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. From music student to professional: the process of transition2. Informal Labour and Credit Markets: A Survey.
3. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
4. The name is absent
5. Who is missing from higher education?
6. The name is absent
7. Workforce or Workfare?
8. The name is absent
9. Convergence in TFP among Italian Regions - Panel Unit Roots with Heterogeneity and Cross Sectional Dependence
10. The name is absent