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.

Let $X=\left(X_1, X_2, \dots\right)$ be an exchangeable family of random variables with values in a Polish space $E$. Fix $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and let $\varphi:E^k\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be measurable with $E\left(\left|\varphi\left(X_1,X_2, \dots, X_k\right)\right|\right)<\infty$. Without risk of ambiguity, denote $\varphi(X):=\varphi\left(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_k\right)$ and let $A_n\left(\varphi\right):=\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\rho\in S(n)}\varphi\left(X^\rho\right)$ ($S(n)$ being the set of permutations of the first $n$ natural numbers and $X^\rho:=\left(X_{\rho(1)},X_{\rho(2)},\dots\right)$).

Denoting by $\mathcal{T}$ the tail $\sigma$-algebra of $X$, [Klenke] claims (Theorem 12.17, p. 238) that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}A_n\left(\varphi\right)$ is $\mathcal{T}$-measurable. Here's the argument given in the book.

It can be easily verified that

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\#\left\{\rho\in S(n) : \rho^{-1}(i)\leq l\space\mathrm{for}\space\mathrm{some}\space i\in\left\{1,\dots, k\right\}\right\}}{n!}=0\space\space\mathrm{for}\space\mathrm{all}\space l\in\mathbb{N}$$

Thus, for lagre $n$, the dependence of $A_n\left(\varphi\right)$ on the first $l$ coordinates is negligible. $\square$

I understand why this argument works if $\varphi$ is bounded, but not the general case. Any help will be appreciated.


References Klenke, Achim. "Probability Theory", 2008

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

A general proof technique in analysis, is if you know something is true for all bounded functions, you can extend it to all integrable functions, by taking the limit of a sequence of bounded functions that approximate your integrable function in the limit.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Sounds like a good suggestion, but i don't see how to apply the idea to the present case. –  Evan Aad Mar 19 '13 at 6:12

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.