My proof that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability
I'm given a sequence $(X_n)$ of i.i.d. random variables with mean $0$ and finite variance $sigma^2$. Let $S_n=X_1 + ... + X_n$. I have to show that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability. Here's what I did.
Since $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a normal random variable $Z$ with mean zero, if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$. But
$$P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n} - Z| > epsilon) geq P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon)$$
Now I get to the main point I'm not sure of. Can I say that the random variables $S_nsqrt n$ (for any $n$) and $Z$ are independant? It seems like they might be, since in some sense we can't tell what the limit of a sequence will be from any initial segment of it.
If so, then I can continue (this all seems correct to me)
$$begin{align}
&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac {sigma^2} {nepsilon^2})P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
end{align}$$
probability-theory proof-verification
add a comment |
I'm given a sequence $(X_n)$ of i.i.d. random variables with mean $0$ and finite variance $sigma^2$. Let $S_n=X_1 + ... + X_n$. I have to show that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability. Here's what I did.
Since $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a normal random variable $Z$ with mean zero, if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$. But
$$P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n} - Z| > epsilon) geq P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon)$$
Now I get to the main point I'm not sure of. Can I say that the random variables $S_nsqrt n$ (for any $n$) and $Z$ are independant? It seems like they might be, since in some sense we can't tell what the limit of a sequence will be from any initial segment of it.
If so, then I can continue (this all seems correct to me)
$$begin{align}
&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac {sigma^2} {nepsilon^2})P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
end{align}$$
probability-theory proof-verification
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
1
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |
I'm given a sequence $(X_n)$ of i.i.d. random variables with mean $0$ and finite variance $sigma^2$. Let $S_n=X_1 + ... + X_n$. I have to show that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability. Here's what I did.
Since $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a normal random variable $Z$ with mean zero, if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$. But
$$P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n} - Z| > epsilon) geq P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon)$$
Now I get to the main point I'm not sure of. Can I say that the random variables $S_nsqrt n$ (for any $n$) and $Z$ are independant? It seems like they might be, since in some sense we can't tell what the limit of a sequence will be from any initial segment of it.
If so, then I can continue (this all seems correct to me)
$$begin{align}
&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac {sigma^2} {nepsilon^2})P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
end{align}$$
probability-theory proof-verification
I'm given a sequence $(X_n)$ of i.i.d. random variables with mean $0$ and finite variance $sigma^2$. Let $S_n=X_1 + ... + X_n$. I have to show that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability. Here's what I did.
Since $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a normal random variable $Z$ with mean zero, if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$. But
$$P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n} - Z| > epsilon) geq P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon)$$
Now I get to the main point I'm not sure of. Can I say that the random variables $S_nsqrt n$ (for any $n$) and $Z$ are independant? It seems like they might be, since in some sense we can't tell what the limit of a sequence will be from any initial segment of it.
If so, then I can continue (this all seems correct to me)
$$begin{align}
&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac {S_n} {sqrt n}|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac {sigma^2} {nepsilon^2})P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
end{align}$$
probability-theory proof-verification
probability-theory proof-verification
asked Jan 2 '16 at 21:37
Jack M
18.4k33778
18.4k33778
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
1
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
1
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
1
1
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Let see if this works.
Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrt{n}$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.
Define $W_n=frac{S_{2n}}{sqrt{2n}}$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.
Finally, take $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt{2}W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |
I have a partial answer. I think what you need is the Cauchy criterion for convergence in probability, which says:
The sequence $left(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}right)_{ngeq 1}$ converges in probability if and only if
begin{align}
Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow} 0quad text{for every }epsilon>0.
end{align}
However, notice that
begin{align}
&Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)=Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}<-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)-2\
&stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow}2left(Q(2epsilon)+Q(-epsilon)-1right),
end{align}
where $Q(x)=intlimits_{x}^{infty} mathcal{N}(0,1),dx$.
I do not know how to find an $epsilon>0$ such that the term inside the brackets is strictly positive. I am not quite sure if we can find one at all. As I said, this is just a partial solution that I have worked out.
Please feel free to suggest any more additions, or strengthening of arguments.
add a comment |
One can easily construct an entity to which we can say that "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability".
Take for example $W_n = -X_1+X_2+X_3+...+X_n$
Then
$$lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {S_n}{sqrt n} - frac {W_n}{sqrt n}right|> epsilonright) = lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {2X_1}{sqrt n} right|> epsilonright) = 0$$
and the criterion for convergence in probability is satisfied.
So I suspect that "$S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability" must have a more specific and narrow sense in the OP's case.
On another front, the established phrase "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a random variable Z" sometimes makes us forget that the phenomenon described by "convergence in distribution" is that the sequence of distribution functions $F_n$ of $S_n/sqrt n$ converges to a certain distribution function $F$. There is really no $Z$ "at the end of the journey" waiting to "become one" with $S_n/sqrt n$ . $Z$ is a random variable, a separate entity from the distribution that characterizes it (which characterizes also an infinite number of other such $Z$'s). If there is no random variable, the question "is $S_n/sqrt n$ independent of $Z$?" cannot even be posed.
