In the previous lecture we introduced the signature of a bounded variation path as the formal series
If now ,
the iterated integrals
can only be defined as Young integrals when
. In this lecture, we are going to derive some estimates that allow to define the signature of some (not all) paths with a finite
variation when
. These estimates are due to Terry Lyons in his seminal paper and this is where the rough paths theory really begins.
For that can be writen as
we define
It is quite easy to check that for
Let . For
, we denote
where is the set of subdivisions of the interval
. Observe that for
, in general
Actually from the Chen’s relations we have
It follows that needs not to be the
-variation of
.
The first major result of rough paths theory is the following estimate:
Proposition: Let . There exists a constant
, depending only on
, such that for every
and
,
By , we of course mean
. Some remarks are in order before we prove the result. If
, then the estimate becomes
which is immediately checked because
We can also observe that for , the estimate is easy to obtain because
So, all the work is to prove the estimate when . The proof is split into two lemmas. The first one is a binomial inequality which is actually quite difficult to prove:
Lemma: For ,
, and
,
Proof: See Lemma 2.2.2 in the article by Lyons or this proof for the sharp constant
The second one is a lemma that actually already was essentially proved in the Lecture on Young’s integral, but which was not explicitly stated.
Lemma: Let . Let us assume that:
- There exists a control
such that
- There exists a control
and
such that for
,
Then, for all ,
Proof:
See the proof of the Young-Loeve estimate or Lemma 6.2 in the book by Friz-Victoir
We can now turn to the proof of the main result.
Proof:
Let us denote
We claim that is a control. Indeed for
, we have from Holder’s inequality
It is clear that for some constant which is small enough, we have for
,
Let us now consider
From the Chen’s relations, for ,
Therefore,
On the other hand, we have
We deduce from the previous lemma that
with . The general case
is dealt by induction. The details are let to the reader
Let . Since
is a control, the estimate
easily implies that for ,
We stress that it does not imply a bound on the 1-variation of the path . What we can get for this path, are bounds in
-variation:
Proposition: Let . There exists a constant
, depending only on
, such that for every
and
,
where
Proof: This is an easy consequence of the Chen’s relations. Indeed,
and we conclude with the binomial inequality
We are now ready for a second major estimate which is the key to define iterated integrals of a path with -bounded variation when
.
Theorem: Let ,
and
such that
and
Then there exists a constant depending only on
and
such that for
and
where is the control
Proof: We prove by induction on that for some constants
,
For , we trivially have
and
.
Not let us assume that the result is true for with
. Let
From the Chen’s relations, for ,
Therefore, from the binomial inequality
where
We deduce
with . A correct choice of
finishes the induction argument
Thanks again for another great lecture – the material’s getting challenging but it’s also really interesting!
Also, in the proof starting with ‘This is an easy consequence of the Chen’s relations’, I think the subscript of the second integral on the second line (and thereafter) should be
, rather than
.
Also, should the last term in the fourth line (from that same proof) not be
(rather than
)?
Also, towards the end, after “Not let us assume that the result is true for”, should it not be
rather than ![\int_{\Delta^{k}[s,t]}\mathrm{d}x^{\otimes(k+1)}+\int_{\Delta^{k}[t,u]}\mathrm{d}y^{\otimes(k+1)}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cint_%7B%5CDelta%5E%7Bk%7D%5Bs%2Ct%5D%7D%5Cmathrm%7Bd%7Dx%5E%7B%5Cotimes%28k%2B1%29%7D%2B%5Cint_%7B%5CDelta%5E%7Bk%7D%5Bt%2Cu%5D%7D%5Cmathrm%7Bd%7Dy%5E%7B%5Cotimes%28k%2B1%29%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=333333&s=0&c=20201002)