Property of uniformly tight random variables?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I'm stumped on the following question, which is problem 1.3.9 in the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Proceses by van der Vaart and Wellner. It is based on the following notion of asymptotic tightness:




Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ taking values in a metric space with metric $d$ is asymptotically tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K_0$ such that for every $delta > 0$ we have $varliminf_n to infty P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ where $K_0^delta = x: d(x, K_0) < delta$ is the $delta$-enlargement of $K_0$.




For convenience, the definition of uniform tightness is




Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ is uniformly tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K$ such that $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $K$.




The problem is:




Claim: A sequence $X_n$ is uniformly tight if and only if it is asymptotically tight and each $X_n$ is tight.




I cannot seem to prove the non-trivial direction of this claim. The following hint is given:




Hint: Fix $epsilon > 0$. Take a compact $K_0$ with $varliminf P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $delta$. Choose $n_1 < n_2 < cdots $ such that $P(X_n in K_0^1/m) ge 1 - 2 epsilon$ for $n ge n_m$. For $n_m < n le n_m+1$ choose a compact $K_n$ with $P(X_n in K_0^1/m - K_n) < epsilon$. Now $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact and $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - 3 epsilon$.




Now, I understand everything in the hint except for the claim that $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact. I assume I'm missing something in how $K_n$ is constructed that makes the countable union compact, since obviously a countable union of compact sets isn't necessarily compact. I also can't seem to find a proof of this claim anywhere other than this book, except a proof in the book Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference which apparently just copies this hint and leaves the claim that $K$ is compact as "an exercise left to the reader."



EDIT: I think I have a sketch now for compactness, so if anyone could verify it I would be appreciative. The $K_n$ can be chosen so that $K_0 subseteq K_n subseteq K_0^1/m$ for $n_m < n le n_m+1$. Given an open cover $U_alpha$ of $K$, find a finite subcover of $K_0$, $U_1, ldots, U_K$. Next, find $m$ such that $K_0^1/m subseteq bigcup_k = 1 ^K U_k$ (exists because $K_0$ is compact and $bigcup_k = 1 ^ K U_k$ is open). Hence $U_1, ldots, U_K$ is an open cover for $K_n$ for all $n > n_m$. Now, just use compactness of $K_1, ldots, K_n_m$ extend the open cover $K_n_m + 1, K_n_m + 2, ldots$ to one which covers all $K_n$.







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    I'm stumped on the following question, which is problem 1.3.9 in the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Proceses by van der Vaart and Wellner. It is based on the following notion of asymptotic tightness:




    Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ taking values in a metric space with metric $d$ is asymptotically tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K_0$ such that for every $delta > 0$ we have $varliminf_n to infty P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ where $K_0^delta = x: d(x, K_0) < delta$ is the $delta$-enlargement of $K_0$.




    For convenience, the definition of uniform tightness is




    Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ is uniformly tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K$ such that $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $K$.




    The problem is:




    Claim: A sequence $X_n$ is uniformly tight if and only if it is asymptotically tight and each $X_n$ is tight.




    I cannot seem to prove the non-trivial direction of this claim. The following hint is given:




    Hint: Fix $epsilon > 0$. Take a compact $K_0$ with $varliminf P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $delta$. Choose $n_1 < n_2 < cdots $ such that $P(X_n in K_0^1/m) ge 1 - 2 epsilon$ for $n ge n_m$. For $n_m < n le n_m+1$ choose a compact $K_n$ with $P(X_n in K_0^1/m - K_n) < epsilon$. Now $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact and $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - 3 epsilon$.




    Now, I understand everything in the hint except for the claim that $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact. I assume I'm missing something in how $K_n$ is constructed that makes the countable union compact, since obviously a countable union of compact sets isn't necessarily compact. I also can't seem to find a proof of this claim anywhere other than this book, except a proof in the book Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference which apparently just copies this hint and leaves the claim that $K$ is compact as "an exercise left to the reader."



