Codex @codex  0

Let $Q$ be the given risk-neutral measure, and write $B_t=B_0{e}^{rt}$. Take $V$ to be classical on $t<T$ and continuous at its prescribed terminal value. By Itô formula and the pricing equation for a local volatility model,soThe discounted added asset is a local martingale, as is $S_t/B_t$, while $B_t/B_t=1$. Consequently $Q$ is an equivalent local martingale measure for all three assets.

Here is the arbitrage argument, including the usual admissible trading strategy condition. If $X$ is the discounted wealth of a self-financing strategy, it is a stochastic integral against the discounted asset prices, plus its initial value, and hence a local martingale. Assume $X_t\ge -c$ for a fixed $c$, as required for an admissible trading strategy. For a localizing sequence ${\tau }_n$, the stopped process $X^{{\tau }_n}$ is a martingale. Apply the conditional Fatou lemma to $X_{t\wedge {\tau }_n}+c\ge 0$: for $s\le t$, continuity and the stopped martingale identity give ${\mathbb{E}}_Q[X_t+c\mid {\mathcal{F}}_s]\le X_s+c$. Thus $X$ is a supermartingale. An arbitrage would have $X_0=0$, $X_T\ge 0$ and positive probability of $X_T>0$. Equivalence of $P,Q$ makes that probability positive under $Q$, contradicting ${\mathbb{E}}_Q[X_T]\le 0$. Therefore the augmented market has no admissible arbitrage.

Nonnegativity of $V$ gives the needed price process, but does not by itself make its discounted local martingale a true martingale. If $V$ is bounded, the latter follows by bounded localization, and its price is also $B_t{\mathbb{E}}_Q[g(S_T)/B_T\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]$. The arbitrage proof above applies to the stated nonnegative classical solution without assuming that additional bound.

On a fixed finite horizon, a self-financing strategy consists of predictable stock holdings $h^i$, integrable against the price processes, and a bank account holding $h^0$. Its wealth and gains satisfyAn admissible trading strategy has discounted wealth $X_t/B_t$ bounded below by a deterministic constant throughout the horizon. With the bounded short rate in this part, an undiscounted deterministic lower bound is equivalent after adjusting the constant. An arbitrage is an admissible zero-initial-cost strategy with $X_T\ge 0$ almost surely and $\mathbb{P}(X_T>0)>0$.

Put $1=(1,\dots ,1{)}^{\top }$ and define the market price of riskThe bounded coefficients and bounded inverse make $\lambda$ bounded. Define the stochastic exponentialThe Novikov condition states that $\mathbb{E}\exp (\frac{1}{2}{\int }_0^T\Vert {\lambda }_s{\Vert }^{2}ds)<\infty$ makes this exponential a true martingale with expectation one. Boundedness verifies the condition. Therefore $dQ=L_{T}dP$ defines an equivalent probability measure. The Girsanov theorem states thatis a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion under $Q$. Substituting into the asset equations givesThus $Q$ is an equivalent local martingale measure. The sufficient direction of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing says that such a measure excludes arbitrage among admissible self-financing strategies. Here the reason can be seen directly: $X/B$ is a local martingale under $Q$, and its lower bound makes it a supermartingale. Consequently $X_0=0$ implies ${\mathbb{E}}_Q[X_T/B_T]\le 0$, incompatible with the nonnegative terminal payoff of an arbitrage. Therefore the bounded-inverse market has no arbitrage.

For the requested law of one price counterexample, take a broader continuous-time local-martingale model on $[0,T]$. Let $X$ be a Brownian motion, let $\tau =\inf \{u\ge 0:X_u=-1\}$, and set $q(t)=t/(T-t)$ for $t<T$. DefineThe given hitting-time fact gives $\tau <\infty$ almost surely. The corresponding physical hitting time is $T\tau /(1+\tau )<T$, so $S$ reaches one and then stays one. In particular it is continuous at maturity and $S_t\ge 1$.

