With all four external fermions of species 1, both final attachments are possible. The middle row of the figure gives the two tree-level Feynman diagrams:
  • The channel has lines and , joined by a scalar propagator with .
  • The channel has lines and , joined by a scalar propagator with .
For a fixed ordering of external fermion states, the fermionic sign from exchanging the final identical fermions gives
Here are Dirac spinors. In particular, the scattering amplitude changes sign when the complete final labels and are exchanged, as required for identical fermions.
Label the initial species-1 and species-2 fermions by and , and the final species-1 and species-2 fermions by and . There is exactly one tree-level Feynman diagram: the -channel scalar propagator joins the continuous species-1 line to the continuous species-2 line . Its exchanged four-momentum determines , in the notation of Mandelstam variables:
The top row of the figure displays this Feynman diagram. A crossed attachment would change species at an interaction vertex and is forbidden. There is no initial antifermion for an annihilation channel.
Let . Inverse images commute with complements and countable unions, so this is a sub-sigma-algebra of . The random variable is -measurable.
The assumption says that is a measure-preserving transformation. Consequently has the same probability distribution as and is integrable. It also implies for every integrable random variable , first for indicator functions, then for simple functions, and then by positive and negative approximation.
To identify a conditional expectation, take any . The assumed identity with the bounded random variable gives
Every member of has the displayed form , so this verifies all defining conditional expectation identities. Therefore
Apply part (iii), since this conditional expectation has the same probability distribution as . We conclude
This is invariance from integral duality for a measure-preserving transformation; neither invertibility of nor a second moment of is required.
We first establish the lower truncation identity as well. The pair has the same hypotheses as , because conditional expectation is linear and negation preserves equality of probability distributions. Apply part (ii) to this pair and multiply by to get
For every real ,
Using this identity, part (ii), the lower truncation identity, and linearity of conditional expectation gives
In particular the argument does not assume that a function obtained by scalar clipping is a convex function or a concave function.
Write . The bounded random variables and have the same probability distribution, and the displayed identity identifies the latter as the conditional expectation of the former. They are square-integrable, so part (i) gives almost surely. Take and discard the countable union of exceptional null sets. At every remaining outcome, let to obtain
Thus conditional expectation preserving a distribution forces equality even when only integrability is assumed.
The function is a concave function, and is integrable since . The concave form of the conditional Jensen inequality gives
The random variables and have the same probability distribution, so . Using the law of total expectation, the nonnegative difference between the right and left sides of the inequality has zero expectation. It must vanish almost surely. Therefore
The equality comes from the distributional assumption as well as the conditional Jensen inequality.
Assume is square-integrable. Since and have the same probability distribution, is also square-integrable and . The product is integrable by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
We use the defining test-function identity for conditional expectation: for bounded -measurable , . Take and let . The dominated convergence theorem, with bounds and , gives
This is the extension of the conditional expectation pull-out identity to this square-integrable multiplier. Consequently
A nonnegative random variable with zero expectation is zero almost surely. Hence
Geometrically, this is the equality case in the L2 space orthogonal projection interpretation of conditional expectation.
The bounded-time optional sampling theorem says that for an integrable discrete-time martingale and a bounded stopping time , . It requires no assumption about an eventual unbounded stopping time.
Apply this theorem with , or simply take the expectation of the stopped martingale in part (ii). For we obtain
Since ,
The monotone convergence theorem now yields . In particular almost surely, which has been established without assuming that optional stopping is valid at .
For each sample path with finite , eventually equals . Also . The dominated convergence theorem gives . Taking the limit of a sequence in the earlier identity therefore proves
For example, initial holdings give expectation one, as the first transfer must eliminate its giver. This computes the first elimination time, rather than the later time when one player owns all tokens.
After , the token product remains zero, whereas the deterministic term continues to increase. Combining this with the pre-elimination calculation in part (ii),
The stochastic process is adapted and integrable at each fixed time, and the displayed conditional expectation is nonnegative. Thus is a submartingale.
For it is neither a martingale nor a supermartingale. If , there is positive probability that the first player transfers a token to the second in each of the next rounds. Until the last such round all three remain active, so this event has probability and entails . At time the displayed conditional expectation is therefore strictly positive on an event of positive probability, ruling out both the zero drift required of a martingale and the nonpositive drift required of a supermartingale. If an initial holding is zero, and the same conclusion follows immediately. The degenerate case gives a constant martingale.
Put . Before , all three players are active. Each unordered pair is selected with probability , and each direction of transfer then has conditional probability . Given the current holdings , a transfer within the first pair has mean product
For transfers within the other two pairs the analogous values are and . Averaging over pairs gives
At and after elimination the product is zero, since an eliminated player never re-enters. In particular the stopped process has increment
The indicator function is -measurable, and the expression in parentheses has zero conditional expectation on its support. The stopped process is adapted and integrable: at fixed , its absolute value is bounded by . Hence
This is the product martingale for three-player token exchange.
A discrete-time stopping time for a filtration is a random variable taking values in such that for every . It means that whether stopping has occurred by time can be determined from the information available then.
For the first elimination time,
Each event in this finite union belongs to , by the definition of the natural filtration. Therefore is a stopping time. This verification does not require first knowing whether is finite almost surely.
