First justify the dependence structure rather than assume that adjacent squares behave like an ordinary lag-one ARCH model. Write . Iterating its nonnegative recurrence gives
The product coefficient has expected value , so it tends to zero in probability. The stationary are a tight family; consequently the remainder tends to zero in probability, without needing independence between that remainder's factors. The increasing partial sums therefore give the representation
This proves the parity decomposition of a lag-two ARCH process: even and odd observations are functions of disjoint noise families. It also shows that the positive scale is a function of past noise, independent of . The conditional expectation of given past noise is zero, and the second-moment recursion is . independence of the parity families gives the adjacent-square covariance. Thus
To establish finiteness of the fourth moment before using its recursion, note that the norm of the th term in the positive series for is . The triangle inequality in L2 space makes the series square-integrable when . independence of the current noise and past scale then yields
and hence
If , a finite would make , which is impossible. Its fourth moment is then infinite. The adjacent-square product remains integrable by parity independence, even in that case.
This covariance is also zero, but symmetry is essential to the proof. Write , where is an independent fair sign. The normal distribution makes that sign independent of its magnitude and of every other driving variable. Conditional on the magnitudes and all noise except this sign, changing flips and leaves unchanged. Every future conditional scale uses only squared past observations, so is unchanged for .
Thus is independent of the remaining fair sign in . Averaging that sign gives , and hence
The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again guarantees integrability. For odd , the parity decomposition of a lag-two ARCH process also gives independence directly. For even , the sign symmetry of an ARCH process supplies the argument; the martingale difference sequence property alone would not justify this reversed covariance.