Let $X_1, X_2, ...$ be an independent sequence of random variables on $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathbb{P})$.

What I'm trying to prove is:

Prove that $X_1, X_2, ..., X_k$ is independent of $\liminf X_n$.

I've seen a proof of it already, but it was complicated. I am trying to prove it in another way.

This seems that this can be almost immediately just from the definition/s and can be extended to limsup and to any finite collection of the random variables of the sequence.

Based on this, I guess:

$\liminf X_n = \sup_{n \geq 1} \inf_{m \geq n} \ X_m = \sup_{n \geq k+1} \inf_{m \geq n} \ X_m$

I'm not quite sure how to say this precisely, but I think such shows that $\liminf X_n$ has nothing to do with $X_1, ..., X_k$. Perhaps we say something like $\sigma(\liminf X_n) \subseteq \sigma(X_{k+1}, X_{k+2}, ...)$, which is independent of $X_1, ..., X_k$ ?

Similarly, I guess that $\limsup X_n = \inf_{n \geq 1} \sup_{m \geq n} \ X_m = \inf_{n \geq k+1} \sup_{m \geq n} \ X_m$ and $\sigma(\limsup X_n) \subseteq \sigma(X_{k+1}, X_{k+2}, ...)$, which is independent of $X_1, ..., X_k$.

Extending to proving $\{X_k\}_{k \in K}$,where K is finite and $K \subseteq \mathbb{N}$, is independent of $\limsup X_n$ or $\liminf X_n$:

Pick the highest index , call it k* and then

$\liminf X_n = \sup_{n \geq 1} \inf_{m \geq n} \ X_m = \sup_{n \geq k^{*}+1} \inf_{m \geq n} \ X_m$

Pls do not present a different kind of proof if what I am attempting is wrong. Pls just state what is wrong with my attempt.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems correct to me. But could you please rephrase this as a question? (it is how mse works) $\endgroup$
    – Siméon
    Jul 24, 2015 at 16:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Siméon 'I'm not quite sure how to say this precisely. Perhaps we say something like σ(lim infXn)⊆σ(Xk+1,Xk+2,...), which is independent of X1,...,Xk ?' ? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Jul 24, 2015 at 16:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Siméon Oh wait. I excluded something important. Will edit. $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Jul 24, 2015 at 16:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Siméon Edited 8th paragraph $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Jul 24, 2015 at 16:58

1 Answer 1


Here is an example of how you can make your idea rigorous.

Let $X_1,X_2,X_3,\dots$ be a sequence of independent real random variables. Let us fix some integer $k$ and let $$ \mathcal F = \sigma(X_m ; m \leq k), \qquad \mathcal G = \sigma(X_m ; m \geq k+1). $$ For all $n \geq k+1$, the random variable $Y_n = \sup_{m \geq n} X_m$ is $\mathcal G$-measurable. Since a limit of $\mathcal G$-measurable functions is still $\mathcal G$-measurable, the random variable $\lim_{n\to \infty} Y_n = \limsup_{n\to\infty} X_n$ is $\mathcal G$-measurable.

The random variables $X_1,\dots,X_k$ are $\mathcal F$-measurable, and the random variable $\limsup X_n$ is $\mathcal G$-measurable. They are therefore independent since the $\sigma$-algebras $\mathcal F$ and $\mathcal G$ are independent $\because X_1,X_2,X_3,\dots$ are independent. In particular, the random variables $X_1,\dots,X_k$ are independent of $\limsup_{n\to\infty} X_n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Siméon! How is the edit? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Sep 21, 2015 at 15:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BCLC: Your edit was alright, but I prefer the current version. $\endgroup$
    – Siméon
    Sep 22, 2015 at 16:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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