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
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Areas of Elementary Plane Figures
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Equivalent Forms of Completeness
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability and the Probabilistic Method
- Finite Probability Spaces and Random Variables
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Improper and Parameter-Dependent Multiple Integrals
- Improper Integrals
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Lebesgue Measure on Euclidean Space
- Lebesgue-Stieltjes Measures and Distribution Functions
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Modes of Convergence Egorov and Lusin
- Modes of Convergence for Random Variables
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Strong Laws of Large Numbers
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Lebesgue and Riemann Integrals Compared
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Weak Convergence Tightness and Representation
- Weak Laws and Series of Independent Random Variables
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
Dirac laws converge weakly exactly when their points converge
Example
On a metric space S, if and only if . For example, on the real line .
Facts & Assumptions
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , 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.
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 , continuity gives for each bounded continuous f. By F1 this is weak convergence.
Conversely test weak convergence with , a bounded continuous function. Its limiting integral is f(x)=0, so min(1,d(,x))->0; for <1 this forces d(,x)< eventually. Thus x_n->x. For the displayed example this distance is .
Uniform laws on expanding finite grids converge to uniform zero one
Example
Assume AC. For , the laws converge weakly to Lebesgue probability on [0,1].
Facts & Assumptions
The Axiom of Countable Choice (): The Axiom of Countable Choice, written , is the following statement.
For every family of nonempty sets indexed by there is a function with domain such that for every .
Equivalently, in the vocabulary of def-choice-function: every at most countable family of nonempty sets (def-countable) has a choice function.
A box in with parameters is Lebesgue measurable of measure , whichever of its faces are included: Let , assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice), and let be reals for . Write
(def-multidimensional-rectangle-and-volume). Then is open and is closed, so both are Borel and Lebesgue measurable, and every set with is Lebesgue measurable with
In particular this covers the four one-dimensional face conventions in each coordinate — the open box, the closed box , the half-open box of def-half-open-box, and every mixture of them, in any combination of coordinates — and it gives measure to all of them whenever for some . For a half-open box with infinite parameters the value is already (thm-lebesgue-measure-is-a-complete-measure).
The nonnegative integral agrees with the simple integral on simple functions: If is a nonnegative simple measurable function, then its nonnegative Lebesgue integral equals its simple integral:
Heine-Cantor in : a continuous real function on a compact subset of is uniformly continuous, proved -natively from sequential compactness: Let be compact (def-open-cover-r) and let be continuous on (def-continuity-real). Then is uniformly continuous on (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 -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.
The Lebesgue integral is linear on : The class is a complex vector space, and the Lebesgue integral is complex-linear on it:
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , 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.
Fix . 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 is a probability: disjoint-set indicators add at each of its n atoms and total mass is n/.
For a bounded continuous real f, put (x)=f(k/n) on ((k-1)/n,k/n] and (0)=f(0). By F3 applied to positive and negative parts, . F4, with its CC use supplied by step 1.1, makes f uniformly continuous on [0,1]. Thus , since each cell has length 1/n.
F5 and F6 give . This is F7.
Tightness from a uniform moment bound
Example
For a family of probability laws on with finite , if and , then the family is tight.
Facts & Assumptions
as the set of functions , and , , are metrics on it: Let with . A von Neumann natural is the set of its predecessors, (def-natural-numbers), so it can be used directly as an index set. Define
and write for , . Two elements of are equal exactly when they agree at every , functions being equal when they have the same values. For put
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 is a nonempty finite subset of , because , so it has a maximum (lem-finite-set-has-max, def-max-min).
Then , and are metrics on (def-metric-space).
Why . For the set has exactly one element, the empty function, and and are the empty sum and its root; but would be the maximum of the empty set, which does not exist. The hypothesis is therefore not decoration, and it is carried by every statement about in this library.
Markov's inequality for random variables: If is a nonnegative random variable on a probability space and , then
Heine-Borel in : with the Euclidean metric a subset of 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 with , let be the set of functions and let be the Euclidean metric on it (lem-metrics-on-rn). Then:
- Closed boxes are compact. For reals the box is a compact subset of (def-metric-compactness).
- Heine-Borel. A subset is a compact subset of if and only if is closed in (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).
- The real line. A subset is a compact subset of , the usual metric (lem-real-line-is-a-metric-space), if and only if is closed in 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 is inherited from lem-metrics-on-rn, which defines and its metrics only there; the last remark below records what happens at .
Tight family of probability measures: A family of Borel probabilities on a metric space S is tight if, for every , there is a compact such that for every . One K must work for the whole family. Compactness is def-metric-compactness. The empty family is tight, witnessed by the empty compact set.
Continuity and derivatives of positive-base real powers: For , the function is continuous on and For , the function is continuous and differentiable on , with
Verification
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
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 . Thus its composition with the norm is continuous off the origin, and assigning zero at the closed singleton origin gives a Borel function. If , , so the power is increasing on positive arguments. F2 on gives for every .