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1597648%2fmy-proof-that-s-n-sqrt-n-does-not-converge-in-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Let see if this works.
Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrt{n}$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.
Define $W_n=frac{S_{2n}}{sqrt{2n}}$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.
Finally, take $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt{2}W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |
Let see if this works.
Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrt{n}$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.
Define $W_n=frac{S_{2n}}{sqrt{2n}}$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.
Finally, take $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt{2}W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |
Let see if this works.
Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrt{n}$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.
Define $W_n=frac{S_{2n}}{sqrt{2n}}$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.
Finally, take $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt{2}W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.
Let see if this works.
Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrt{n}$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.
Define $W_n=frac{S_{2n}}{sqrt{2n}}$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.
Finally, take $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt{2}W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 18:56
Kolmo
909614
909614
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
$S_{2n}$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{sqrt{n}}$ converges in probability to $(sqrt{2}-1) Z$
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:42
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
@Henry: if $X_n$ converges to X in probability and $Y_n$ converges to Y in probability too, the sum converges in probability to X+Y regerdless of the relation between the variables
– Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |
I have a partial answer. I think what you need is the Cauchy criterion for convergence in probability, which says:
The sequence $left(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}right)_{ngeq 1}$ converges in probability if and only if
begin{align}
Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow} 0quad text{for every }epsilon>0.
end{align}
However, notice that
begin{align}
&Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)=Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}<-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)-2\
&stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow}2left(Q(2epsilon)+Q(-epsilon)-1right),
end{align}
where $Q(x)=intlimits_{x}^{infty} mathcal{N}(0,1),dx$.
I do not know how to find an $epsilon>0$ such that the term inside the brackets is strictly positive. I am not quite sure if we can find one at all. As I said, this is just a partial solution that I have worked out.
Please feel free to suggest any more additions, or strengthening of arguments.
add a comment |
I have a partial answer. I think what you need is the Cauchy criterion for convergence in probability, which says:
The sequence $left(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}right)_{ngeq 1}$ converges in probability if and only if
begin{align}
Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow} 0quad text{for every }epsilon>0.
end{align}
However, notice that
begin{align}
&Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)=Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}<-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)-2\
&stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow}2left(Q(2epsilon)+Q(-epsilon)-1right),
end{align}
where $Q(x)=intlimits_{x}^{infty} mathcal{N}(0,1),dx$.
I do not know how to find an $epsilon>0$ such that the term inside the brackets is strictly positive. I am not quite sure if we can find one at all. As I said, this is just a partial solution that I have worked out.
Please feel free to suggest any more additions, or strengthening of arguments.
add a comment |
I have a partial answer. I think what you need is the Cauchy criterion for convergence in probability, which says:
The sequence $left(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}right)_{ngeq 1}$ converges in probability if and only if
begin{align}
Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow} 0quad text{for every }epsilon>0.
end{align}
However, notice that
begin{align}
&Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)=Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}<-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)-2\
&stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow}2left(Q(2epsilon)+Q(-epsilon)-1right),
end{align}
where $Q(x)=intlimits_{x}^{infty} mathcal{N}(0,1),dx$.
I do not know how to find an $epsilon>0$ such that the term inside the brackets is strictly positive. I am not quite sure if we can find one at all. As I said, this is just a partial solution that I have worked out.
Please feel free to suggest any more additions, or strengthening of arguments.
I have a partial answer. I think what you need is the Cauchy criterion for convergence in probability, which says:
The sequence $left(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}right)_{ngeq 1}$ converges in probability if and only if
begin{align}
Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow} 0quad text{for every }epsilon>0.
end{align}
However, notice that
begin{align}
&Pleft(biggvertfrac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}biggvert>epsilonright)=Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}-frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}<-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilon,frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)\
&geq Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}>2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_n}{sqrt{n}}le-2epsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}leepsilonright)+Pleft(frac{S_m}{sqrt{m}}>-epsilonright)-2\
&stackrel{n,mtoinfty}{longrightarrow}2left(Q(2epsilon)+Q(-epsilon)-1right),
end{align}
where $Q(x)=intlimits_{x}^{infty} mathcal{N}(0,1),dx$.
I do not know how to find an $epsilon>0$ such that the term inside the brackets is strictly positive. I am not quite sure if we can find one at all. As I said, this is just a partial solution that I have worked out.
Please feel free to suggest any more additions, or strengthening of arguments.
answered Nov 29 at 5:01
Karthik
977218
977218
add a comment |
add a comment |
One can easily construct an entity to which we can say that "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability".
Take for example $W_n = -X_1+X_2+X_3+...+X_n$
Then
$$lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {S_n}{sqrt n} - frac {W_n}{sqrt n}right|> epsilonright) = lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {2X_1}{sqrt n} right|> epsilonright) = 0$$
and the criterion for convergence in probability is satisfied.
So I suspect that "$S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability" must have a more specific and narrow sense in the OP's case.
