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 Laws and Series of Independent Random Variables — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- 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
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability Spaces and Random Variables
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Infinite Product Measures and Kolmogorov Extension
- Lebesgue-Stieltjes Measures and Distribution Functions
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- 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
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- 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 Laws and Series of Independent Random Variables
2 · Summary
These examples distinguish IID hypotheses, variance control, tail control, and absolute convergence. Bernoulli sample means illustrate the weak laws; fair-sign series show the sharp square-summability threshold. Three constructions isolate the three-series conditions, while rare large jumps separate almost-sure convergence from summability of untruncated variances. Cauchy and logarithmic tails mark the boundary for deterministic weak-law centering.
Sequence-existence constructions retain the countable-choice and dependent-choice hypotheses of the countable product results.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
Bernoulli sample frequencies
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. For IID Bernoulli variables , where , let . Then in probability and The endpoint laws are included.
Facts & Assumptions
IID finite-variance weak law: Let be IID square-integrable real random variables, with and . For , and in and in probability. Also for .
Bernoulli random variables and binomial random variables as sums of independent Bernoulli trials: For , a Bernoulli random variable takes the value with probability and with probability . For , a binomial random variable is a sum of mutually independent Bernoulli variables. When , this is the constant zero random variable.
A Bernoulli variable has mean and variance ; a binomial variable has mean and variance : If is Bernoulli, then and . If is binomial, then These formulas include , , and .
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
The Bernoulli law puts masses and at and . Under countable choice and dependent choice, the countable-copy result constructs a common-space IID sequence with this law. Its mean is and variance , including both endpoints.
The finite-variance IID weak law and its probability bound apply with and , giving the displayed estimate and convergence. If or , all the variables equal on the intersection of their countably many probability-one events, so every sample mean equals there and the error probability is zero, even at .
A nonidentical Bernoulli weak law
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Let independent be Bernoulli with for odd and for even . Then for , Thus a common distribution is not required.
Facts & Assumptions
Chebyshev weak law for uncorrelated arrays: For each , let be square-integrable real random variables on one probability space, pairwise uncorrelated within the row, where is finite. Set and let be deterministic. If then in and in probability. More precisely, its second moment is , and its probability of absolute value at least is at most . No independence between rows is required.
Coordinate random elements of a countable product are independent: Under the measure of thm-countable-product-of-probability-spaces, the coordinate maps have laws and are independent.
Assuming countable and dependent choice, countable products of arbitrary probability spaces: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. For probability spaces there is a unique probability measure on such that, for every finite , its -coordinate marginal is .
A Bernoulli variable has mean and variance ; a binomial variable has mean and variance : If is Bernoulli, then and . If is binomial, then These formulas include , , and .
Expectations factor over finite products of independent random variables: Let , let be independent real random variables on a common probability space, and let be Borel measurable for each . 1. If every is nonnegative, then in . 2. If every is integrable, then is integrable and the same factorization holds in .
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice, take the countable product of the two-point Bernoulli probability spaces with the prescribed (shift the product index by one). Its coordinates are independent with the required laws. Each has mean and variance . Independence gives zero mixed centered moments, hence zero off-diagonal covariances.
The row weak law with the first entries and normalizer gives centered second moment and convergence in probability to zero. Meanwhile for even and for odd , including . For any the deterministic error is eventually below , so the probability of is at most the probability that the centered average exceeds in absolute value, which tends to zero.
Rademacher-series threshold
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice, and let be independent fair signs taking exactly the values and . For real , the series converges almost surely exactly when ; if it diverges almost surely. Its absolute series converges exactly when .
Facts & Assumptions
Kolmogorov three-series theorem: Let be independent real random variables and fix . Put . Then converges almost surely if and only if all three conditions hold: The conditions hold for some if and only if they hold for every . No moment assumption is imposed on the untruncated variables.
Almost-sure convergence of an independent series is a zero-one event: Let be an independent sequence of real random variables. Then the event has probability or .
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice, construct IID copies of the probability law on the two-point space , each point having mass . For , the summands have magnitude . At cutoff , the tail probabilities and truncated means are zero, and the truncated variances are .
The three-series theorem and the real p-series test therefore give almost-sure convergence for and rule out probability-one convergence for . In the latter range the convergence event is a tail event of an independent sequence, so its zero-one law forces its probability to be zero. In particular the boundary has the divergent harmonic variance series.
If , the magnitudes do not tend to zero at any point, so the partial sums cannot converge. Finally at every point the absolute series equals , which converges exactly for by the p-series test. This also checks the absolute boundary and the term-test boundary .
Almost-sure conditional convergence
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. On a probability space carrying independent fair signs , the random harmonic series converges almost surely, but diverges at every sample point. By comparison the deterministic harmonic series diverges and its alternating version converges.
