Let Xh,2,it be the hth element of Xh,2,it. The required result follows if we can
show that
sup
i,T
√T X (xh,2,it
T t
- Exh,2,it)
< M for all h.
4
(41)
The proof of (41) is similar to the proof of Lemma 1 of Andrews (1991). This
proof relies on the following α- mixing inequality presented in Hall and Heyde
(1980, p. 278). Suppose that Y and W are random variables that are G-
measurable and H- measurable, respectively, with E ∣Y ∣p < ∞ and E ∣W∣q <
∞, where p,q > 1 with 1/p + 1/q < 1. Then,
∣E (Y - EY ) (W - EW ) ∣ ≤ 8 H Y ∣∣p ∣∣ W ∣∣g [α (G, H)]1-1/p-1/q , (42)
where α (G, H) is the α-mixing coefficient between the sigma fields G and H.
Now, let Xit = xh,2,it - Exh,2,it. Notice that
4
p e .. Σ X«)
sup T χ x x x∣e (Xi,XisXipXik )∣
i,τ t=1 s = 1 p=1 k= 1
T -tT-sT -p
⅛ 5⅛2χχχΣ∣E (XitXi,t+sXi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k) ∣
i,T t s=0 p=0 k=0
4!siuτp T X
Σ
0≤p,k≤s
0≤p+k+s≤T-t
∣ E (Xit (Xi,t+sXi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k)) ∣
+4!sup ɪ X X
i,T t 0≤s,k≤p
0≤p+k+s≤T-t
+4!sup .=2 X X
i,i t 0≤s,k≤p
0≤p+k+s≤T-t
1
+4!siup .χ
x
0≤s,p≤k
0≤p+k+s≤T-t
= I + II + III + IV, say.
E [(Xit
Xi,t+s) (Xi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k)]
-E (XitXi,t+s) E (Xi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k )
∣ E (XitXi,t+s) E (Xi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k) ∣
E ((Xit
Xi,t+sXi,t+s+p') Xi,t+s+p+k) ∣
By applying the inequality of (42) to Xi,t+sXi,t+s+pXi,t+s+p+k and Xit and
then by the Holder inequality, we have
1T
i ≤ 4!8sup .2 HXitk4q HXi,t+sH4q Il Xi,t+s+p ∣∣ 4q
i,T t=10≤p,k≤s≤T-t
×∣∣Xi,t+s+p+k∣∣4q αi (s)q-1
35
More intriguing information
1. Palkkaneuvottelut ja työmarkkinat Pohjoismaissa ja Euroopassa2. The Challenge of Urban Regeneration in Deprived European Neighbourhoods - a Partnership Approach
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Patterns
8. The name is absent
9. Linking Indigenous Social Capital to a Global Economy
10. The Role of Immigration in Sustaining the Social Security System: A Political Economy Approach