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.

Weak Convergence Tightness and Representation — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Explicit point masses, grids, moment bounds, Gaussian affine images and quantiles illustrate weak convergence and representation. Further witnesses separate continuity-point CDF convergence from unrestricted pointwise convergence, continuous from measurable tests, tightness from moment control, and finite-support empirical laws from their atom frequencies.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Dirac laws converge weakly exactly when their points converge

Example

On a metric space S, δxnδx if and only if xnx. For example, on the real line δ1/(n+1)δ0.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

A unit point mass is a probability: among disjoint sets at most one contains its point, so the indicator formula is countably additive. Its integral of a bounded measurable f is f at that point, first for simple functions and then by bounded approximation. If xnx, continuity gives fdδxn=f(xn)f(x)=fdδx for each bounded continuous f. By F1 this is weak convergence.

F1
2.1

Conversely test weak convergence with f(y)=min(1,d(y,x)), a bounded continuous function. Its limiting integral is f(x)=0, so min(1,d(xn,x))->0; for ε<1 this forces d(xn,x)<ε eventually. Thus x_n->x. For the displayed example this distance is 1/(n+1)0=1/(n+1)0.

givenalgebra
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Uniform laws on expanding finite grids converge to uniform zero one

Example

Assume AC. For n1, the laws μn=n1k=1nδk/n converge weakly to Lebesgue probability on [0,1].

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): The Axiom of Countable Choice, written ACω, is the following statement.

For every family (Xn)nN of nonempty sets indexed by N there is a function f with domain N such that f(n)Xn for every nN.

Equivalently, in the vocabulary of def-choice-function: every at most countable family of nonempty sets (def-countable) has a choice function.

[F2]

A box in Rn with parameters aibi is Lebesgue measurable of measure i<n(biai), whichever of its faces are included: Let n1, assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice), and let aibi be reals for i<n. Write

R:={xRn:ai<xi<bi for every i<n},R:=[a,b]={xRn:aixibi for every i<n}

(def-multidimensional-rectangle-and-volume). Then R is open and R is closed, so both are Borel and Lebesgue measurable, and every set R with RRR is Lebesgue measurable with

λn(R)  =  i<n(biai).

In particular this covers the four one-dimensional face conventions in each coordinate — the open box, the closed box [a,b], the half-open box B(a,b)=i<n(ai,bi] of def-half-open-box, and every mixture of them, in any combination of coordinates — and it gives measure 0 to all of them whenever ai=bi for some i<n. For a half-open box with infinite parameters the value is already λn(B)=vol(B) (thm-lebesgue-measure-is-a-complete-measure).

[F3]

The nonnegative integral agrees with the simple integral on simple functions: If s is a nonnegative simple measurable function, then its nonnegative Lebesgue integral equals its simple integral: sdμ=simplesdμ.

[F4]

Heine-Cantor in R: a continuous real function on a compact subset of R is uniformly continuous, proved R-natively from sequential compactness: Let KR be compact (def-open-cover-r) and let f:KR be continuous on K (def-continuity-real). Then f is uniformly continuous on K (def-uniform-continuity-real).

This theorem is stated twice in this library, on purpose. Its metric-space twin is thm-heine-cantor-metric, proved there from the cover machinery of metric spaces; the proof below is R-native and runs through thm-compact-iff-sequentially-compact-r, which is order-based. That the two statements are the same statement in two vocabularies is lem-real-and-metric-notions-agree, clauses 1, 2 and 5, immediately above.

The choice cost, named. The proof invokes the axiom of countable choice (def-countable-choice) exactly once, at step 3.1, to select one bad pair of points from each of countably many nonempty sets. The backward implication of thm-compact-iff-sequentially-compact-r also spends countable choice, and that item names its own uses; the forward implication used here, from compact to sequentially compact, does not. No claim is made that the axiom is necessary for either.

[F5]

The Lebesgue integral is linear on L1(μ): The class L1(μ) is a complex vector space, and the Lebesgue integral is complex-linear on it: (αf+βg)dμ=αfdμ+βgdμ(α,βC, f,gL1(μ)).

[F6]

The modulus of an integral is bounded by the integral of the modulus: If fL1(μ), then fdμfdμ.