Facts & Assumptions
Kolmogorov three-series theorem: Let be independent real random variables and fix . Put . Then converges almost surely if and only if all three conditions hold: The conditions hold for some if and only if they hold for every . No moment assumption is imposed on the untruncated variables.
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
The alternating series test: if is nonincreasing with then converges, the sum lies between any two consecutive partial sums, and the error after terms is at most : Let be the alternating sequence of lem-alternating-sequence, that is the unique sequence of reals with and , which is what is usually written ; let and be its even and odd index maps, so that , , and every natural number is for exactly one or for exactly one . Let be a sequence of reals that is nonincreasing (def-monotone-sequence) and converges to (def-real-limit); then for every . Write for the partial sums (def-series). Then: 1. the series converges; write for its sum; 2. for every , and for every the sum lies between the two consecutive partial sums and ; 3. for every . Claim 3 is the error bound: the partial sum , which uses the terms , differs from the sum by at most the first term omitted. Only claim 1 is a corollary of thm-dirichlet-test. Claims 2 and 3 are not: they come from the interlacing of the even-index and odd-index partial sums, and that argument is carried out below rather than smuggled into the Dirichlet estimate, which produces no bracketing at all.
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice, use the countable-copy theorem for the fair law on . At cutoff , all summands are retained, including the first one. Their means are zero and their variances are , whose sum is finite. Three-series therefore gives almost-sure convergence.
At every point , and the harmonic p-series diverges. Thus on the probability-one convergence event the convergence is conditional. The same p-series test gives deterministic harmonic divergence. Apply the zero-based alternating-series test with to obtain convergence of ; decreases to zero and is nonnegative.
The three series impose separate conditions
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. At cutoff , each of the following independent-sequence constructions violates exactly one of the three-series conditions:
- For , let with probability and otherwise; set . Only the large-jump probability series diverges.
- Let deterministically. Only the truncated mean series diverges.
- Let for independent fair signs. Only the truncated variance series diverges.
None of these series converges almost surely.
Facts & Assumptions
Kolmogorov three-series theorem: Let be independent real random variables and fix . Put . Then converges almost surely if and only if all three conditions hold: The conditions hold for some if and only if they hold for every . No moment assumption is imposed on the untruncated variables.
Second Borel-Cantelli lemma under pairwise independence: Let be pairwise independent events with Then
Coordinate random elements of a countable product are independent: Under the measure of thm-countable-product-of-probability-spaces, the coordinate maps have laws and are independent.
Assuming countable and dependent choice, countable products of arbitrary probability spaces: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. For probability spaces there is a unique probability measure on such that, for every finite , its -coordinate marginal is .
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice, the countable product of the stated finite probability spaces constructs the first and third independent sequences; deterministic coordinates construct the second. In the first construction the zero truncations at are all zero, so their mean and variance series vanish, but . The second Borel–Cantelli lemma gives infinitely many terms equal to almost surely; hence the terms fail to tend to zero.
For the second construction, every term is retained at , its variance is zero, and there are no large jumps. Its truncated mean series is . Thus exactly the mean condition fails and its deterministic partial sums diverge.
For the third construction every term, including , is retained, there are no large jumps, and the means vanish. Its variance series is . The three-series theorem rules out almost-sure convergence. Each construction therefore isolates exactly the claimed failed condition.
A macroscopic row term defeats averaging
Statement refuted
The assertion that independent centered rows automatically satisfy a weak law with normalization is false. Assume countable choice and dependent choice. A witness is the row of length defined by and for , where the are independent fair signs. With , does not converge in probability to zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Chebyshev weak law for uncorrelated arrays: For each , let be square-integrable real random variables on one probability space, pairwise uncorrelated within the row, where is finite. Set and let be deterministic. If then in and in probability. More precisely, its second moment is , and its probability of absolute value at least is at most . No independence between rows is required.
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.
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
Counterexample
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice take IID fair signs using the countable-copy theorem. A row consisting of one random entry and constants is independent: any finite intersection of coordinate events reduces to the one nonconstant event or is empty. Each entry is centered and square-integrable. Its variance sum is , so the row weak law has normalized variance , not a quantity tending to zero.
The sum is exactly . Thus for every , contradicting the defining requirement for convergence in probability to zero. At the row has only its one random entry. This is an array witness and asserts no failure of the IID integrable weak law.
Summable untruncated variances are not necessary
Statement refuted
It is false that almost-sure convergence of a series of independent centered square-integrable variables forces summability of their untruncated variances. Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Let and for take independent with Then converges absolutely almost surely, although and for every .
Facts & Assumptions
First Borel-Cantelli lemma for events: Let be events in a probability space. If then No independence hypothesis is needed.
