My proof that $S_n/sqrt n$ does not converge in probability
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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)
$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$
probability-theory proof-verification
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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)
$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$
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.
â Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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
â Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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)
$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$
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)
$$beginalign
&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon, |Z|>2epsilon) \
=&P(|frac S_n sqrt n|<epsilon)P(|Z|>2epsilon) \
geq&(1 - frac sigma^2 nepsilon^2)P(|Z|>2epsilon) to P(|Z|>2epsilon) > 0
endalign$$
probability-theory proof-verification
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.
â Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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
â Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |Â
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.
â Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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
â 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.
â 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.
â Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â Winther
Jan 2 '16 at 22:31
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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
â 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
â Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31
add a comment |Â
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.
$S_2n$ 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
â 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?
â Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |Â
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.
$S_2n$ 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |Â
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.
$S_2n$ 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |Â
$S_2n$ 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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 $(sqrt2-1) Z$
â 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
â 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
â Kolmo
Dec 5 '17 at 21:23
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
â 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?
â Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
â 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?
â Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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.
â 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?
â Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |Â
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.
â 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?
â 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.
â 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.
â 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?
â 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?
â Jack M
Jan 3 '16 at 7:50
add a comment |Â
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
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
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
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
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
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.
â Fabian
Jan 2 '16 at 22:03
Possible duplicate of A sequence of random variables that does not converge in probability.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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
â Henry
Dec 5 '17 at 11:31