On another front, the established phrase "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a random variable Z" sometimes makes us forget that the phenomenon described by "convergence in distribution" is that the sequence of distribution functions $F_n$ of $S_n/sqrt n$ converges to a certain distribution function $F$. There is really no $Z$ "at the end of the journey" waiting to "become one" with $S_n/sqrt n$ . $Z$ is a random variable, a separate entity from the distribution that characterizes it (which characterizes also an infinite number of other such $Z$'s). If there is no random variable, the question "is $S_n/sqrt n$ independent of $Z$?" cannot even be posed.
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |
One can easily construct an entity to which we can say that "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability".
Take for example $W_n = -X_1+X_2+X_3+...+X_n$
Then
$$lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {S_n}{sqrt n} - frac {W_n}{sqrt n}right|> epsilonright) = lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {2X_1}{sqrt n} right|> epsilonright) = 0$$
and the criterion for convergence in probability is satisfied.
So I suspect that "$S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability" must have a more specific and narrow sense in the OP's case.
On another front, the established phrase "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a random variable Z" sometimes makes us forget that the phenomenon described by "convergence in distribution" is that the sequence of distribution functions $F_n$ of $S_n/sqrt n$ converges to a certain distribution function $F$. There is really no $Z$ "at the end of the journey" waiting to "become one" with $S_n/sqrt n$ . $Z$ is a random variable, a separate entity from the distribution that characterizes it (which characterizes also an infinite number of other such $Z$'s). If there is no random variable, the question "is $S_n/sqrt n$ independent of $Z$?" cannot even be posed.
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |
One can easily construct an entity to which we can say that "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability".
Take for example $W_n = -X_1+X_2+X_3+...+X_n$
Then
$$lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {S_n}{sqrt n} - frac {W_n}{sqrt n}right|> epsilonright) = lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {2X_1}{sqrt n} right|> epsilonright) = 0$$
and the criterion for convergence in probability is satisfied.
So I suspect that "$S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability" must have a more specific and narrow sense in the OP's case.
On another front, the established phrase "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a random variable Z" sometimes makes us forget that the phenomenon described by "convergence in distribution" is that the sequence of distribution functions $F_n$ of $S_n/sqrt n$ converges to a certain distribution function $F$. There is really no $Z$ "at the end of the journey" waiting to "become one" with $S_n/sqrt n$ . $Z$ is a random variable, a separate entity from the distribution that characterizes it (which characterizes also an infinite number of other such $Z$'s). If there is no random variable, the question "is $S_n/sqrt n$ independent of $Z$?" cannot even be posed.
One can easily construct an entity to which we can say that "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability".
Take for example $W_n = -X_1+X_2+X_3+...+X_n$
Then
$$lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {S_n}{sqrt n} - frac {W_n}{sqrt n}right|> epsilonright) = lim_{nrightarrow infty} Pleft(left|frac {2X_1}{sqrt n} right|> epsilonright) = 0$$
and the criterion for convergence in probability is satisfied.
So I suspect that "$S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability" must have a more specific and narrow sense in the OP's case.
On another front, the established phrase "$S_n/sqrt n$ converges in distribution to a random variable Z" sometimes makes us forget that the phenomenon described by "convergence in distribution" is that the sequence of distribution functions $F_n$ of $S_n/sqrt n$ converges to a certain distribution function $F$. There is really no $Z$ "at the end of the journey" waiting to "become one" with $S_n/sqrt n$ . $Z$ is a random variable, a separate entity from the distribution that characterizes it (which characterizes also an infinite number of other such $Z$'s). If there is no random variable, the question "is $S_n/sqrt n$ independent of $Z$?" cannot even be posed.
edited Apr 11 at 9:22
answered Jan 3 '16 at 6:15
Alecos Papadopoulos
8,19811535
8,19811535
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
In response to your last paragraph: Yes, I think for this reason this proof (were it valid) would necessarily have to be posed as a proof by contradiction (unlike many proofs by contradiction which can be rephrased as direct proofs of contrapositives). You have to assume the sequence converges in probability to $Z$ in order to even be able to say what $Z$ is.
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:47
1
1
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
I don't understand your construction though. To what are you claiming your $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability?
– Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1597648%2fmy-proof-that-s-n-sqrt-n-does-not-converge-in-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I would suppose that $S_n$ converges in probability for some $X_j$ (e.g., when they are normal distributed). It is only not true that it converges for all $X_j$. So it feels like there is something wrong with your proof.
– Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
@Winther I don't think that really answers the question - my question is specifically about whether the approach I used is valid or can be modified to be valid.
– Jack M
Jan 2 '16 at 22:34
OK, I removed the vote! I'll keep the link above as it might be useful for others.
– Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:35
1
If (in a different question) $Y_n$ converges in probability to a non-constant $V$, and $W$ has the same distribution as $V$ but is not almost surely identical, then $Y_n$ might be said to converge in distribution to $V$ and to $W$ but cannot be said to converge in probability to $W$. So your assertion that "if $S_n/sqrt n$ converges in probability at all it must be to $Z$" looks difficult to justify
– Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31