1
$\begingroup$

Problem: Given a sequence $(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$ of i.i.d. RV and $P(X_1=1)=P(X_1=-1)=1/2$ we have for $m \geq 2k+1 \in \mathbb{N}$ for the partial sums $S_{n+m}-S_n=m$ i.o. a.s.

My approach: I want to show two things to conclude the statement, namely $$ P(\limsup \lbrace S_{n+m}-S_n \geq m \rbrace)=1 \\P ( \limsup \lbrace S_{n+m}-S_n >m \rbrace)=0 $$ From which I could conclude that $P(\limsup \lbrace S_{n+m}-S_n =m \rbrace )=1$ i.e. $S_{n+m}-S_n=m$ i.o. a.s. This looks like a typical setup for the two Borel Cantelli Lemmas. So $$S_{n+m}-S_n=X_1 + \dots + X_n+X_{n+1}+ \dots + X_{n+m}-(X_1 + \dots + X_n) \\ = X_{n+1}+ \dots + X_{n+m} $$

Since $P(X_1=1)=P(X_1=-1)=1/2$ (I guess that means they behave like Bernoulli Variables) I obtain for the expected value $E(X_1)=\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} kP(X_1=k)=0$, because the sequence are i.i.d. it follows that $$E(S_{n+m}-S_n)=m \cdot E(X_1)=m \cdot 0 =0 $$

Thanks to the law of large numbers I can state now that $$\frac{X_{n+1}+ \dots + X_{n+m}}{m} \to 0 \text{ almost surely as }m \to \infty $$

If this is true then I have for arbitrary $\epsilon >0$ and $m$ large enough that $$- \epsilon m \leq X_{n+1}+ \dots + X_{n+m} \leq m \epsilon $$

I don't think that I am on the right track. Can someone provide me with a hint? I don't see how to include the $m \geq 2k+1$ part

Update: The following idea also struck me. I have $E(X_1)=0$, and it is easy to verify that
Var$(X_1)= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}k^2 P(X_1=k)=1$. Now we know that all our RV are i.i.d and therefore we obtain that $$\text{Var}(S_{n+m}-S_n)=m\text{Var}(X_1) = m $$

Thanks to Chebyshev's Inequality this gives me another bound (which however is useless for Borel Cantelli) namely $$P(|S_{n+m}-S_n| \geq m ) \leq \frac{1}{m} $$

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hint: Borel-Cantelli for the events $A_i=[S_{(m+1)i}-S_{mi}=m]=[X_{mi+1}=X_{mi+2}=\ldots=X_{(m+1)i}=1]$. $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Apr 30 '16 at 13:13
2
$\begingroup$

Use Borel-Cantelli. Let $n=k\cdot 2m$ and $$A_k:=\left\{X_{2m\cdot k }=1\cap X_{2m\cdot k+1 }=1\cap\ldots\cap X_{2m\cdot k+m-1}=1\right\}$$ Then $A_k$ are independent, and $$ \mathbb{P}(A_k)=\prod_{j=0}^{m-1}\mathbb{P}(X_{2m\cdot k+j }=1)=p^m $$ So: $$ \sum_{k=1}^\infty\mathbb{P}(A_k)=\infty $$ Thus by Borel-Cantelli, infinitely many $A_k$ will happen a.s.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer @Ákos Somogyi. I understand your approach, but would you mind telling me why you introduce $n=2mk$?. After getting the general idea I wrote my "proof" down like this $$P(X_{n+1}+ \dots + X_{n+m}=m)= P(X_{n+1}=1, \dots , X_{n+m}=1) = P(X_{n+1}=1) \cdot ... \cdot P(X_{n+m}=1)= 0.5^m $$ I was going to conclude from here with Borel Cantelli 2. $\endgroup$
    – Spaced
    Apr 30 '16 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ It was to make the events independent. You could choose $n=km$. $\endgroup$ Apr 30 '16 at 19:09

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.