[F7]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

Fix n1. AC restricted to a countable family gives F1. By F2, the Borel restriction lambda on [0,1] has mass one, each interval ((k-1)/n,k/n] has mass 1/n, and {0} has mass zero. The finite sum defining μn is a probability: disjoint-set indicators add at each of its n atoms and total mass is n/n=1.

F1F2
2.1

For a bounded continuous real f, put sn(x)=f(k/n) on ((k-1)/n,k/n] and sn(0)=f(0). By F3 applied to positive and negative parts, sndλ=n1k=1nf(k/n)=fdμn. F4, with its CC use supplied by step 1.1, makes f uniformly continuous on [0,1]. Thus snf0, since each cell has length 1/n.

F3F4step 1.1
3.1

F5 and F6 give fdμnfdλ=(snf)dλsnfλ([0,1])0. This is F7.

F5F6F7
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Tightness from a uniform moment bound

Example

For a family A of probability laws on Rd with finite d1, if p>0 and supμAxpdμC<, then the family is tight.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Rn as the set of functions nR, and d1, d2, d are metrics on it: Let nN with n1. A von Neumann natural is the set of its predecessors, n={0,1,,n1} (def-natural-numbers), so it can be used directly as an index set. Define

Rn:={x:x is a function nR},

and write xk for x(k), k<n. Two elements of Rn are equal exactly when they agree at every k<n, functions being equal when they have the same values. For x,yRn put

d1(x,y):=k<nxkyk,d2(x,y):= k<n(xkyk)2 ,d(x,y):=max{xkyk:k<n}.

All three are well defined: the finite sums are those of def-finite-sum; the sum of squares is nonnegative (lem-finite-sum-laws, lem-of-square-positive) so it has a unique nonnegative square root (thm-of-square-roots); and {xkyk:k<n} is a nonempty finite subset of R, because n1, so it has a maximum (lem-finite-set-has-max, def-max-min).

Then d1, d2 and d are metrics on Rn (def-metric-space).

Why n1. For n=0 the set R0 has exactly one element, the empty function, and d1 and d2 are the empty sum 0 and its root; but d would be the maximum of the empty set, which does not exist. The hypothesis n1 is therefore not decoration, and it is carried by every statement about d in this library.

[F2]

Markov's inequality for random variables: If X:Ω[0,+] is a nonnegative random variable on a probability space and a>0, then P(Xa)E[X]a.

[F3]

The exponent, product, quotient, and iterated-power laws for positive real bases and real exponents: For a,b>0 and r,sR, ar+s=aras,(ab)r=arbr,(a/b)r=ar/br,(ar)s=ars.

[F4]

Heine-Borel in Rn: with the Euclidean metric a subset of Rn is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line: Let nN with n1, let Rn be the set of functions nR and let d2 be the Euclidean metric on it (lem-metrics-on-rn). Then:

  1. Closed boxes are compact. For reals akbk (k<n) the box Q={xRn:akxkbk for every k<n} is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) (def-metric-compactness).
  2. Heine-Borel. A subset KRn is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) if and only if K is closed in Rn (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).
  3. The real line. A subset KR is a compact subset of (R,dR), the usual metric dR(x,y)=xy (lem-real-line-is-a-metric-space), if and only if K is closed in R and bounded.

No choice principle is used. The bisection below halves one coordinate at a time and takes the left half whenever the left half still fails to be finitely covered, the right half otherwise: a rule with two outcomes, decided by a property of the box, not a selection. That is the whole reason the theorem is available in ZF, while the general "complete and totally bounded implies compact" (thm-complete-and-totally-bounded-implies-compact) is not.

The hypothesis n1 is inherited from lem-metrics-on-rn, which defines Rn and its metrics only there; the last remark below records what happens at n=0.

[F5]

Tight family of probability measures: A family A of Borel probabilities on a metric space S is tight if, for every ε>0, there is a compact KS such that μ(SK)<ε for every μA. One K must work for the whole family. Compactness is def-metric-compactness. The empty family is tight, witnessed by the empty compact set.