    EDIT: I think I have a sketch now for compactness, so if anyone could verify it I would be appreciative. The $K_n$ can be chosen so that $K_0 subseteq K_n subseteq K_0^1/m$ for $n_m < n le n_m+1$. Given an open cover $U_alpha$ of $K$, find a finite subcover of $K_0$, $U_1, ldots, U_K$. Next, find $m$ such that $K_0^1/m subseteq bigcup_k = 1 ^K U_k$ (exists because $K_0$ is compact and $bigcup_k = 1 ^ K U_k$ is open). Hence $U_1, ldots, U_K$ is an open cover for $K_n$ for all $n > n_m$. Now, just use compactness of $K_1, ldots, K_n_m$ extend the open cover $K_n_m + 1, K_n_m + 2, ldots$ to one which covers all $K_n$.







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      I'm stumped on the following question, which is problem 1.3.9 in the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Proceses by van der Vaart and Wellner. It is based on the following notion of asymptotic tightness:




      Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ taking values in a metric space with metric $d$ is asymptotically tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K_0$ such that for every $delta > 0$ we have $varliminf_n to infty P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ where $K_0^delta = x: d(x, K_0) < delta$ is the $delta$-enlargement of $K_0$.




      For convenience, the definition of uniform tightness is




      Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ is uniformly tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K$ such that $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $K$.




      The problem is:




      Claim: A sequence $X_n$ is uniformly tight if and only if it is asymptotically tight and each $X_n$ is tight.




      I cannot seem to prove the non-trivial direction of this claim. The following hint is given:




      Hint: Fix $epsilon > 0$. Take a compact $K_0$ with $varliminf P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $delta$. Choose $n_1 < n_2 < cdots $ such that $P(X_n in K_0^1/m) ge 1 - 2 epsilon$ for $n ge n_m$. For $n_m < n le n_m+1$ choose a compact $K_n$ with $P(X_n in K_0^1/m - K_n) < epsilon$. Now $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact and $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - 3 epsilon$.




      Now, I understand everything in the hint except for the claim that $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact. I assume I'm missing something in how $K_n$ is constructed that makes the countable union compact, since obviously a countable union of compact sets isn't necessarily compact. I also can't seem to find a proof of this claim anywhere other than this book, except a proof in the book Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference which apparently just copies this hint and leaves the claim that $K$ is compact as "an exercise left to the reader."



      EDIT: I think I have a sketch now for compactness, so if anyone could verify it I would be appreciative. The $K_n$ can be chosen so that $K_0 subseteq K_n subseteq K_0^1/m$ for $n_m < n le n_m+1$. Given an open cover $U_alpha$ of $K$, find a finite subcover of $K_0$, $U_1, ldots, U_K$. Next, find $m$ such that $K_0^1/m subseteq bigcup_k = 1 ^K U_k$ (exists because $K_0$ is compact and $bigcup_k = 1 ^ K U_k$ is open). Hence $U_1, ldots, U_K$ is an open cover for $K_n$ for all $n > n_m$. Now, just use compactness of $K_1, ldots, K_n_m$ extend the open cover $K_n_m + 1, K_n_m + 2, ldots$ to one which covers all $K_n$.







      share|cite|improve this question














      I'm stumped on the following question, which is problem 1.3.9 in the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Proceses by van der Vaart and Wellner. It is based on the following notion of asymptotic tightness:




      Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ taking values in a metric space with metric $d$ is asymptotically tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K_0$ such that for every $delta > 0$ we have $varliminf_n to infty P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ where $K_0^delta = x: d(x, K_0) < delta$ is the $delta$-enlargement of $K_0$.




      For convenience, the definition of uniform tightness is




      Definition: A sequence of random variables $X_1, X_2, ldots$ is uniformly tight if for every $epsilon > 0$ there exists a compact $K$ such that $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $K$.




      The problem is:




      Claim: A sequence $X_n$ is uniformly tight if and only if it is asymptotically tight and each $X_n$ is tight.




      I cannot seem to prove the non-trivial direction of this claim. The following hint is given:




      Hint: Fix $epsilon > 0$. Take a compact $K_0$ with $varliminf P(X_n in K_0^delta) ge 1 - epsilon$ for every $delta$. Choose $n_1 < n_2 < cdots $ such that $P(X_n in K_0^1/m) ge 1 - 2 epsilon$ for $n ge n_m$. For $n_m < n le n_m+1$ choose a compact $K_n$ with $P(X_n in K_0^1/m - K_n) < epsilon$. Now $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact and $P(X_n in K) ge 1 - 3 epsilon$.