Choose as the pointwise limit of a sequence of where it exists, and as zero otherwise. The convergence event and every are -measurable, so this is an exactly -measurable version, bounded by . Part (a)(ii), the Doob-Dynkin lemma, supplies a Borel measurable function on such that . Applying scalar clipping to with bounds preserves that equality and ensures everywhere.
Part (c)(ii) and the conditional expectation formula from part (b)(iv) now give
Since the indices form a countable family, these identities may be taken on one common full-probability event.
For fixed , both the slope and the displayed average are constant on the atom , whose probability is . An equality holding almost surely of these constants forces the deterministic equality
Sum over . The telescoping sum gives
Thus the desired identity holds at every dyadic endpoint, including , without evaluating the undefined slope at .
Finally, given , take dyadic endpoints . The Lipschitz condition implies , and the bound on the Borel measurable function gives
Passing to the limit of a sequence proves
This is a martingale proof of the integral representation of a Lipschitz function. It constructs a bounded Lebesgue integrable function representing the increments of , and in particular proves absolute continuity of . No prior assumption that has a derivative is needed.
The uniformly integrable martingale convergence theorem states that a uniformly integrable martingale has an integrable terminal random variable such that almost surely and in the L1 norm, and
The last identity follows by passing to the limit of a sequence in for and , using convergence in L1.
Part (b)(iii) verifies uniform integrability for , so
Moreover almost surely. In this particular problem the common bound also yields convergence in Lp for every finite , including convergence in L2: the dominated convergence theorem applies to . General uniform integrability alone does not assert these higher-power conclusions.
Each is a bounded Borel measurable function of , including the specified value at . Therefore is an adapted process for and consists of integrable random variables.
Fix an atom of a sigma-algebra in with positive probability, corresponding to the dyadic interval , with . By the uniform distribution, each half has conditional probability . The conditional expectation of on that atom is therefore
The middle values cancel. On the zero-probability atom the conditional expectation can be chosen as zero, agreeing with our version of . Hence
so is a martingale. This is the dyadic slope martingale associated with the Lipschitz function .
For , repeated use of the floor function identity gives
Thus the filtration satisfies . Each positive-probability atom of a sigma-algebra here has the form
with probability ; is a possible additional null set atom. Averaging over each dyadic interval gives a version
For a globally defined version of the right side, assign any value, for example zero, on .
Indeed, the displayed random variable is -measurable and bounded by . On each its integral is
by the uniform distribution. Every member of is a union of the displayed sets and the possible zero-probability atom. Summing these identities therefore verifies the defining conditional expectation property on all of .
A family of integrable random variables is uniformly integrable when
The Lipschitz condition gives, on ,
Our chosen zero value on satisfies the same bound. Hence the random variables are integrable, and for every tail expectation in the definition vanishes. Therefore the family is uniformly integrable.
Every is a Borel measurable function of , by the formula involving the floor function. Thus
Conversely, part (i) gives the everywhere identity . For fixed , this is the pointwise limit of random variables measurable with respect to . Such a limit of a sequence is measurable, so . Consequently
These are increasing-precision observations even when the first finitely many are discarded; they do not behave like the independent random variables whose tail sigma-algebra appears in Question 1(b).
The floor function gives the deterministic bound
for every outcome, including . Thus all three convergence assertions hold: there is pointwise, and hence almost sure convergence, as well as convergence in probability and convergence in L2. In detail, for the probability is zero as soon as ; also
The uniform distribution even gives the exact second moment of the error by integrating over the dyadic partition:
We prove the Doob-Dynkin lemma here by simple function approximation. Choose such that everywhere, and let
Each is a finite-valued -measurable function and pointwise. Write its level sets as , with associated values . By part (i), choose Borel sets with . Define the Borel measurable functions
Although the chosen need not partition all of , their inverse images do partition , so exactly.
Apply scalar clipping to each with bounds , preserving this equality, and define . A bounded limit superior of Borel measurable functions is a finite Borel measurable function. At every the limit of a sequence exists and gives
Thus the factorization is exact for a bounded, exactly -measurable function. If hypotheses are instead given only up to null sets, the corresponding conclusion is a factorization holding almost surely after choosing a representative.
The sigma-algebra generated by a random variable is the smallest sigma-algebra on making a measurable function into . Equivalently, it is the intersection of all sigma-algebras containing the inverse images of Borel sets .
Let . This collection is already a sigma-algebra: ,
The right-hand sets are in , since the Borel sigma-algebra is closed under the indicated operations. Any sigma-algebra making measurable must contain every member of . Conversely makes measurable by definition. Hence
This equality holds exactly as a collection of sets, without completing the sigma-algebra.
Suppose the events are mutually independent events. Then is independent of , first by factorization against finite intersections of previous events and then by part (a). Therefore
If , the sum in part (ii) is infinite almost surely, and consequently
This is the Second Borel-Cantelli lemma. In fact part (ii) also yields probability zero in the convergent case for these independent events.

Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project

Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
We have two killer features:
  1. topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculus
    Articles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
    • a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
    • a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
    This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.
    Figure 1.
    Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page
    . View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivative
  2. local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:
    This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
    Figure 5. . You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally.
    Video 3.
    Edit locally and publish demo
    . Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension.
  3. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook-media/master/feature/x/hilbert-space-arrow.png
  4. Infinitely deep tables of contents:
    Figure 6.
    Dynamic article tree with infinitely deep table of contents
    .
    Descendant pages can also show up as toplevel e.g.: ourbigbook.com/cirosantilli/chordate-subclade
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact