Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 9 results · all verified · 8 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Modes of Convergence for Random Variables — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These constructions delimit the implication diagram and make the subsequence and uniform-integrability mechanisms concrete.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Convergence in probability need not be almost sure

Statement refuted

Convergence in probability need not imply almost-sure convergence.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Independent events En with P(En)=1/(n+1), and Xn=1En.

[L1]

Pairwise independent events with divergent probability sum occur infinitely often almost surely (Second Borel-Cantelli lemma under pairwise independence).

[L2]

Convergence in probability is fixed-threshold tail convergence (Convergence in probability).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L2

For 0<ε<1, P(∣Xn∣>ε)=1/(n+1)→0; for ε≥1 it is zero. Hence Xn→0 in probability by [L2].

2.1step 1.1L1∎

But ∑nP(En)=∞, so [L1] gives En infinitely often almost surely. On that event Xn has infinitely many values 1, and therefore cannot converge to 0.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Almost-sure convergence need not imply Lp convergence

Statement refuted

Almost-sure convergence need not imply Lp convergence, even for 1≤p<∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Lebesgue probability space (0,1), 1≤p<∞, and Xn=(n+1)1/p1(0,1/(n+1)) for n∈N.

[L1]

Almost-sure convergence is pointwise convergence outside a null set (Almost-sure convergence of real random variables).

[L2]

Lp convergence requires the Lp norm of the difference to vanish (Lp convergence for random variables).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

For every x∈(0,1), eventually 1/(n+1)<x, so Xn(x)=0. Thus Xn→0 everywhere on (0,1), hence almost surely by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

Yet E∣Xn∣p=∫01/(n+1)(n+1) dx=1, so [step 1.1, L2] ∥Xn∥p=1 for every n. By [L2], there is no Lp convergence to zero.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Lp convergence need not imply almost-sure convergence

Statement refuted

Lp convergence need not imply almost-sure convergence, for any fixed 1≤p<∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Lebesgue probability space (0,1) and, for m≥0, the 2m dyadic intervals Im,j=[j2−m,(j+1)2−m), listed block by block; let Xn be their indicators in that order.

[L1]

Lp convergence is vanishing of the pth moment of the difference (Lp convergence for random variables).

[L2]

Almost-sure convergence requires pointwise convergence off a null set (Almost-sure convergence of real random variables).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

In the block of level m, every Xn has E∣Xn∣p=2−m. As the block level tends to infinity with n, ∥Xn∥p=2−m/p→0; hence Xn→0 in Lp by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

Every non-dyadic x∈(0,1) belongs to exactly one interval in each level-m block, but misses all the other intervals in that block. Thus Xn(x) equals both 1 and 0 infinitely often. The exceptional dyadic endpoints are null, so [L2] rules out almost-sure convergence.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Convergence in distribution need not be convergence in probability

Statement refuted

Convergence in distribution need not imply convergence in probability.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A random variable X with P(X=1)=P(X=−1)=1/2, and Xn=−X.

[L1]

Distributional convergence is convergence of the corresponding CDFs at continuity points (Convergence in distribution for real random variables).

[L2]

Probability convergence makes every positive error probability vanish (Convergence in probability).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

The symmetric two-point law of −X equals that of X, so FXn=FX for every n. Therefore Xn⇒X by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

But ∣Xn−X∣=2 almost surely, so P(∣Xn−X∣>1)=1 for every n. By [L2], Xn does not converge to X in probability.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Convergence in probability need not imply Lp convergence

Statement refuted

Convergence in probability need not imply Lp convergence, for 1≤p<∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: 1≤p<∞, events En with P(En)=1/(n+1), and Xn=(n+1)1/p1En for n∈N.

[L1]

Convergence in probability is fixed-threshold tail convergence (Convergence in probability).

[L2]

Lp convergence requires the pth moment of the difference to tend to zero (Lp convergence for random variables).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

For fixed ε>0, Xn is nonzero only on En, hence [L1] P(∣Xn∣>ε)≤1/(n+1)→0. Thus Xn→0 in probability by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

Nevertheless, [step 1.1, L2] E∣Xn∣p=(n+1)P(En)=1 for all n. By [L2], Xn does not converge to zero in Lp.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Lp convergence need not imply Lq convergence when p<q

Statement refuted

For 1≤p<q<∞, Lp convergence need not imply Lq convergence.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Lebesgue probability space (0,1), 1≤p<q<∞, and Xn=(n+1)1/q1(0,1/(n+1)) for n∈N.

[L1]

Lr convergence is vanishing of E∣Xn−X∣r for the relevant exponent r (Lp convergence for random variables).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

Direct calculation gives [L1] E∣Xn∣p=(n+1)p/q−1→0, since p/q−1<0. Thus Xn→0 in Lp by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L1∎

But E∣Xn∣q=(n+1)/(n+1)=1 for every n, so the [step 1.1, L1] Lq norm never tends to zero. Hence [L1] rules out Lq convergence.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Almost-sure convergence does not imply convergence of expectations

Statement refuted

Almost-sure convergence alone need not imply convergence of expectations.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Lebesgue probability space (0,1) and Xn=(n+1)1(0,1/(n+1)) for n∈N.

[L1]

Almost-sure convergence is pointwise convergence off a null set (Almost-sure convergence of real random variables).

[L2]

Expectation is integration against the probability measure (Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1

For every x∈(0,1), eventually x>1/(n+1), so Xn(x)=0. [L1] Hence Xn→0 almost surely by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

Yet [L2] gives [step 1.1, L2] EXn=∫01/(n+1)(n+1) dx=1 for every n, whereas E0=0. Thus the expectations do not converge.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-07Open item page →

A probability-convergent sequence with a prescribed fast almost-sure subsequence

Example

Suppose Xn→X in probability. Given any sequences ak>0 with ak↓0 and bk>0 with ∑kbk<∞, one can choose increasing nk so that P(∣Xnk−X∣>ak)<bk and Xnk→X almost surely.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Xn→X in probability, ak>0 with ak↓0, and bk>0 with ∑kbk<∞.

[L1]

Probability convergence supplies a later index for every positive threshold and positive bound (Convergence in probability).

[L2]

The least-index construction with a summable error schedule yields an almost-surely convergent subsequence (An almost-surely convergent subsequence from convergence in probability).

Verification

technique · constructive
1.1L1construct

After nk−1, choose nk least with P(∣Xnk−X∣>ak)<bk; [L1] makes every choice possible.

2.1step 1.1L2discharge-construct∎

The proof of [L2] uses only that the displayed probabilities are summable and that ak→0. Thus it applies to these nk and gives almost-sure convergence.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07Open item page →

Uniform integrability repairs the expectation limit

Example

Let Xn→X in probability and suppose ∣Xn∣≤M almost surely for one finite constant M and every n. Then Xn→X in L1 and EXn→EX.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Xn→X in probability and ∣Xn∣≤M almost surely for all n.

[L1]

Uniform integrability is the uniform decay of tail integrals (A uniformly integrable family).

[L2]

Under probability convergence, uniform integrability is equivalent to L1 convergence (Uniform integrability characterizes L1 convergence under probability convergence).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1

If R>M, then ∣Xn∣1∣Xn∣>R=0 almost surely for every n. Hence the family (Xn) is uniformly integrable by [L1].

2.1step 1.1L2∎

By [L2], Xn→X in L1. Therefore ∣EXn−EX∣≤E∣Xn−X∣→0, proving convergence of expectations.

Sources