for some constant M2 < ∞. By Assumptions 2 and 6(i), for t = [Tr] and finite
constant M2 , we have
sup sup E kD1Tx1,itk4
i,T 1≤t≤T
≤ sup sup M3 (∣∣D1TIl4E ∣∣(xι,it
i,T 1≤t≤T
→ sup sup ∣τ1 (r) Θ1,i ∣4 < ∞.
i r∈[0,1]
Ex1,it)k4+ kD1TEx1,itk4
Next, similarly, by Assumptions 3(ii) and (iii),
sup sup E ∣x2,it ∣4 ≤ sup sup M3 E∣x2,it
i,T 1≤t≤T i,T 1≤t≤T
< ∞,
Ex2,itk4+kEx2,itk4
and by Assumptions 4(ii) and (iii) and 6(iii) and (iv),
sup sup Ekx3,itk4 ≤
i,T 1≤t≤T
sup
i,T
sup M3 E °x3,it - EFzi x3,it°4 + ∣Ex3,it∣4
1≤t≤T i
Therefore,
sup sup
i,T 1≤t≤T
which yields (83). ¥
Part (c)
By Lemma 16(a). ¥
Part (d)
By Lemma 16(d). ¥
M2
∞.
E (suΡi,t °x3,it - EFzi x3,it°4)
+ supi,t E ° ° EFzi x3,it - Ex3,it°4
+ supi,t ∣Ex3,it ∣4
kGx,T (xit
t
Xi)k2
2<M,
Proof of Lemma 3
By Lemma 16(c). ¥
Proof of Lemma 4
Write
., Pi Dtwi≈i=N Pi D
Twei
(ui
Ef.Ui) + (N Pi DT⅛W,'DT) λ. (85)
Notice that by Assumption 10,
∣Ef ɪ P
Fw ° N
i DT wei (ui
EFwui)
2 σ2 1
) = NutrE\N Pi DtυjiWj0 DTJ ■
54
More intriguing information
1. Endogenous Heterogeneity in Strategic Models: Symmetry-breaking via Strategic Substitutes and Nonconcavities2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. Computing optimal sampling designs for two-stage studies
8. The name is absent
9. Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations
10. On Social and Market Sanctions in Deterring non Compliance in Pollution Standards