ましょうランダム変数STの配列である確率で> 0は固定された定数です。私は次を見せようとしています: √
試行
最初の部分については、我々は持っています
お知らせその後、第二部については、
ここで、 as、は有界シーケンスです。つまり、実数が存在する STは。したがって、 確率で見ると、 P (| a
私は最初のものにはかなり自信がありますが、2番目のものにはかなり不安です。私の論理は健全でしたか?
ましょうランダム変数STの配列である確率で> 0は固定された定数です。私は次を見せようとしています: √
試行
最初の部分については、我々は持っています
お知らせその後、第二部については、
ここで、 as、は有界シーケンスです。つまり、実数が存在する STは。したがって、 確率で見ると、 P (| a
私は最初のものにはかなり自信がありますが、2番目のものにはかなり不安です。私の論理は健全でしたか?
回答:
The details of the proofs matter less than developing appropriate intuition and techniques. This answer focuses on an approach designed to help do that. It consists of three steps: a "setup" in which the assumption and definitions are introduced; the "body" (or a "crucial step") in which the assumptions are somehow related to what is to be proven, and the "denouement" in which the proof is completed. As in many cases with probability proofs, the crucial step here is a matter of working with numbers (the possible values of random variables) rather than dealing with the much more complicated random variables themselves.
Convergence in probability of a sequence of random variables to a constant means that no matter what neighborhood of you pick, eventually each lies in this neighborhood with a probability that is arbitrarily close to . (I won't spell out how to translate "eventually" and "arbitrarily close" into formal mathematics--anybody interested in this post already knows that.)
Recall that a neighborhood of is any set of real numbers containing an open set of which is a member.
セットアップはルーチンです。 シーケンスを考え、Oを0の任意の近傍とする。目的は、最終的にY n − 1がOに横たわる可能性がarbitrarily意的に高くなることを示すことです。以来、Oは近隣で、存在しなければならないε > 0のための開区間(- ε 、ε )⊂ O。私たちは縮むことがε、必要に応じて確保するためにε < 1, too. This will assure that subsequent manipulations are legitimate and useful.
The crucial step will be to connect with . That requires no knowledge of random variables at all. The algebra of numeric inequalities (exploiting the assumption ) tells us that the set of numbers , for any , is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of all for which
Equivalently,
Since , the right hand side indeed is a neighborhood of . (This clearly shows what breaks down when .)
We are ready for the denouement.
Because in probability, we know that eventually each will lie within with arbitrarily high probability. Equivalently, will eventually lie within with arbitrarily high probability, QED.
We are given that
and we want to show that
We have that
So equivalently, we are examining the probability limit
We can break the probability into two mutually exclusive joint probabilities
For the first element we have the series of inequalities
The first inequality comes from the fact that we are considering the region where is higher than unity and so its reciprocal is smaller than unity. The second inequality because a joint probability of a set of events cannot be greater than the probability of a subset of these events.
The limit of the rightmost term is zero (this is the premise), so the limit of the leftmost term is also zero. So the first element of the probability that interests us is zero.
For the second element we have
Define . Since here is bounded, it follows that can be made arnitrarily small or large, and so it is equivalent to . So we have the inequality
Again, the limit on the right side is zero by our premise, so the limit on the left side is also zero. Therefore the second element of the probability that interests us is also zero. QED.
For the first part, take , and note that
For the second part, take again , and cheat from Hubber's answer (this is the key step ;-) to define
Therefore,
Note: both items are consequences of a more general result. First of all remember this Lemma: if and only if for any subsequence there is a subsequence such that almost surely when . Also, remember from Real Analysis that is continuous at a limit point of if and only if for every sequence in it holds that implies . Hence, if is continuous and almost surely, then