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.

Suppose we have a set $M$ of random variables on a probability space. Then we defined boundedness of $M$ as,

$M$ is bounded if $\sup_{X\in M}P(|X|>N) \to 0$ as $ N \to \infty$.

This definition means that the measure of the set where the elements of $ M $ are big is very small, in fact tends to zero. I have three questions to this definition and some further conclusions.

Now suppose we have a unbounded set. My questions are:

  1. Unbounded would mean, that for every $N>0$ there exists an $ \epsilon >0 $ and a $ X \in M $ such that $ P(|X| > N) \ge \epsilon $. Is this conclusion right?
  2. If theres a sequence $ (X_n) $ of random variables, unbounded and positive, then there's a subsequence $ (X_{n_k}) $ and a $\lambda>0 $ such that $ P(|(X_{n_k})| > k)\ge \lambda $ for every $ k \in \mathbb{N}$.

My observations so far to 2. After the comment of Srivatsan (see below), we therefore have:$ \exists \epsilon > 0 $ sucht that for all $ N>0 $ exists a $ X_n $ such that $ P(X_n(\omega) > N) \ge \epsilon $ Put $ N=1 $, hence there is a $ X_{n_1} $ sucht that $ P(X_{n_1} > 1 ) \ge \epsilon$. Now put $ N=2 $, hence there is a $ X_i $ such that $ P(X_i > 2) \ge \epsilon$. Now the problem is, why do I know that $ i> n_1 $ ? Otherwise it isn't a subsequence.

Thanks for your help

hulik

share|improve this question
"Unbounded" means that there exists an $\varepsilon > 0$ such that for all $N$, there exists $X \in M$ with $P(|X| \geqslant N) \geqslant \varepsilon$. – Srivatsan Dec 19 '11 at 11:40
In the question 2, you probably meant "$P(|X_{n_k}|>k)\geq\lambda$", since with $X_k=k/2$ we get a counter-example. But what does question 3 become? – Davide Giraudo Dec 19 '11 at 12:43
You're right, I edited that. I'm very sorry but I don't know what you mean with: " but what does question 3 become?" – hulik Dec 19 '11 at 12:46
If I understand well, question 3 is: do we have for almost every $\omega$, and infinitely many $k$, $|X_{n_k}(\omega)|\geq k$. It's true by Borel-Cantelli lemma if $X_{n_k}$ are independent, but not in general, for example taking $\Omega=[0,1]$ with Lebesgue measure and $X_n=(n+1)\mathbf 1_{[0,\lambda)}$. – Davide Giraudo Dec 19 '11 at 12:54
I do not know that the $ (X_n) $ are independent. The reason for question 3 was $ (1) $. As I worte, I try to prove $ (1) $ and I do not see why this is true unless we know that for almost all $ \omega $ and infinitly man $ k$, it's true that $|X_{n_k}(\omega)| \ge k$. Since I can not assume independence, I have to find a different arguement why $ (1) $ is true. – hulik Dec 19 '11 at 13:00
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

(1) is not correct. Let $Y$ be a single random variable such that, for every $N$, we have $P(|Y| > N) > 0$; for example, a normal random variable. (I would call such a random variable "unbounded", but that conflicts with your terminology.) Then let $M = \{Y\}$. $M$ is bounded in your sense (exercise: verify this, using continuity of probability) but it is still true that for every $N$ there exists $X \in M$ (namely $X=Y$) and $\epsilon > 0$ (namely $\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}P(|Y|>N)$) such that $P(|X| > N) > \epsilon$.

Srivatsan's comment above gives a corrected statement; I just wanted to show explicitly that the statement in the original question (for every $N>0$ there exists an $\epsilon >0$ and $X \in M$ such that $P(|X|>N) \ge \epsilon$) is not correct.

Regarding (2): You know that there is an $\epsilon$ such that for any $N$ there is an $X_n$ with $P(|X_n|>N) > \epsilon$. In fact, for any $N$ there are infinitely many such $X_n$; thus you can always choose one that occurs later in the sequence than all the ones chosen so far. To see there must be infinitely many such $X_n$, suppose there were only finitely many and show that in fact we would have to have $\sup_n P(|X|>N) \to 0$ as $N \to \infty$. (Warmup: what if there were only one such $X_n$? Now what if there were only two?)

Hint: Fix a random variable $X$. This is a measurable function $X : \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$; for every $\omega \in \Omega$, $|X(\omega)|$ is some real number, and so there is an integer (depending on $\omega$) which is greater than it. It follows that $\bigcap_{N \in \mathbb{N}} \{|X| \ge N\} = \emptyset$. Now "continuity from above" (which follows from countable additivity) implies that $\lim_{N \to \infty} P(|X| \ge N) = 0$. This is the key step you need.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Nate Eldrege for you answer! with " 1 is not correct" you mean : for every $ N >0 $ there exists an $ \epsilon >0$ and $ X \in M$ such that $ P(|X|> N)\ge \epsilon $, right? As you can see in the comments above, Srivatsan corrected this already. At this point I just have trouble with 2), see also my observations so far for 2) above. – hulik Dec 20 '11 at 18:44
@hulik: Right. I've edited to address this, and also your question (2). – Nate Eldredge Dec 20 '11 at 20:27
Eldrege: Thanks for answering 2)! I have a question about that: We know it exists $ \epsilon $ such that for every $ N>0 $ there's a $ X_n $ with $ P(|X_n|>N) > \epsilon$. You claim that for every $ N $ there are infinitely many $ X_n$ with this property. So let $ N>0 $ and suppose there's just one of this $ X_n$. First it's clear: $ \mathbf1\{|X_n|>N\} \ge \mathbf1\{|X_n|>N-1\} \dots \mathbf1\{|X_n|>1\}$ So if I can prove, that there's no $ X_n $ such that for this fixed $ X_n$ : $ P(|X_n|> N ) > \epsilon $ for all $ N $ then I'm done. But I do not see why this could not be the case.... – hulik Dec 21 '11 at 8:44
Perhaps there's a element $ \tilde{X} $ of the sequence which is on a set (with large enough measure) as big as I want. If I can prove that it doesn't hold for 1) then using induction I can prove your claim. However, I do not see how to prove this for one, aso mentioned above. Again thanks for your help! – hulik Dec 21 '11 at 8:47
1  
@hulik: I added another hint. – Nate Eldredge Dec 21 '11 at 19:02
show 1 more comment

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.