My proof that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability

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











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












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)



$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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










  • 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















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












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)



$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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










  • 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













up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1






1





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)



$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$







share|cite|improve this question












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)



$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 2 '16 at 21:37









Jack M

17.2k33473




17.2k33473











  • 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










  • 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










  • 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










  • 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












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











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Let see if this works.



Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrtn$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.



Define $W_n=fracS_2nsqrt2n$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.



Finally, take $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt2W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • $S_2n$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
    – 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


















up vote
-1
down vote













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



$$lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac S_nsqrt n - frac W_nsqrt nright|> epsilonright) = lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac 2X_1sqrt n right|> epsilonright) = 0$$



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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










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%2f1597648%2fmy-proof-that-s-n-sqrt-n-does-not-converge-in-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Let see if this works.



Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrtn$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.



Define $W_n=fracS_2nsqrt2n$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.



Finally, take $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt2W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • $S_2n$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
    – 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















up vote
0
down vote













Let see if this works.



Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrtn$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.



Define $W_n=fracS_2nsqrt2n$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.



Finally, take $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt2W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • $S_2n$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
    – 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













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Let see if this works.



Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrtn$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.



Define $W_n=fracS_2nsqrt2n$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.



Finally, take $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt2W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.






share|cite|improve this answer












Let see if this works.



Set $sigma^2=1$ (if sigma is 0 the statment is true) and assume $V_n=S_n/sqrtn$ converges in probability to a r.v. Z.
By the CLT, Z has standard normal distribution.



Define $W_n=fracS_2nsqrt2n$. These variables converge to Z in probability too.



Finally, take $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$.
T converges in distribution to a standard normal, but in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$, because $T_n=sqrt2W_n-V_n$, that has not standard normal distribution.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 5 '16 at 18:56









Kolmo

899614




899614











  • $S_2n$ and $S_n$ are not independent so I do not see why you can say that $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
    – 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 $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
    – 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 $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
– 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 $T_n=fracS_2n-S_nsqrtn$ converges in probability to $(sqrt2-1) Z$
– 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











up vote
-1
down vote













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



$$lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac S_nsqrt n - frac W_nsqrt nright|> epsilonright) = lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac 2X_1sqrt n right|> epsilonright) = 0$$



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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














up vote
-1
down vote













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



$$lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac S_nsqrt n - frac W_nsqrt nright|> epsilonright) = lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac 2X_1sqrt n right|> epsilonright) = 0$$



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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












up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote









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



$$lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac S_nsqrt n - frac W_nsqrt nright|> epsilonright) = lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac 2X_1sqrt n right|> epsilonright) = 0$$



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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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



$$lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac S_nsqrt n - frac W_nsqrt nright|> epsilonright) = lim_nrightarrow infty Pleft(left|frac 2X_1sqrt n right|> epsilonright) = 0$$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 11 at 9:22

























answered Jan 3 '16 at 6:15









Alecos Papadopoulos

7,98811535




7,98811535











  • 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






  • 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












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?