Fix . By uniform continuity of each path of the continuous local martingale on , its modulus
tends to zero almost surely. For every , comparison of powers of each increment gives
The squared-increment sum converges in probability to , by the dyadic definition of quadratic variation. Including the last full grid interval instead of the last partial interval changes that sum by a quantity bounded by , so the ceiling convention has the same limit. In particular these squared-increment sums are bounded in probability.
Since , a quantity tending to zero almost surely multiplied by a family bounded in probability tends to zero in probability. Hence
This is uniform convergence on compacts in probability, and proves the superquadratic case of dyadic power variation of a continuous local martingale.
Fix the specified time . With the path modulus on as above, comparison of increment powers now gives
The hypothesis makes the second factor eventually bounded almost surely, while the first tends to zero almost surely because . Thus the squared-increment sums tend to zero almost surely. They also converge in probability to the quadratic variation , so uniqueness of the limit in probability implies almost surely.
The quadratic variation is nondecreasing, hence it vanishes throughout . To see explicitly that the continuous local martingale must then be constant, localize it to square-integrable stopped martingales. The Itô isometry gives
Remove the localization, apply the conclusion at every rational , and use continuity. Since , this proves
Thus is indistinguishable from the zero process on that interval. This is the subquadratic case of dyadic power variation of a continuous local martingale.
For the dyadic power variation of a continuous local martingale, write , and . Uniform continuity on gives almost surely, while the deterministic-partition characterization of quadratic variation gives in probability. In particular is bounded in probability.
If , then , and a factor tending to zero in probability times a sequence bounded in probability tends to zero in probability. Thus
If , the reverse comparison is . The assumed finite makes eventually bounded almost surely, so almost surely. By uniqueness of a limit in probability, almost surely. Its monotonicity gives for .
To finish without assuming any integrability of , apply the bound from part (i) to both and , with , and then let . For each the probability of a positive or negative excursion beyond is zero. Taking countably many proves is indistinguishable from zero on . The same argument in fact works for every under the stated pathwise boundedness assumption.