in my probability theory course, we defined a sequence of random variables ( X i

Gaaljh

Gaaljh

Answered question

2022-06-24

in my probability theory course, we defined a sequence of random variables ( X i ) i = 1 to be tight if for all ϵ > 0, there is a constant M s.th. P ( | X n | > M ) < ϵ for all n N .
I have seen the following criteria for tightness/non-tightness and I was wondering whether they are true or not:
1. ( X i ) i = 1 tight if there exists M s.th. lim n P ( | X n | > M ) = 0
2. ( X i ) i = 1 not tight if for all M lim n P ( | X n | > M ) > 0
I am quite sure that the first one is right (we get the condition that the probability is smaller than ϵ for all but finitely many n and can take the maximum of all the remaining M necessary for the finitely many n). For the second one I am not so sure, I was thinking that maybe we need some uniform bound, i.e. limn n P ( | X n | > M ) ϵ > 0. I know that the criterion is right if the limit is equal to 1.

Answer & Explanation

seraphinod

seraphinod

Beginner2022-06-25Added 22 answers

Your first proposal is not equivalent to tightness. A family consisting of just copies of a single N(0,1) random variable is tight but does not satisfy that definition. However your first proposal is sufficient, as your argument shows.
As for your second proposal, if you replace lim with lim sup (which is necessary because the limit you're asking for doesn't generally even exist) then you recover the negation of the first proposal. This is a common pitfall; ¬ ( lim n a n = a ) is really equivalent to lim sup n | a n a | > 0, not lim n a n a.

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?