[F6]

Continuity and derivatives of positive-base real powers: For a>0, the function xax is continuous on R and (ax)=axloga. For αR, the function xxα is continuous and differentiable on (0,), with (xα)=αxα1.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

The Euclidean norm is distance to zero for the metric in F1, hence is continuous by the triangle inequality. On positive arguments F6 gives continuity of tp. Thus its composition with the norm is continuous off the origin, and assigning zero at the closed singleton origin gives a Borel function. If t>R>0, tp/Rp=exp(plog(t/R))>1, so the power is increasing on positive arguments. F2 on (Rd,B,μ) gives μ({x>R})C/Rp for every R>0.

F1F2F6
2.1

The empty family is tight using the empty compact set. For a nonempty family C0. Given ε>0 take R=((C+1)/ε)1/p>0; F3 yields C/Rp=Cε/(C+1)<ε. The ball K={xR} is closed and bounded and therefore compact by F4. Step 1.1 proves the uniform loss bound for this K, which is F5.

F3F4F5
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Weak convergence of gaussian laws by parameters

Example

Assume AC. If mnm and σn0 with σnσ0, then N(mn,σn2)N(m,σ2), including N(m,0)=δm.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Standard normal and normal laws: Assume AC. Define γ(E)=Eex2/2/2πdx for Borel E in R. By lem-normal-density-has-total-mass-one and thm-indefinite-integral-of-a-nonnegative-function-is-a-measure, gamma is a probability measure; denote it N(0,1). For mR and σ0, define N(m,σ2) as the law of xm+σx on (R,B,γ). This affine map is continuous: for σ>0 choose δ=ε/σ, and for σ=0 it is constant. Its inverse images of opens are open, so it is Borel measurable. lem-law-of-a-random-element-is-a-probability-measure makes its pushforward a probability. When σ=0, the preimage of E is all of R if m belongs to E and empty otherwise, so N(m,0)=δm in def-dirac-measure.

[F2]

Dominated convergence: Let f and (fn) be measurable complex-valued functions such that fnf almost everywhere and fng almost everywhere for a single nonnegative measurable function g with gdμ<+. Then fL1(μ), fnfdμ0, and hence fndμfdμ.

[F3]

Change of variables for expectation: Let X:(Ω,F,P)(S,Σ) be a random element, let PX be its law, and let g:(S,Σ)R or g:(S,Σ)C be measurable.

  1. If g0, then E[g(X)]=SgdPX.
  2. If g(X) is integrable, then g is integrable with respect to PX and the same formula holds: E[g(X)]=SgdPX.
[F4]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

On the standard-normal probability space gamma of F1, put Z(x)=x, Yn=mn+σnZ and Y=m+σZ. For every finite x, Yn(x)Y(x)mnm+σnσx0. Their laws are the stated affine normal laws by that definition.

F1
2.1

For bounded continuous f, f(Yn)->f(Y) pointwise and f(Yn)f, an integrable constant since gamma has mass one. F2 gives convergence of their expectations, and F3 translates this into convergence of the normal-law integrals. Thus F4 applies. When σ=0 the limit Y is the constant m, with law δm.

F2F3F4
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Quantile coupling on the real line

Example

Assume AC. If real probability laws μnμ have CDFs Fn,F and generalized inverses Qn(u)=inf{x:Fn(x)u}, Q(u)=inf{x:F(x)u} for 0<u<1, then on Borel Lebesgue probability (0,1), Qn and Q have those laws and QnQ almost surely.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Probability laws correspond to distribution functions: Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice.

  1. Let X be a real random variable, let PX be its law, and let FX(x)=P(Xx). Then FX is nondecreasing and right-continuous, satisfies limxFX(x)=0,limx+FX(x)=1, and obeys PX((a,b])=FX(b)FX(a)(a<b).
  2. Conversely, if F:RR is nondecreasing and right-continuous with limxF(x)=0,limx+F(x)=1, then there is a unique Borel probability measure μ on R such that μ((a,b])=F(b)F(a)(a<b), equivalently F(x)=μ((,x])(xR).
[F2]

A box in Rn with parameters aibi is Lebesgue measurable of measure i<n(biai), whichever of its faces are included: Let n1, assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice), and let aibi be reals for i<n. Write

R:={xRn:ai<xi<bi for every i<n},R:=[a,b]={xRn:aixibi for every i<n}

(def-multidimensional-rectangle-and-volume). Then R is open and R is closed, so both are Borel and Lebesgue measurable, and every set R with RRR is Lebesgue measurable with

λn(R)  =  i<n(biai).