The empty family is tight using the empty compact set. For a nonempty family . Given >0 take ; F3 yields . The ball is closed and bounded and therefore compact by F4. Step 1.1 proves the uniform loss bound for this K, which is F5.
Weak convergence of gaussian laws by parameters
Example
Assume AC. If and with , then , including .
Facts & Assumptions
Standard normal and normal laws: Assume AC. Define for Borel E in . 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 . For and , define as the law of on . This affine map is continuous: for >0 choose =/, and for =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 =0, the preimage of E is all of R if m belongs to E and empty otherwise, so in def-dirac-measure.
Dominated convergence: Let and be measurable complex-valued functions such that almost everywhere and almost everywhere for a single nonnegative measurable function with . Then , and hence
Change of variables for expectation: Let be a random element, let be its law, and let or be measurable.
- If , then
- If is integrable, then is integrable with respect to and the same formula holds:
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , 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.
On the standard-normal probability space gamma of F1, put Z(x)=x, and . For every finite x, . Their laws are the stated affine normal laws by that definition.
For bounded continuous f, f()->f(Y) pointwise and , 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 =0 the limit Y is the constant m, with law .
Quantile coupling on the real line
Example
Assume AC. If real probability laws have CDFs ,F and generalized inverses , for 0<, then on Borel Lebesgue probability (0,1), and Q have those laws and almost surely.
Facts & Assumptions
Probability laws correspond to distribution functions: Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice.
- Let be a real random variable, let be its law, and let . Then is nondecreasing and right-continuous, satisfies and obeys
- Conversely, if is nondecreasing and right-continuous with then there is a unique Borel probability measure on such that equivalently
A box in with parameters is Lebesgue measurable of measure , whichever of its faces are included: Let , assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice), and let be reals for . Write
(def-multidimensional-rectangle-and-volume). Then is open and is closed, so both are Borel and Lebesgue measurable, and every set with is Lebesgue measurable with
In particular this covers the four one-dimensional face conventions in each coordinate — the open box, the closed box , the half-open box of def-half-open-box, and every mixture of them, in any combination of coordinates — and it gives measure to all of them whenever for some . For a half-open box with infinite parameters the value is already (thm-lebesgue-measure-is-a-complete-measure).
Froda's theorem: the set of discontinuities of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, the injection into being built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals by least index, so no choice principle is used: Let be order-convex (def-interval) and let be monotone (def-monotone-function). Then the set
(def-classification-of-discontinuities) is at most countable (def-countable).
More precisely, the proof exhibits an injection (def-injection-surjection-bijection) built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals: at a discontinuity interior to the value is read off the least index of a rational lying in the gap , which is a nonempty open interval by thm-monotone-discontinuities-are-jumps. The map is therefore determined by 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.
Portmanteau theorem: For Borel probabilities on a metric space S, the following are equivalent: (i) ; (ii) integrals converge for all bounded uniformly continuous real tests; (iii) for every closed F; (iv) for every open G; (v) for every Borel A with .
Every at most countable subset of is Lebesgue null; in particular : Let and assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (def-countable-choice). Every at most countable subset (def-countable) is Lebesgue measurable with
so is a -null set (def-measure-null-set-and-almost-everywhere). In particular every singleton is null, and on the real line the set of rational reals (lem-rat-embeds-dense) satisfies .
Verification
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
AC implies CC by restriction to any countable family. F1 gives right-continuity, monotonicity and the CDF endpoint limits. For 0<, 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 the infimum property supplies y<x+h with F(y)>=u; thus F(x+h)>=u and right-continuity gives F(x)>=u. Therefore , and the same holds for .
The sublevel identity in step 1.1 proves measurability. F2 gives the length of 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 , and likewise for every .
Fix a continuity point u of the nondecreasing Q and >0. Choose v with u< and Q(v)<Q(u)+, using continuity at u. Choose a continuity point a of F between Q(u)- and Q(u), and a continuity point b of F between max(Q(u),Q(v)) and Q(u)+. 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 (a)->F(a) and (b)->F(b). Eventually (a)<u<(b), whence by step 1.1. Thus eventually.
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 ,1 need no inverse values.
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 , the witness is , with on the real line.
Facts & Assumptions
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.
Cumulative distribution function of a real random variable: Let be a real random variable. Its cumulative distribution function is the function
The second expression is the same quantity written in terms of the law def-law-or-distribution-of-a-random-element of .
Counterexample
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
On take and , . This is a probability space: in any disjoint family at most one event is nonempty. For every integer set and . Each map is measurable because every Borel preimage is either or . Its law is respectively or : a Borel set has probability one exactly when it contains the specified value. Define and using F2.
