TheoremBase

Proof

Throughout, "the envelope lemma" is the pre-stopping envelope lemma, "the tracking lemma" is the pathwise tracking lemma and "the restricted-moments lemma" is the restricted-moments lemma for the martingale part; all notation is that of the statement, hence that of the envelope lemma. The argument is the one by which the proof of claim 6 of the envelope lemma bounds the first three summands of its triangle inequality; it is isolated here because the envelope lemma states only the resulting bound on ∣st∣|\mathfrak{s}_t|.

Fix ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0 and t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T]. By clause (vii)(a) of the existence and uniqueness theorem, Σ0(ω)\Sigma_0(\omega) lies in the probability simplex Δl\Delta^l, and α^(ω)∈UA\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} for every ω\omega by claim 3 of the realized-control lemma; so St(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))S_t(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)) is defined by claim 2 of the flow stability lemma. Since Φt(ω)=St(x0,α^(ω))\Phi_t(\omega)=S_t(x_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega)), the triangle inequality for the Euclidean norm (claim 6 of Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n: Square, Distance, Vanishing, Coordinate Bounds, Homogeneity, Triangle Inequalities and Expansion of a Square) gives

∣Σt(ω)−Φt(ω)∣ ≤ ∣Σt(ω)−St(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))∣+∣St(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))−St(x0,α^(ω))∣.\bigl|\Sigma_t(\omega)-\Phi_t(\omega)\bigr|\ \le\ \bigl|\Sigma_t(\omega)-S_t(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega))\bigr|+\bigl|S_t(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega))-S_t(x_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega))\bigr| .

First summand. By claim 2 of the tracking lemma, whose flow SωS^{\omega} is S(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))S(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)), the first summand is at most ∣Mt(ω)∣+ΛbeΛbtMt(ω)|M_t(\omega)|+\Lambda_be^{\Lambda_bt}\mathcal{M}_t(\omega), hence at most ∣Mt(ω)∣+ΛbeΛbTMt(ω)|M_t(\omega)|+\Lambda_be^{\Lambda_bT}\mathcal{M}_t(\omega), the exponential function being nondecreasing (claim 4 of the exponential properties theorem), Λb=2l(l−1)(B+Λ(1+R))≥0\Lambda_b=2\sqrt{l}(l-1)\bigl(B+\Lambda(1+R)\bigr)\ge0 because B≥0B\ge0 and R≥0R\ge0 by claim 1 of the affine rate family lemma and Λ≥0\Lambda\ge0 is a Lipschitz constant, and Mt(ω)≥0\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)\ge0.

Second summand. By claim 4 of the flow stability lemma, applied with base pair (x0,α^(ω))(x_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega)) and perturbed pair (Σ0(ω),α^(ω))(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega)) — the perturbed control equals the base control, so grγ(ξ′)=0g^{\gamma}_r(\xi')=0 for every γ\gamma and rr in the notation of claim 3 there, and the constant G=0G=0 of claim 4 there (not the terminal cost of the adopted setting) is admissible — the second summand is at most eΛbT∣Σ0(ω)−x0∣e^{\Lambda_bT}|\Sigma_0(\omega)-x_0|. Since S0=x0S_0=x_0, ∣Σ0(ω)−x0∣=N−1/2∣s0(ω)∣|\Sigma_0(\omega)-x_0|=N^{-1/2}|\mathfrak{s}_0(\omega)|.

Passage to the majorant. By the supremum lemma, M‾γ(ω)=sup⁡r∈[0,T]∣Mrγ(ω)∣\overline{M}^{\gamma}(\omega)=\sup_{r\in[0,T]}|M^{\gamma}_r(\omega)| for each γ\gamma, because ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0; hence ∣Mtγ(ω)∣≤M‾γ(ω)|M^{\gamma}_t(\omega)|\le\overline{M}^{\gamma}(\omega) for each γ\gamma, so ∣Mt(ω)∣2=∑γ(Mtγ(ω))2≤∑γ(M‾γ(ω))2=M‾(ω)2|M_t(\omega)|^2=\sum_{\gamma}(M^{\gamma}_t(\omega))^2\le\sum_{\gamma}(\overline{M}^{\gamma}(\omega))^2=\overline{M}(\omega)^2, and ∣Mt(ω)∣≤M‾(ω)|M_t(\omega)|\le\overline{M}(\omega) because the nonnegative square root is nondecreasing. The path r↦Mr(ω)r\mapsto\mathcal{M}_r(\omega) is nondecreasing by claim 1 of the tracking lemma, and I(ω)=MT(ω)I(\omega)=\mathcal{M}_T(\omega) by part (b) of the restricted-moments lemma, so Mt(ω)≤I(ω)\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)\le I(\omega).

Combining the three estimates,

∣Σt(ω)−Φt(ω)∣ ≤ M‾(ω)+ΛbeΛbTI(ω)+eΛbTN−1/2∣s0(ω)∣ = b‾(ω)−εY = Q(ω),\bigl|\Sigma_t(\omega)-\Phi_t(\omega)\bigr|\ \le\ \overline{M}(\omega)+\Lambda_be^{\Lambda_bT}I(\omega)+e^{\Lambda_bT}N^{-1/2}|\mathfrak{s}_0(\omega)|\ =\ \overline{\mathfrak{b}}(\omega)-\varepsilon_Y\ =\ Q(\omega),

which is the claim.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…