In particular this covers the four one-dimensional face conventions in each coordinate — the open box, the closed box [a,b], the half-open box B(a,b)=i<n(ai,bi] of def-half-open-box, and every mixture of them, in any combination of coordinates — and it gives measure 0 to all of them whenever ai=bi for some i<n. For a half-open box with infinite parameters the value is already λn(B)=vol(B) (thm-lebesgue-measure-is-a-complete-measure).

D  :=  {cI:f is discontinuous at c}

(def-classification-of-discontinuities) is at most countable (def-countable).

More precisely, the proof exhibits an injection J:DN (def-injection-surjection-bijection) built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals: at a discontinuity c interior to I the value J(c) is read off the least index of a rational lying in the gap (limxcf(x), limxc+f(x)), which is a nonempty open interval by thm-monotone-discontinuities-are-jumps. The map J is therefore determined by f and by the fixed enumeration, and no choice principle is used: least indices are canonical by thm-well-ordering-principle, and nothing anywhere in the proof is selected without being determined.

[F4]

Portmanteau theorem: For Borel probabilities μn,μ on a metric space S, the following are equivalent: (i) μnμ; (ii) integrals converge for all bounded uniformly continuous real tests; (iii) lim supnμn(F)μ(F) for every closed F; (iv) lim infnμn(G)μ(G) for every open G; (v) μn(A)μ(A) for every Borel A with μ(A)=0.

[F5]

Every at most countable subset of Rn is Lebesgue null; in particular λ1(Q)=0: Let n1 and assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice). Every at most countable subset ERn (def-countable) is Lebesgue measurable with

λn(E)  =  0,

so E is a λn-null set (def-measure-null-set-and-almost-everywhere). In particular every singleton is null, and on the real line the set QR of rational reals (lem-rat-embeds-dense) satisfies λ1(QR)=0.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

AC implies CC by restriction to any countable family. F1 gives right-continuity, monotonicity and the CDF endpoint limits. For 0<u<1, the set defining Q(u) is nonempty and bounded below by those limits. For any x, if u<=F(x) then Q(u)<=x. Conversely if Q(u)<=x, for each h>0 the infimum property supplies y<x+h with F(y)>=u; thus F(x+h)>=u and right-continuity gives F(x)>=u. Therefore {u:Q(u)x}={u:uF(x)}, and the same holds for Qn.

F1
2.1

The sublevel identity in step 1.1 proves measurability. F2 gives the length of (0,F(x)](0,1) as F(x), including values zero and one. Thus the CDF of Q on this probability interval equals F; the uniqueness clause of F1 identifies its law as μ, and likewise for every Qn.

F1F2step 1.1
2.2

Fix a continuity point u of the nondecreasing Q and ε>0. Choose v with u<v<1 and Q(v)<Q(u)+ε, using continuity at u. Choose a continuity point a of F between Q(u)-ε and Q(u), and a continuity point b of F between max(Q(u),Q(v)) and Q(u)+ε. Such choices exist because a monotone CDF has only countably many discontinuities by F3. Step 1.1 gives F(a)<u and F(b)>=v>u. F4 at the half-lines with endpoints a,b gives Fn(a)->F(a) and Fn(b)->F(b). Eventually Fn(a)<u<Fn(b), whence a<Qn(u)b by step 1.1. Thus Qn(u)Q(u)<ε eventually.

F3F4step 1.1
3.1

Q is nondecreasing, since increasing u shrinks the defining set. F3 makes its discontinuity set on (0,1) countable. F5, under CC from step 1.1, makes this set null. Step 2.2 proves convergence elsewhere, so the coupling has the stated almost-sure limit. The excluded u=0,1 need no inverse values.

F3F5step 1.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedaudited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Pointwise cdf convergence at a jump is not required

Statement refuted

Weak convergence does not require CDF convergence at a jump of the limiting CDF. For n1, the witness is μn=δ1/n, with μ=δ0 on the real line.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

[F2]

Cumulative distribution function of a real random variable: Let X be a real random variable. Its cumulative distribution function is the function FX:R[0,1],FX(x):=P(Xx)=PX((,x]).

The second expression is the same quantity written in terms of the law def-law-or-distribution-of-a-random-element of X.

