegative, Z2Z^{2} being Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable),

E[∣Z−Z(κ)∣ ∣(ΔM)k−ΔT∣] ≤ 1κ E[Z2]  E[(Y^μ+μ)k+μ].\mathbb{E}\big[|Z-Z^{(\kappa)}|\,\big|(\Delta M)^{k}-\Delta\mathcal{T}\big|\big]\ \le\ \tfrac1\kappa\,\mathbb{E}[Z^{2}]\;\mathbb{E}\big[(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{k}+\mu\big].

By the two-term sum-power inequality of Step 1 and (P2), E[(Y^μ+μ)k]≤2k(mk+θ k−1)μ\mathbb{E}[(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{k}]\le2^{k}(m_k+\theta^{\,k-1})\mu, so E[(Y^μ+μ)k+μ]≤(2k(mk+θ k−1)+1)μ≤217θ3μ\mathbb{E}[(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{k}+\mu]\le(2^{k}(m_k+\theta^{\,k-1})+1)\mu\le2^{17}\theta^{3}\mu (for k=4k=4: 16(4096+17θ3)+1≤217θ316(4096+17\theta^{3})+1\le2^{17}\theta^{3}; the case k=3k=3 is smaller). With κ=1/δ\kappa=1/\sqrt{\delta} and μ=βˉδ\mu=\bar{\beta}\delta the remainder is at most 217θ3βˉ E[Z2] δ3/2≤C⋆ E[Z2] δ3/22^{17}\theta^{3}\bar{\beta}\,\mathbb{E}[Z^{2}]\,\delta^{3/2}\le C_\star\,\mathbb{E}[Z^{2}]\,\delta^{3/2}. Adding the truncated part proves (e). (All splittings are legitimate: Z(ΔM)kZ(\Delta M)^{k} and ZΔTZ\Delta\mathcal{T} are integrable by (c) and the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality.)

Step 7: part (f). Let a1,…,aja_1,\dots,a_j be clock labels, 2≤j≤42\le j\le4, not all equal, and let b1,…,bdb_1,\dots,b_d be the distinct labels among them, with multiplicities j1+⋯+jd=jj_1+\cdots+j_d=j; then d≥2d\ge2, each ji≤3j_i\le3, and at most two of the jij_i exceed 11. On Ω0\Omega_0, by Step 4(iii),

∣Z∣∏q=1j∣ΔMaq∣ ≤ ∣Z∣ ∏i=1d(Y^μbi+μ)ji.|Z|\prod_{q=1}^{j}\big|\Delta M^{a_q}\big|\ \le\ |Z|\,\prod_{i=1}^{d}\big(\hat{Y}^{b_i}_{\mu}+\mu\big)^{j_i}.

The family consisting of Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r and the σ\sigma-algebras of the individual residual clocks is independent (fresh-start property, part (b)), so by the Tonelli theorem on the product of the laws the expectation of the right-hand side factorizes as E[∣Z∣]⋅∏i=1dE[(Y^μbi+μ)ji]\mathbb{E}[|Z|]\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{d}\mathbb{E}[(\hat{Y}^{b_i}_{\mu}+\mu)^{j_i}]; in particular the left-hand side is integrable. By (P2) and the sum-power inequality, the factors satisfy: E[Y^μ+μ]=2μ\mathbb{E}[\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu]=2\mu; E[(Y^μ+μ)2]≤4(16+5θ)μ≤27θμ\mathbb{E}[(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{2}]\le4(16+5\theta)\mu\le2^{7}\theta\mu; E[(Y^μ+μ)3]≤8(216+9θ2)μ≤211θ2μ\mathbb{E}[(\hat{Y}_{\mu}+\mu)^{3}]\le8(216+9\theta^{2})\mu\le2^{11}\theta^{2}\mu. Running over the possible multiplicity patterns (j1,…,jd)(j_1,\dots,j_d) --- namely (1,1)(1,1), (2,1)(2,1), (1,1,1)(1,1,1), (3,1)(3,1), (2,2)(2,2), (2,1,1)(2,1,1), (1,1,1,1)(1,1,1,1) --- and using μd≤θ d−2μ2\mu^{d}\le\theta^{\,d-2}\mu^{2}, the product of the factors is in every case at most 214θ2μ22^{14}\theta^{2}\mu^{2} (the largest case being (2,2)(2,2) with (27θμ)2(2^{7}\theta\mu)^{2}). Hence

E[∣Z∣∏q=1j∣ΔMaq∣] ≤ 214θ2 βˉ2 E[∣Z∣] δ2 ≤ C⋆ E[∣Z∣] δ2.■\mathbb{E}\Big[|Z|\prod_{q=1}^{j}\big|\Delta M^{a_q}\big|\Big]\ \le\ 2^{14}\theta^{2}\,\bar{\beta}^{2}\,\mathbb{E}[|Z|]\,\delta^{2}\ \le\ C_\star\,\mathbb{E}[|Z|]\,\delta^{2}. \qquad\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…