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.
Convergence in probability and almost surely agree for independent series
Statement
For partial sums of independent real random variables on one probability space, the following are equivalent: is Cauchy in probability; converges in probability to a finite real random variable; converges almost surely to a finite real random variable. The probability and almost-sure limits agree almost surely.
Facts & Assumptions
Levy maximal bound from uniform tail bounds: Let be independent real random variables, , with . Let and . If then No centering or moment assumption is required.
Almost-sure convergence of a random series: For real random variables , the series converges almost surely if its partial sums converge to a finite real limit on an event of probability one, as in def-almost-sure-convergence-of-random-variables. With from def-partial-sums-and-sample-means, its convergence event is This is exactly the real Cauchy condition, with the indexing of thm-series-cauchy-criterion shifted by one. Measurable arithmetic makes every event in this countable expression measurable. For any fixed , the union over may be restricted to ; then each difference uses only . Thus is in the tail sigma-algebra, without assuming independence. Under independence, cor-almost-sure-convergence-of-an-independent-series-is-a-zero-one-event gives . Set on and off . The functions converge everywhere to , so thm-sequential-suprema-infima-limsup-liminf-and-pointwise-limits-are-measurable and thm-arithmetic-and-lattice-operations-preserve-measurability make measurable. For Borel sets , the event is likewise tail measurable. Changing finitely many summands adds an eventually constant finite difference to ; divided by deterministic tending to infinity that difference tends to zero, so the normalized limsup is unchanged. The sign of the unnormalized limsup need not be unchanged: the all-zero sequence has limsup zero, while changing its first term to makes the limsup of partial sums equal to .
Convergence in probability: For real random variables and on one probability space, write in probability when, for every , This is precisely def-convergence-in-measure for the probability measure.
Continuity from below for measures: Let be an increasing sequence of measurable sets for a measure , so . Then No finiteness hypothesis is required.
Continuity from above when one set has finite measure: Let be a decreasing sequence of measurable sets for a measure . If for some , then
A series converges iff for every there is with for all : Let be a sequence of reals, with partial sums (def-series). Then converges if and only if The block is the finite sum of def-finite-sum, and it equals . This is the Cauchy criterion transported from sequences to series. Its value is that it decides convergence without producing, or even naming, the sum.
Almost-sure convergence implies convergence in probability: If almost surely, then in probability.
Limits in probability are unique almost surely: If and in probability, then almost surely.
Cauchy sequences in probability have a measurable limit: Let be real random variables on one probability space. Suppose that for every there is such that Then there is a finite measurable real random variable such that in probability.
Proof
Given: The objects and hypotheses of the statement.
Convergence in probability implies the Cauchy condition: for , the event is contained in , whose probabilities are uniformly small for sufficiently large . Conversely the Cauchy-in-probability completeness lemma gives a measurable finite probability limit.
Assume the Cauchy condition. Fix and . For all sufficiently large and all , every tail of the finite block is an increment with both indices sufficiently large. Its probability of magnitude at least is at most : use the Cauchy condition at the strictly smaller tolerance . The tail maximal lemma gives .
Pass to the infinite strict supremum by continuity from below. Let . Since , the previous estimate bounds by for sufficiently large . These events decrease with . Continuity from above and arbitrariness of show . Take for all positive integers . Outside a single null set the partial sums are real Cauchy, hence converge finitely; their limit extended by zero is measurable as in the series definition.
Almost-sure convergence implies convergence in probability. Its probability limit and any probability limit from the first step coincide almost surely by uniqueness. Thus all three conditions are equivalent. No moment hypothesis was introduced, and zero or deterministic increments cause no exception.
Depends on
- Levy maximal bound from uniform tail bounds
- Almost-sure convergence of a random series
- Convergence in probability
- Continuity from below for measures
- Continuity from above when one set has finite measure
- A series converges iff for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $N$ with $|a_{m+1} + \dots + a_n| < \varepsilon$ for all $n > m \ge N$
- Almost-sure convergence implies convergence in probability
- Limits in probability are unique almost surely
- Cauchy sequences in probability have a measurable limit
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
34 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
- Theorem 3.9, implication (ii) to (iii), pp. 63–65 (standard reference, not scraped)