Counterexample

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

On Ω={} take F={,Ω} and P(Ω)=1, P()=0. This is a probability space: in any disjoint family at most one event is nonempty. For every integer n1 set Xn()=1/n and X()=0. Each map is measurable because every Borel preimage is either or Ω. Its law is respectively μn=δ1/n or μ=δ0: a Borel set has probability one exactly when it contains the specified value. Define Fn=FXn and F=FX using F2.

givenF2
2.1

For a point mass, fdδa=f(a) for bounded measurable f: this holds for simple functions by the definition of their integral, and then for nonnegative bounded functions by increasing simple approximation, and for real bounded functions by their positive and negative parts. For bounded continuous f, continuity at zero therefore gives fdμn=f(1/n)f(0)=fdμ. By F1 the laws converge weakly.

F1step 1.1
3.1

By F2 and step 1.1, Fn(t)=1{t1/n} and F(t)=1{t0}. Thus Fn(0)=0 for every n1 while F(0)=1. Moreover F(t)=0 for every t<0, so F has a jump from its left limit zero to its value one at zero. Hence weak convergence does not force CDF convergence at this jump.

F2step 1.1step 2.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedaudited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Bounded continuous cannot be replaced by all bounded measurable functions

Statement refuted

Weak convergence need not give convergence of integrals for all bounded Borel tests. For n1, take μn=δ1/n, and set μ=δ0 and h=1{0} on the real line.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

Counterexample

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

For every n1 and each bounded continuous f, the point-mass integrals are f(1/n) and f(0), so continuity proves convergence and hence weak convergence by F1.

F1
2.1

The singleton {0} is closed, so h is Borel measurable and bounded between zero and one. But hdμn=h(1/n)=0 for every n1, whereas hdμ=h(0)=1. This explicit bounded Borel test fails the conclusion.

givenalgebra
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

A nontight sequence with no probability law subsequence limit

Statement refuted

The laws μn=δn on the real line form a nontight sequence with no subsequence converging weakly to a probability law on the real line.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A compact subset of a metric space is closed and bounded: Let (X,d) be a metric space (def-metric-space) and let KX be a compact subset (def-metric-compactness). Then K is closed in X (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).

No choice principle is used: both covers below are given by a rule, and the indexed form of lem-compactness-is-intrinsic returns indices rather than sets.

The converse is false in general. A closed and bounded subset of an arbitrary metric space need not be compact (fs-closed-and-bounded-implies-compact-in-every-metric-space); it is exactly in Rn that the converse holds (thm-heine-borel-rn).

[F2]

Tight family of probability measures: A family A of Borel probabilities on a metric space S is tight if, for every ε>0, there is a compact KS such that μ(SK)<ε for every μA. One K must work for the whole family. Compactness is def-metric-compactness. The empty family is tight, witnessed by the empty compact set.

[F3]

Portmanteau theorem: For Borel probabilities μn,μ on a metric space S, the following are equivalent: (i) μnμ; (ii) integrals converge for all bounded uniformly continuous real tests; (iii) lim supnμn(F)μ(F) for every closed F; (iv) lim infnμn(G)μ(G) for every open G; (v) μn(A)μ(A) for every Borel A with μ(A)=0.

[F4]

Continuity from below for measures: Let (En)nN be an increasing sequence of measurable sets for a measure μ, so EnEn+1. Then

μ(nNEn)=supnNμ(En).

No finiteness hypothesis is required.

Counterexample

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

Every compact K is bounded by F1. Thus for all sufficiently large n, n is outside K and μn(K)=0. No compact K can give all the laws outside mass below 1/2, so F2 fails.

F1F2
2.1

If δnjμ along a subsequence, nj tends to infinity. For every positive integer m, the open set (-m,m) eventually has delta_{nj} mass zero. F3 would give μ((m,m))0. These intervals increase to R, so F4 would give μ(R)=0, contradicting probability mass one.

F3F4
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Boundedness of first moments alone does not give uniform integrability

Statement refuted

There are nonnegative variables (Xn)n1 on one probability space with P(Xn=n)=1/n, P(Xn=0)=11/n. They have EXn=1 and tight laws converging weakly to δ0, but are not uniformly integrable.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A uniformly integrable family: Let (X,A,μ) be a measure space. A family FL1(μ) of integrable real-valued functions is uniformly integrable when supfF{f>M}fdμ0as M.

