Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07
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.

Exact tail criterion for a truncated-centered IID weak law

Statement

For IID real random variables (Xn)n≥1 and Sn=∑k=1nXk, there exist deterministic real constants (μn) with Sn/n−μn→0 in probability if and only if nP(∣X1∣>n)⟶0. When this condition holds, μn=E[X11{∣X1∣≤n}] works. Neither existence of an untruncated mean nor convergence of (μn) is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Identical distribution and IID families: Let (Xi)i∈I be random elements with the same measurable target (E,E). They are identically distributed if P(Xi∈B)=P(Xj∈B) for all i,j∈I and B∈E, 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.

[F2]

Independent-copy symmetrization of random series: Given an independent sequence (Xn)n≥1 on (Ω,F,P), form the product probability space (Ω2,F⊗F,P⊗P). Write Un(ω,ω′)=Xn(ω), Vn(ω,ω′)=Xn(ω′), and Zn=Un−Vn. Then (Un) and (Vn) are independent copies of the whole sequence, and the Zn are independent symmetric real random variables. Almost-sure convergence of ∑nXn implies almost-sure convergence of ∑nZn. If ∣Xn∣≤A almost surely for every n, with 0≤A<∞, then ∣Zn∣≤2A almost surely, EZn=0, and Var⁡(Zn)=2Var⁡(Xn).

[F3]

Tail comparisons under independent-copy symmetrization: Let X′ be an independent copy of a real random variable X. For every t>0, P(∣X−X′∣>t)≤2P(∣X∣>t/2). There exists a finite M≥0 with P(∣X∣≤M)≥1/2; for every such M, P(∣X−X′∣>t)≥12P(∣X∣>t+M).

[F4]

One-sided maximal inequality for symmetric independent sums: For independent symmetric real random variables X1,…,Xn, n≥1, let Sk=∑j=1kXj. For every real a, P(max⁡1≤k≤nSk>a)≤2P(Sn>a). Consequently for every t>0, P(max⁡1≤k≤n∣Sk∣>t)≤2P(∣Sn∣>t). No moment assumptions are needed.

[F5]

Truncation weak law for independent arrays: For each n≥1 let Xn,1,…,Xn,rn be independent real random variables on one probability space, with finite rn≥0. Let deterministic bn>0 tend to infinity and set Yn,k=Xn,k1{∣Xn,k∣≤bn}. If ∑k=1rnP(∣Xn,k∣>bn)→0,bn−2∑k=1rnVar⁡(Yn,k)→0, then ∑k=1rnXn,k−∑k=1rnEYn,kbn⟶0in probability. No independence between rows is required.

[F6]

Vanishing tail control bounds truncated second moments: Let X be a real random variable with nP(∣X∣>n)→0 as positive integers n→∞. Then xP(∣X∣>x)→0 for real x→∞, and E[X21{∣X∣≤n}]n⟶0. Moreover E∣X∣p<∞ for every 0<p<1.

[F7]

Convergence in probability: For real random variables (Xn) and X on one probability space, write Xn→X in probability when, for every ε>0, P(∣Xn−X∣>ε)⟶0. This is precisely def-convergence-in-measure for the probability measure.

[F8]

Finite and countable subadditivity of measures: Let μ be a measure and let (Ek)k∈N be measurable. Then μ(⋃k∈NEk)≤∑k=0∞μ(Ek). For every m∈N one also has μ(⋃k<mEk)≤∑k<mμ(Ek), including m=0, where both sides are 0.

[F9]

Largest-summand bound for independent symmetric variables: Let Y1,…,Yn be independent symmetric real random variables, n≥1, and Sn=∑k=1nYk. For t>0, P(∣Sn∣≥t)≥12P(max⁡k≤n∣Yk∣≥t). The same bound holds when both inequalities inside the probabilities are strict. If the Yk are IID and p=P(∣Y1∣>t), then P(∣Sn∣>t)≥12(1−(1−p)n)≥12(1−e−np).

Proof

Given: The objects and hypotheses of the statement.

1.1F6F5F1given

Assume the tail condition and take row Xn,k=Xk for 1≤k≤n, with bn=n. The sum of row tail probabilities is nP(∣X1∣>n)→0. The normalized truncated variance sum is at most n−1E[X121{∣X1∣≤n}]→0 by the second-moment lemma. The truncated array law yields the claimed convergence with the explicit finite μn.

1.2F2F8F7given

For necessity suppose constants μn give the convergence. On the two-factor product take an independent copy Xk′ and let Zk=Xk−Xk′, Tn=∑k=1nZk. The Zk are IID and symmetric. The triangle and union bounds give P(∣Tn∣>εn)≤2P(∣Sn−nμn∣>εn/2)→0. The deterministic center cancels exactly.

2.1F9step 1.2algebra

For pn=P(∣Z1∣>εn), the largest-summand bound gives P(∣Tn∣>εn)≥(1−e−npn)/2. Since the left side tends to zero and npn≥0, necessarily npn→0; otherwise a positive lower bound along a subsequence would keep the right side away from zero.

3.1F3step 2.1algebra

Choose finite M≥0 with P(∣X1∣≤M)≥1/2. The symmetrization lower bound with t=n/2 gives P(∣Z1∣>n/2)≥P(∣X1∣>n/2+M)/2≥P(∣X1∣>n)/2 for n≥2M. Multiply by n and use the previous step with ε=1/2. This proves necessity, including atomic or deterministic laws.

4.1F4step 1.2algebra∎

An alternative check of the maximal step uses Zk=Tk−Tk−1 with T0=0, whence max⁡k∣Zk∣≤2max⁡k∣Tk∣. The symmetric maximal inequality gives P(max⁡k∣Zk∣>2εn)≤2P(∣Tn∣>εn)→0. Independence then gives 1−(1−P(∣Z1∣>2εn))n→0, hence again nP(∣Z1∣>2εn)→0 by 1−p≤e−p. Both checks retain strict events and allow atoms.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

32 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