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.
An integrable stationary sequence has an L1 Cesaro limit
Statement
Let be a real-valued strictly stationary sequence with . Here strictly stationary means that every finite-dimensional law is unchanged by every nonnegative integer shift. Then there is an integrable random variable such that
that is, . No independence or ergodicity is assumed, and the proof uses no choice axiom.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A real strictly stationary sequence with .
Strict stationarity means invariance of all finite-dimensional laws under every nonnegative integer shift; the canonical path shift preserves the stationary path law. (Stationary process and canonical path shift)
Pointwise limsup and liminf of measurable real sequences are measurable. (Sequential suprema, infima, limsup, liminf, and pointwise limits of measurable functions are measurable)
On a probability space, dominated pointwise convergence under one integrable majorant implies convergence of the integrals of absolute differences. (Dominated convergence)
Increasing limits pass through the nonnegative integral. (Monotone convergence for the integral)
Expectation of an integrable real random variable is its Lebesgue integral. (Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable)
Proof
Given: A real strictly stationary sequence with .
First suppose and almost surely for each . Put and . Then , and for every fixed the averages have the same limsup : their difference from is at most , which tends to zero.
Fix . For each let be the least positive integer for which . Such an exists by the definition of limsup; [F1] and shift invariance show that the all have the same distribution. Choose an integer so that , and set .
For every , and . Define as the first for which the average of exceeds . If , the same average of the larger sequence at length exceeds ; if , then . Thus in either case.
Starting from , recursively set . Each increment is between and , and the average of on each block exceeds . Therefore .
For , take the last ; then . The remaining terms are at least , so , using . Hence .
Stationarity gives . Taking expectations in step 5.1 and then letting gives . Since this holds for every such , . Applying the same argument to shows . The bounded nonnegative difference therefore has expectation at most zero, so it vanishes almost surely. Thus converges almost surely; [F2] gives convergence in .
If instead without centering, the case is immediate; for apply the preceding result to , whose terms are centered and have absolute value at most . Rescaling and adding proves the bounded case.
Suppose and is integrable but not necessarily bounded. For set and . Define the limit canonically by ; it is measurable by [F1]. By step 7.1, the averages converge almost surely and in to this integrable . On the common probability-one event for these countably many convergences, ; also and .
Let . By [F3], is integrable and . Given , choose with ; then also . For this fixed , stationarity and nonnegativity give , while . The triangle inequality proves , and arbitrariness of gives convergence.
For a signed integrable stationary sequence, apply the nonnegative case in steps 8.1–9.1 separately to and . Both are stationary nonnegative integrable sequences, and subtracting their limits gives an integrable limit for the averages of . The entire argument used no choice principle.
Sources
Last and Penrose, Appendix B.2, Theorem B.11 and complete proof; Walkden's Birkhoff treatment is stronger and is not used as a choice-bearing shortcut.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
31 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
- Günter Last and Mathew Penrose, Lectures on the Poisson Process, Appendix B.2, Theorem B.11 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Charles Walkden, Ergodic Theory lecture notes (standard reference, not scraped)