For a point mass, for bounded measurable : 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 , continuity at zero therefore gives . By F1 the laws converge weakly.
By F2 and step 1.1, and . Thus for every while . Moreover for every , so 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.
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 , take , and set and on the real line.
Facts & Assumptions
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , 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.
For every 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.
The singleton {0} is closed, so h is Borel measurable and bounded between zero and one. But for every , whereas . This explicit bounded Borel test fails the conclusion.
A nontight sequence with no probability law subsequence limit
Statement refuted
The laws on the real line form a nontight sequence with no subsequence converging weakly to a probability law on the real line.
Facts & Assumptions
A compact subset of a metric space is closed and bounded: Let be a metric space (def-metric-space) and let be a compact subset (def-metric-compactness). Then is closed in (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 that the converse holds (thm-heine-borel-rn).
Tight family of probability measures: A family of Borel probabilities on a metric space S is tight if, for every , there is a compact such that for every . One K must work for the whole family. Compactness is def-metric-compactness. The empty family is tight, witnessed by the empty compact set.
Portmanteau theorem: For Borel probabilities on a metric space S, the following are equivalent: (i) ; (ii) integrals converge for all bounded uniformly continuous real tests; (iii) for every closed F; (iv) for every open G; (v) for every Borel A with .
Continuity from below for measures: Let be an increasing sequence of measurable sets for a measure , so . Then
No finiteness hypothesis is required.
Counterexample
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
Every compact K is bounded by F1. Thus for all sufficiently large n, n is outside K and (K)=0. No compact K can give all the laws outside mass below 1/2, so F2 fails.
If along a subsequence, tends to infinity. For every positive integer m, the open set (-m,m) eventually has delta_{} mass zero. F3 would give . These intervals increase to R, so F4 would give (R)=0, contradicting probability mass one.
Boundedness of first moments alone does not give uniform integrability
Statement refuted
There are nonnegative variables on one probability space with , . They have and tight laws converging weakly to , but are not uniformly integrable.
Facts & Assumptions
A uniformly integrable family: Let be a measure space. A family of integrable real-valued functions is uniformly integrable when
Equivalently, for every there is such that
This page adopts the tail-integral definition. On finite measure spaces it is equivalent to -boundedness plus uniform absolute continuity, proved later on this page.
Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures on a metric space S, write if 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 , so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.
Markov's inequality for random variables: If is a nonnegative random variable on a probability space and , then
Heine-Borel in : with the Euclidean metric a subset of 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 with , let be the set of functions and let be the Euclidean metric on it (lem-metrics-on-rn). Then:
- Closed boxes are compact. For reals the box is a compact subset of (def-metric-compactness).
- Heine-Borel. A subset is a compact subset of if and only if is closed in (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).
- The real line. A subset is a compact subset of , the usual metric (lem-real-line-is-a-metric-space), if and only if is closed in 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 is inherited from lem-metrics-on-rn, which defines and its metrics only there; the last remark below records what happens at .
Counterexample
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
Use the countable space of positive integers, with . 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 . Telescoping gives , proving the displayed law, including .
The finite-law calculation gives . If n>K, then . Thus the supremum of these tail integrals is one for every , and F1 fails.
The interval is compact by F4. For bounded continuous f the law integral is , whose difference from f(0) is at most . This is weak convergence by F2. F3 gives uniformly; the compact interval [-R,R] with / therefore verifies tightness. Step 1.2 nevertheless excludes uniform integrability.
Empirical laws of a finite valued iid sample
Example
For IID samples with law on distinct points , where and , 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 .
Facts & Assumptions
Empirical measures of iid euclidean samples converge weakly: For IID -valued samples with common law and finite , the empirical probabilities converge weakly to almost surely on one common event.
Finite and countable subadditivity of measures: Let be a measure and let be measurable. Then
For every one also has
including , where both sides are .
Verification
Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.
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.
On such an outcome put . If each q_{n,j}->, then for bounded continuous f, , proving weak convergence.
Conversely, for put and . This bounded continuous test is one at and zero at every other . Its empirical integral is q_{n,j} and its integral is , so weak convergence implies q_{n,j}->. If , both frequencies are identically one and the constant test suffices.
Sources
- van Gaans, §9, Dirac embedding
- Durrett, §3.2.1, weak convergence examples; elementary Riemann sum specialization
- Durrett, Theorem 3.2.14, p. 123
- Durrett, §3.2, bounded continuous test criterion
- Durrett, Theorem 3.2.8, pp. 118–119
- Durrett, §3.2.1, continuity-point convention
- van Gaans, Definition 3.1; Dirac test example
- van Gaans, example after Theorem 5.2, p. 18; Dirac variant
- Durrett, §3.2, weak convergence versus moment convergence; explicit two-point construction
- Durrett, §§2.4–2.5, pp. 76–87