Klenke defines the Poisson process as a family of non-negative integer valued random variables with independent increments, whose increments are distributed according to the Poisson distribution (Definition 5.33). He proceeds to prove that the Poisson process can be characterized by five properties (Theorem 5.34, the five properties P1-P5). In order to prove the direction "If a process satisfies P1-P5, it is a Poisson process" (proof), he appeals to the Poisson approximation theorem. This theorem assumes a collection of numbers $\left(p_{n,k}\right)\subseteq\left[0,1\right]$ that satisfy two conditions: $$\left(i\right)\space\space \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{k=1}^\infty p_{n,k}\in\left(0,\infty\right)$$ $$\left(ii\right)\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{k=1}^\infty p_{n,k}^2=0$$ Accordingly, in the proof of Theorem 5.34 Klenke defines a collection of numbers $\left(p_{n,k}\right)=\left(p_n\right)$ and shows that they satisfy condition $\left(i\right)$ (this takes place five lines from the end, where it is shown that $\alpha t=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}p_n2^n=\lim \sum_{k=1}^{2^n} p_n$). However, condition $\left(ii\right)$ isn't verified, which brings me to wonder: why does condition $\left(ii\right)$ hold?
Tell me more
×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for
people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.
|
We have, as $p_{n,k}=\frac{\lambda}n$ when $k\leq n$ and $0$ otherwise, $$\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}p_{n,k}^2=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\lambda^2}{n^2}=\frac{\lambda^2}n,$$ which gives the wanted result, unless I am missing something. |
|||||||||||
|