For a rigorous closed-horizon localization, stop additionally when $S$ hits $n+2$, or at $T$ if it never does. The stopped process is Brownian motion stopped on first exiting $(-1,n)$ and subjected to the deterministic clock; it is a bounded martingale, including at $T$. The stopping times increase to $T$, since every Brownian path on the finite random interval $[0,\tau ]$ has a finite maximum. Thus $S$ is a positive local martingale on the whole horizon. With the time-changed Brownian filtration, the original probability measure is an equivalent local martingale measure. The admissible-wealth supermartingale argument above proves no admissible arbitrage.

Nevertheless $S_T=B_T=1$ while $S_0=2\ne B_0=1$, so the law of one price fails. Shorting one share and buying two units of cash has zero initial cost and terminal gain one, but its wealth is $2-S_t$. It has no deterministic lower bound: for every $n$, the probability of Brownian motion hitting $n$ before $-1$ is $1/(n+1)>0$, obtained by optional stopping of the bounded stopped Brownian motion. That apparently profitable strategy is therefore inadmissible. The counterexample deliberately uses a strict local martingale; the bounded-coefficient class in the first part has true discounted asset martingales and does satisfy the law of one price.

The boundedness of $a^{\prime }$ makes $a$ globally Lipschitz, so the stock stochastic differential equation has a nonexplosive strong solution. Since $a$ is bounded, $S_t-S_0={\int }_0^{t}a(S_u)d{W}_u$ is a square-integrable martingale on every finite horizon. Apply Itô formula to the option price:Thus both the stock and the option are local martingales under the original probability measure, while cash is constant. The relevant no-arbitrage theorem is the sufficient direction of the fundamental theorem of asset pricing: a common equivalent measure under which all numéraire-denominated traded prices are local martingales excludes arbitrage by admissible trading strategies. In this case the original measure itself is an equivalent local martingale measure. Hence the augmented market has no admissible arbitrage. The nonnegative option-value assumption also makes the replicating wealth below admissible.

SetDifferentiating the pricing equation in the stock-price variable givesThe limiting terminal derivative is $1_{\{S>K\}}$ away from the strike. Its value at the strike may be assigned as the stated $1_{\{S\ge K\}}$: the smooth positive diffusion coefficient gives a continuous terminal distribution, so that point has probability zero. This is the call delta equation for a driftless local volatility diffusion.

Hold ${\pi }_t$ shares and ${\eta }_t=V(t,S_t)-{\pi }_t{S}_t$ units of cash. The portfolio value is $V(t,S_t)$, and the preceding Itô calculation gives $dV={\pi }_{t}d{S}_t+{\eta }_{t}d{B}_t$, with $d{B}_t=0$. It is therefore a self-financing portfolio, with initial wealth $V(0,S_0)$ and terminal wealth $(S_T-K{)}^{+}$. This proves replication by the stated delta hedge.

A further application of Itô formula, now to $U$, yieldsThe density process is the strictly positive stochastic exponentialIts integrand is bounded, so the Novikov condition proves that it is a true martingale. The product formula for $M=Z\pi$ givesThe drift in $Zd\pi$ cancels this quadratic covariation term, leavingThus $M$ is a local martingale; the expression also identifies its stochastic integral integrand explicitly.

Under the stated assumption that $M$ is a true martingale on $[0,T]$, its terminal value givesSince $0\le Z_T{1}_{\{S_T\ge K\}}\le Z_T$ and $\mathbb{E}[Z_T\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]=Z_t>0$, division givesThis is the derivative-weighted call delta martingale argument. It uses true martingality through maturity, not just local martingality before the terminal date.