Coordinate random elements of a countable product are independent: Under the measure of thm-countable-product-of-probability-spaces, the coordinate maps have laws and are independent.
Assuming countable and dependent choice, countable products of arbitrary probability spaces: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. For probability spaces there is a unique probability measure on such that, for every finite , its -coordinate marginal is .
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 .
Counterexample
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Under countable choice and dependent choice take the countable product of these finite probability spaces. The specified masses are nonnegative and sum to one; its independent coordinates have the desired laws. For , direct finite expectation gives and , hence variance . The first coordinate is zero.
The sum is finite. The first Borel–Cantelli lemma gives only finitely many nonzero terms almost surely. On that event the absolute sum is a finite sum of finite numbers, hence finite, and the original partial sums converge. But their untruncated variance sum is . The example has no uniform bound on all summands.
Cauchy averages admit no deterministic weak centering
Statement refuted
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. For IID real variables with density on , there is no deterministic real sequence for which in probability, where . Thus IID alone cannot guarantee a weak law even with varying deterministic centering.
Facts & Assumptions
Exact tail criterion for a truncated-centered IID weak law: For IID real random variables and , there exist deterministic real constants with in probability if and only if When this condition holds, works. Neither existence of an untruncated mean nor convergence of is asserted.
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
Law or distribution of a random element: Let be a random element. Its law or distribution is the set function Thus the law of records the probability of each measurable target set by pulling it back to an event in the original probability space.
Probability laws correspond to distribution functions: Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. 1. Let be a real random variable, let be its law, and let . Then is nondecreasing and right-continuous, satisfies and obeys 2. Conversely, if is nondecreasing and right-continuous with then there is a unique Borel probability measure on such that equivalently
Counterexample
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
The nonnegative density has total integral and is nondecreasing and continuous with limits zero and one. The distribution-function correspondence therefore supplies its Borel probability law; the fundamental theorem of calculus identifies its density as . Under countable choice and dependent choice, construct IID copies with that law. Symmetry of the density gives .
For , . Integrating and multiplying by gives . Thus this tail quantity tends to , not zero. Necessity in the truncated-centering criterion rules out every deterministic centering sequence.
An infinite-mean law requiring diverging centering
Example
Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Let have survival function for , with an atom of mass at . For IID copies , the untruncated mean is infinite but Here ; for integer set . More generally, the survival family for , , has infinite second moment for every , finite first moment exactly for , and admits deterministic weak-law centering exactly for .
Facts & Assumptions
Exact tail criterion for a truncated-centered IID weak law: For IID real random variables and , there exist deterministic real constants with in probability if and only if When this condition holds, works. Neither existence of an untruncated mean nor convergence of is asserted.
Countably many independent copies of a prescribed law exist: Assume countable choice and dependent choice. Every probability measure on is the common law of a countable independent family of -valued random elements.
Layer-cake formulas for random variables: Let be a probability space. 1. If is measurable, then where the right-hand side may be . 2. If is an integrable real random variable, then
Probability laws correspond to distribution functions: Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. 1. Let be a real random variable, let be its law, and let . Then is nondecreasing and right-continuous, satisfies and obeys 2. Conversely, if is nondecreasing and right-continuous with then there is a unique Borel probability measure on such that equivalently
Verification
Given: The construction and assumptions above.
Define for and for , where . It is nondecreasing and right-continuous with limits zero and one at the two infinities. Its jump at is . The distribution-function theorem constructs its Borel probability law (using countable choice); under countable choice and dependent choice the countable-copy result constructs IID variables with it.
Layer cake gives . This is finite exactly for , when it equals . Applying layer cake to and substituting gives : eventually , so the last integrand dominates . The comparison follows from for large , for example by an exponential-series term of integer degree greater than .
For the tail quantity is . It tends to zero exactly for , whereas for it equals one. Both directions of the truncated-centering criterion therefore give exactly the asserted centering range, even in the infinite-mean cases .
For use the pointwise identity . Layer cake for the bounded minimum gives for real . At this is , exactly the contribution of the atom; below the zero truncation is zero. These finite centers work by the preceding step, although and .
Sources
- Section 3.2 opening calculation, pp. 54–55
- Theorem 2.2.6, p. 59, direct example
- Example 2.5.7, p. 85
- Examples 5.1 and 5.3, pp. 1–2
- Theorem 3.12, pp. 66–68, direct specializations
- Example 2.5.7, p. 85, variance obstruction
- Theorem 2.2.6, p. 59, direct counterexample when its variance condition fails
- Borel–Cantelli Lemma 3.4, pp. 58–59; Theorem 3.12 fixed-truncation conditions, pp. 66–68, direct counterexample
- Example 2.2.15, p. 65
- Example 4.7, pp. 3–4, alpha=1 with endpoint correction