Let $W_1, W_2, \ldots$ be iid random variables, $S_k = \sum_{i=1}^k W_k$ and $Z\sim N(0,1)$.

Given sequences $\{a_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ s.t.

$$\lim_{k \to \infty} a_k = a, \lim_{k \to \infty} b_k = b,$$

where $a, b \in [-\infty,\infty]$,

is it true that

$$\lim_{k \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left( a_k \le \frac{(W_1 + \cdots + W_k)-E[S_k]}{\operatorname{Var}[S_k]} \le b_k \right)$$

$$= \mathbb{P}\left( \lim_{k \to \infty} a_k \le Z \le \lim_{k \to \infty} b_k \right) \text{ ?}$$

According to Larsen and Marx, the central limit theorem states that:

enter image description here

If needed (but please state which):

  1. assume finite mean, finite variance, integrability, boundedness or whatever

  2. assume $a_k, a < 0$.

  3. assume $b_k, b > 0$.

It doesn't look like continuity of probability will help.

I tried defining

$$A_k := \left( a_k \le \frac{(W_1 + \cdots + W_k)- \operatorname{E}[S_k]}{\operatorname{Var}[S_k]} \le b_k \right)$$


$$A := \left( \lim_{k \to \infty} a_k \le Z \le \lim_{k \to \infty} b_k \right)$$

If the bounds or random variable didn't depend on $k$ or if the random, I think one could apply continuity of probability. I'm not quite sure if

$$\bigcap_{k=1}^{\infty} A_k \text{ or } \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} A_k = A$$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I changed $Z$ ~ $N(0,1)$ to $Z\sim N(0,1)$ and $$\bigcap A_k or \bigcup A_k$$ to $$\bigcap A_k \text{ or } \bigcup A_k$$ and added standard use of \ldots and \cdots and a few other things. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Nov 22 '15 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @MichaelHardy ^-^ $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 22 '15 at 20:35

This looks to me like a standard limit problem. What I would do is to consider, for each $k$, the difference between the integrals between $a_k$ to $b_k$ and between $a$ and $b$.

For any $\epsilon>0$, the set of $k$ for which the difference exceeds $\epsilon$ is bounded, so the sum for those $k$ can be made arbitrarily small, and the rest of the terms are nice.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks marty cohen, but what do you mean by 'the sum for those k' ? How do you know such set is bounded? I tried something. Edited OP. Pls check it out $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 22 '15 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ For any fixed $\epsilon$, the set of $a_k$ and $b_k$ for which the difference exceeds $\epsilon$ is finite; call it $m$. Then consider the differences for $a_k$ and $b_k$ for $m < k < n$, and let $n$ get large. The terms with $k < m$ will become insignificant and the terms with $m < k < n$, which all have error $< \epsilon$ will dominate, so the overall error will be within, say, $2\epsilon$. Then let $\epsilon \to 0$. As I said, this is a standard technique, where there is a "bad" initial part and a "good" final part which swamps the "bad" part. $\endgroup$ – marty cohen Nov 23 '15 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ Soooo you infer the boundedness of $k_{\epsilon}$ from the fact that 'the set...is finite' ? If so that fact is based on the limits of the sequences existing? Also what exactly is m? Cardinality? Supremum? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 23 '15 at 2:40
  • $\begingroup$ $m$ is $m(\epsilon)$: if $k > m$ then $|a_k-a|<\epsilon$ and same for $b$. $\endgroup$ – marty cohen Nov 23 '15 at 4:40
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure I follow. Is my proof right? I am primarily wondering about the boundedness. Is it related to the fact that a_k and b_k converge? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 23 '15 at 5:34

Let us show that $\forall \epsilon > 0, \exists K > 0$ s.t.

$$k > K \to |c_k - c| < \epsilon$$


$c_k := P(Z_k \in (a_k, b_k))$

$c := P(Z \in (a, b))$

$\forall \epsilon > 0$, $k_{\epsilon}:= \{ \text{all k s.t.} |c_k - c| \ge \epsilon \}$ is bounded (I think). Thus, $\exists M_{\epsilon} > 0$ s.t.

$$|c_{M_{\epsilon}} - c| \ge \epsilon$$


$$|c_{M_{\epsilon} + 1} - c| < \epsilon$$

Choose $K = M_{\epsilon}$.


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.