Solution: Identifying Stopping Times — Six Cases
Exercise: Identifying Stopping Times: Six Cases
| # | Stopping time? | Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yes | is either (for ) or (for ), both in . | |
| 2 | Yes | , a union of events in . | |
| 3 | No | At , you need to know if for some to decide if — that requires the future. | |
| 4 | Yes | Equivalently , and a stopping time plus a constant is a stopping time. Explicitly . | |
| 5 | Yes | The running max and min over are in . | |
| 6 | No | At time , you don't know , so you can't decide if has occurred. Classic "peeking-one-step-ahead" failure. |
Explicit check for at :
Each is -measurable, hence -measurable. The union is in .
Takeaways
- First hitting times are stopping times; last hitting times are not. The difference is peeking — the last hit requires knowing no future hit occurs.
- Running extrema are adapted, so first-exit times based on them are stopping times — this is why drawdown triggers and range-break triggers are legal trading rules.
- Any rule that references for at time is not a stopping time. The test is purely syntactic: does the description mention future indices? If yes, stop — pun intended.
- Stopping times plus constants are stopping times (provided the constant is non-negative integer; the shift indexes only backwards into known information).