Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

From Terrence Tao's blog

Exercise 23 (Implications and equivalences) Let ${X_n, X}$ be random variables taking values in a ${\sigma}$-compact metric space ${R}$.

(ii) Show that if ${X_n}$ converges in distribution to ${X}$, then ${X_n}$ has a tight sequence of distributions.

(iv) Show that ${X_n}$ converges in distribution to ${X}$ if and only if ${\mu_{X_n}}$ converges to ${\mu_X}$ in the vague topology (i.e. ${\int f\ d\mu_{X_n} \rightarrow \int f\ d\mu_X}$ for all continuous functions ${f: R \rightarrow {\bf R}}$ of compact support).

(v) Conversely, if ${X_n}$ has a tight sequence of distributions, and ${\mu_{X_n}}$ is convergent in the vague topology, show that ${X_n}$ is convergent in distribution to another random variable (possibly after extending the sample space). What happens if the tightness hypothesis is dropped?

Isn't (v) already part of (iv)? What do I miss to see? Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question

I believe the discussion of this old mathexchange post clarifies what is meant (I don't find the way the exercise was written particularly clear): Definition of convergence in distribution

See in particular the comment by Chris Janjigian. In (iv), the limiting distribution is assumed to be that of a R.V.; in (v), all that is given is that we have vague convergence (which need not be to a R.V., per the discussion of the link). However, if we add tightness, it will be - and this is exercise (v).

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.