WikiProject Statistics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 Start Class
 Low Importance
Field: Probability and statistics

## term

Adapted process is related to "predictable process"/"nonanticipating process"? Jackzhp 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "adapted" and "non-anticipating" are synonyms. I have added a note to this effect in the main article. I have also added redirects from "nonanticipating process" and "non-anticipating process". Sullivan.t.j 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think we can have a process that is not adapted, but still non-anticipating. For example, if F is filtration generated by Brownian motion, and G is filtration that contains F plus extra, but this extra is independent of the future, then we can define a process X(t) that is NOT adapted to F (depends on this extra), but is still non-anticipating. You can actually integrate this process w.r.t Brownian motion, but Ito/Martingale representation will not work (I think). 89.235.241.7 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

### type error?

"Integrand"? when I clicked it, I was directed to Integral. Is there anything wrong here? Jackzhp 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing is wrong. If you read the article Integral, you will see that the term "integrand" is defined: it is the thing that is integrated. Sullivan.t.j 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

### "See into the future"

It seems that some processes can see into the future, some can not. Can someone please give an example for each case? Jackzhp 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. :-) Sullivan.t.j 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)