How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
IID finite-variance weak law
Statement
Let be IID square-integrable real random variables, with and . For , and in and in probability. Also for .
Facts & Assumptions
Identical distribution and IID families: Let be random elements with the same measurable target . They are identically distributed if for all and , that is, their laws in def-law-or-distribution-of-a-random-element agree. They are independent and identically distributed (IID) if, in addition, the whole family is independent in def-independent-random-elements. Independence means mutual independence, not merely pairwise independence. No moment assumption is part of either definition. The empty family satisfies these universal conditions vacuously.
Chebyshev weak law for uncorrelated arrays: For each , let be square-integrable real random variables on one probability space, pairwise uncorrelated within the row, where is finite. Set and let be deterministic. If then in and in probability. More precisely, its second moment is , and its probability of absolute value at least is at most . No independence between rows is required.
For , if are independent real random variables and are Borel measurable with each integrable, then is integrable and in (Expectations factor over finite products of independent random variables).
Proof
Given: The objects and hypotheses of the statement.
IID gives common mean and variance. For distinct indices, factorization of the integrable variables gives , hence zero covariance. Thus the first variables form an uncorrelated row.
Apply the row result with and . Its variance sum is , so it gives the displayed identity, both convergences, and the probability bound. This calculation holds for and for .
Depends on
Used by
- Bernoulli sample frequencies Example
- The Bernoulli sample mean Example
- Finite-alphabet IID information AEP with a variance bound Lemma
- Finite-data fixed-time NTK stability under integrably bounded training directions Lemma
- Gaussian Han-Kobayashi inner region for a fixed private-power split Lemma
- Gaussian superposition Han–Kobayashi region with nonunique decoding and rate moving Lemma
- Likelihood-ratio network coding for finite or Euclidean multicast networks Lemma
- Random coding achieves the finite-dimensional Gaussian multiple-access region Lemma
- Finite-alphabet memoryless rate-distortion coding theorem Theorem
- Khinchin weak law for integrable IID variables Theorem
- Sequential infinite-width NTK limit and finite-time lazy training dynamics Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
22 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Section 2.2.1, p. 58 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Theorem 3.2, pp. 55–56 (standard reference, not scraped)