Equivalently, for every ε>0 there is M>0 such that fF{f>M}fdμ<ε.

This page adopts the tail-integral definition. On finite measure spaces it is equivalent to L1-boundedness plus uniform absolute continuity, proved later on this page.

[F2]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

[F3]

Markov's inequality for random variables: If X:Ω[0,+] is a nonnegative random variable on a probability space and a>0, then P(Xa)E[X]a.

[F4]

Heine-Borel in Rn: with the Euclidean metric a subset of Rn is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line: Let nN with n1, let Rn be the set of functions nR and let d2 be the Euclidean metric on it (lem-metrics-on-rn). Then:

  1. Closed boxes are compact. For reals akbk (k<n) the box Q={xRn:akxkbk for every k<n} is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) (def-metric-compactness).
  2. Heine-Borel. A subset KRn is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) if and only if K is closed in Rn (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).
  3. The real line. A subset KR is a compact subset of (R,dR), the usual metric dR(x,y)=xy (lem-real-line-is-a-metric-space), if and only if K is closed in R and bounded.

No choice principle is used. The bisection below halves one coordinate at a time and takes the left half whenever the left half still fails to be finitely covered, the right half otherwise: a rule with two outcomes, decided by a property of the box, not a selection. That is the whole reason the theorem is available in ZF, while the general "complete and totally bounded implies compact" (thm-complete-and-totally-bounded-implies-compact) is not.

The hypothesis n1 is inherited from lem-metrics-on-rn, which defines Rn and its metrics only there; the last remark below records what happens at n=0.

Counterexample

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

Use the countable space of positive integers, with P({k})=1/(k(k+1))=1/k1/(k+1). Its masses sum to one by telescoping. Define P(E) as the sum over k in E; for disjoint countable unions the nonnegative double sum can be interchanged by taking suprema of finite subsums, proving countable additivity. Set Xn(k)=n1{kn}. Telescoping gives P(kn)=1/n, proving the displayed law, including n=1.

givenalgebra
1.2

The finite-law calculation gives EXn=n/n=1. If n>K, then E[Xn1{Xn>K}]=1. Thus the supremum of these tail integrals is one for every K>0, and F1 fails.

F1
2.1

The interval [R,R] is compact by F4. For bounded continuous f the law integral is f(0)+(f(n)f(0))/n, whose difference from f(0) is at most 2f/n0. This is weak convergence by F2. F3 gives P(Xn>R)1/R uniformly; the compact interval [-R,R] with R>1/ε therefore verifies tightness. Step 1.2 nevertheless excludes uniform integrability.

F2F3F4
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10Open item page →

Empirical laws of a finite valued iid sample

Example

For IID samples with law μ=j=1mpjδaj on distinct points a1,,amRd, where pj0 and jpj=1, the empirical laws converge weakly almost surely. On outcomes whose samples all lie in this finite set, weak convergence is equivalent to convergence of all atom frequencies to pj.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Empirical measures of iid euclidean samples converge weakly: For IID Rd-valued samples (Xi) with common law μ and finite d1, the empirical probabilities μ^n=n1i=1nδXi converge weakly to μ almost surely on one common event.

[F2]

Finite and countable subadditivity of measures: Let μ be a measure and let (Ek)kN be measurable. Then

μ(kNEk)k=0μ(Ek).

For every mN one also has

μ(k<mEk)k<mμ(Ek),

including m=0, where both sides are 0.

Verification

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

Apply F2 to the union of the sample-outside-support events. By F1, the empirical laws converge weakly almost surely. Also all samples lie in the finite set on a conull event, since each outside event has probability zero and there are countably many coordinates.

F1F2
1.2

On such an outcome put qn,j=n1#{in:Xi=aj}. If each q_{n,j}->pj, then for bounded continuous f, fdμ^n=jqn,jf(aj)jpjf(aj)=fdμ, proving weak convergence.

givenalgebra
2.1

Conversely, for m2 put rj=12minljajal>0 and fj(x)=max(0,1xaj/rj). This bounded continuous test is one at aj and zero at every other al. Its empirical integral is q_{n,j} and its μ integral is pj, so weak convergence implies q_{n,j}->pj. If m=1, both frequencies are identically one and the constant test suffices.

givenalgebra

Sources