      Now, I understand everything in the hint except for the claim that $K = bigcup_n = 0 ^ infty K_n$ is compact. I assume I'm missing something in how $K_n$ is constructed that makes the countable union compact, since obviously a countable union of compact sets isn't necessarily compact. I also can't seem to find a proof of this claim anywhere other than this book, except a proof in the book Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference which apparently just copies this hint and leaves the claim that $K$ is compact as "an exercise left to the reader."



      EDIT: I think I have a sketch now for compactness, so if anyone could verify it I would be appreciative. The $K_n$ can be chosen so that $K_0 subseteq K_n subseteq K_0^1/m$ for $n_m < n le n_m+1$. Given an open cover $U_alpha$ of $K$, find a finite subcover of $K_0$, $U_1, ldots, U_K$. Next, find $m$ such that $K_0^1/m subseteq bigcup_k = 1 ^K U_k$ (exists because $K_0$ is compact and $bigcup_k = 1 ^ K U_k$ is open). Hence $U_1, ldots, U_K$ is an open cover for $K_n$ for all $n > n_m$. Now, just use compactness of $K_1, ldots, K_n_m$ extend the open cover $K_n_m + 1, K_n_m + 2, ldots$ to one which covers all $K_n$.









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Oct 12 '14 at 6:53

























      asked Oct 12 '14 at 6:26









      guy

      2,41311626




      2,41311626




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          A simpler way to show the non-trivial direction of the posted claim is the follwoing.



          Since the sequence of random variables is asymptotically tight, we have that there is some $n^*$ such that, for all $n>n^*$, $sup_kge nP(X_nnotin K)<epsilon$. Uniform tightness thus follows by combining this result with the fact that the collection $(X_1,...,X_n^*)$ is finite and the fact that every finite collection of tight random variables is also tight.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
            – guy
            Aug 17 at 2:08











          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f969769%2fproperty-of-uniformly-tight-random-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          A simpler way to show the non-trivial direction of the posted claim is the follwoing.



          Since the sequence of random variables is asymptotically tight, we have that there is some $n^*$ such that, for all $n>n^*$, $sup_kge nP(X_nnotin K)<epsilon$. Uniform tightness thus follows by combining this result with the fact that the collection $(X_1,...,X_n^*)$ is finite and the fact that every finite collection of tight random variables is also tight.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
            – guy
            Aug 17 at 2:08















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          A simpler way to show the non-trivial direction of the posted claim is the follwoing.



          Since the sequence of random variables is asymptotically tight, we have that there is some $n^*$ such that, for all $n>n^*$, $sup_kge nP(X_nnotin K)<epsilon$. Uniform tightness thus follows by combining this result with the fact that the collection $(X_1,...,X_n^*)$ is finite and the fact that every finite collection of tight random variables is also tight.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
            – guy
            Aug 17 at 2:08













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          A simpler way to show the non-trivial direction of the posted claim is the follwoing.



          Since the sequence of random variables is asymptotically tight, we have that there is some $n^*$ such that, for all $n>n^*$, $sup_kge nP(X_nnotin K)<epsilon$. Uniform tightness thus follows by combining this result with the fact that the collection $(X_1,...,X_n^*)$ is finite and the fact that every finite collection of tight random variables is also tight.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          A simpler way to show the non-trivial direction of the posted claim is the follwoing.



          Since the sequence of random variables is asymptotically tight, we have that there is some $n^*$ such that, for all $n>n^*$, $sup_kge nP(X_nnotin K)<epsilon$. Uniform tightness thus follows by combining this result with the fact that the collection $(X_1,...,X_n^*)$ is finite and the fact that every finite collection of tight random variables is also tight.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 17 at 0:45









          Chen

          112




          112











          • Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
            – guy
            Aug 17 at 2:08

















          • Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
            – guy
            Aug 17 at 2:08
















          Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
          – guy
          Aug 17 at 2:08





          Thanks for the answer. It has been a long time so I am a little bit hazy, but how do you know there exists an $n^*$ with this property? If I remember correctly, this property is stronger than asymptotic tightness; for asymptotic tightness we can only guarantee an $n^star$ such that $sup_k ge n P(X_n notin K^delta) le epsilon$ for a $delta$-enlargement of $K$, and I vaguely recall that Van der Vaart and Wellner explicitly state that you cannot prove equivalence between these properties.
          – guy
          Aug 17 at 2:08













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f969769%2fproperty-of-uniformly-tight-random-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          1st Magritte Awards