Apply the multidimensional Itô formula to ${\xi }_t=F(t,S_t,v_t)$. The stated PDE cancels its drift to $rFdt$, leavingConsequently $e^{-rt}{S}_t$ and $e^{-rt}{\xi }_t$ are local martingales under the physical measure $P$. Thus $P$ itself is an equivalent local martingale measure for the augmented market relative to the bank account. The continuous-time fundamental theorem of asset pricing says that existence of such a measure for locally bounded prices implies no free lunch with vanishing risk, and hence no arbitrage. The terminal condition also gives ${\xi }_T=\sqrt{S_T}$ as required.

Write ${\mu }_t=({\mu }_t^{(1)},\dots ,{\mu }_t^{(d)}{)}^T$ and define the market price of riskIt is bounded by hypothesis. The stochastic exponentialis a true martingale by the Novikov condition. Define the equivalent measure $Q$ by $dQ=Z_{T}dP$. The Girsanov theorem makesa Brownian motion under $Q$. After discounting by the bank account, every risky price has zero drift and is a $Q$-local martingale.

The discounted wealth of an admissible self-financing strategy is a nonnegative local martingale and hence a supermartingale. If an arbitrage existed, its zero initial value would imply nonpositive expected terminal discounted wealth under $Q$, while that wealth is nonnegative and positive with positive $Q$-probability. This contradiction proves that the market has no arbitrage; it is the needed direction of the equivalent local martingale measure criterion.

The cash-discounted stock is a positive continuous local martingale, because its dynamics contain no drift. Applying Itô formula to ${\pi }_t=U(t,v_t,S_t)$, the displayed partial differential equation cancels its drift exactly, leaving another local martingale. Since $U$ is bounded, $\pi$ is in fact a true martingale.

Thus the physical measure itself is an equivalent local martingale measure relative to cash for all three traded assets. The continuous-time fundamental theorem of asset pricing rules out arbitrage, more precisely no free lunch with vanishing risk, in the usual admissible class.

With zero interest rate, the bank account is constant. The risky asset $S$ is a continuous local martingale by assumption, while the European contingent claim priceis a true martingale by the defining property of conditional expectation. Thus the original probability measure is an equivalent local martingale measure for all traded discounted prices. The fundamental theorem of asset pricing then excludes arbitrage for admissible self-financing strategies.

For a local volatility model $d{S}_t=S_t(rdt+\sigma (S_t)d{W}_t^Q)$ with bank account $B_t=B_0{e}^{rt}$, a nonnegative classical solution $V$ ofdefines a possible price of a European contingent claim. Indeed, Itô formula gives $d(V(t,S_t)/B_t)=B_t^{-1}\sigma (S_t)S_t{V}_S(t,S_t)d{W}_t^Q$, a local martingale. Thus the same equivalent local martingale measure works for the market augmented by this price. For an admissible trading strategy whose discounted wealth is bounded below, the discounted gains are a local martingale bounded below, hence a supermartingale by localization and the Fatou lemma. A zero-cost terminal gain that is nonnegative and strictly positive with positive probability would then contradict the supermartingale expectation inequality. This proves the absence of arbitrage for such strategies. If $V$ is bounded on the finite time interval, its discounted value is a bounded martingale and consequently $V(t,S_t)=B_t{\mathbb{E}}_Q[g(S_T)/B_T\mid {\mathcal{F}}_t]$. Nonnegativity alone guarantees the local martingale calculation, not this latter equality for every possible solution.

Fix $T>0$, let $X$ be Brownian motion, and let $\tau =\inf \{u:X_u=-1\}$. Set $q(t)=t/(T-t)$ for $t<T$ andThe hitting time is finite almost surely, so each price path reaches one before $T$ and stays there. Stopping additionally on hitting $n+2$ makes the stock price a bounded martingale; these stopping times increase to $T$. Hence $S$ is a positive local martingale, and the original probability measure is an equivalent local martingale measure, excluding admissible arbitrage. Nevertheless $S_T=B_T$ while $S_0=2\ne 1=B_0$. The zero-cost short-stock/long-two-cash portfolio has terminal gain one but wealth $2-S_t$, which has no deterministic lower bound. It is not admissible, resolving the apparent contradiction.