Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

The title says it. I know that if limiting variable $Y$ is constant a.s. (so that $\mathbb{P}(Y=c)=1)$ then the convergence in probability is equivalent to the convergence in law, i.e. $$Y_n\overset{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}c \iff Y_n\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}c,$$ and then Slutsky's theorem asserts that $X_n\cdot Y_n\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}X\cdot c$. But what about the case when $Y$ is not constant? Does $X_n\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}X$, $Y_n\overset{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}Y$ imply $X_n\cdot Y_n\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}X\cdot Y$ ?
I would appreciate any hints.

share|improve this question
    
It is not true for example if $X_n$ and $Y_n$ are not independent. –  dtldarek Oct 21 '12 at 16:26
    
@dtldarek How can I see this? –  Kuba Helsztyński Oct 21 '12 at 16:39

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let $Y$ represent a fair coin with sides valued $0$ (zero) and $1$ (one). Set $Y_n = Y$, $X = Y$, $X_n = 1-Y$. The premise is fulfilled, but $X_n\cdot Y_n = 0\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\nrightarrow}Y = X\cdot Y$.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 for the economic example. Using $\pm1$ Bernoulli random variables, instead of 0-1 ones, might be even more spectacular. –  Did Oct 21 '12 at 17:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.