Prove: Let $X_1 ,X_2 , ... , X_n , ...$ be i.i.d. random variables with $\mathbb{E}[X_1^+]=\mathbb{E}[X_1^-]=+\infty$.

If $S_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n}{X_i}$, then $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\frac{S_n}{n}=+\infty}\text{ a.s., }\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\frac{S_n}{n}=-\infty}\text{ a.s.}$$

I have proven that $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\{\omega :\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\left|\frac{S_n}{n}(\omega)\right|=+\infty}\right\}\right)=1,$$

so at least one of $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\{\omega:\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\frac{S_n}{n}(\omega)=+\infty}\right\}\right)=1\text{ and }\mathbb{P}\left(\left\{\omega:\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\frac{S_n}{n}(\omega)=-\infty}\right\}\right)=1$$ is true, but I don't know how to prove both of them.

Update: According to the paper The strong law of large numbers when the mean is undefined (Erickson K B, 1973), this proposition is wrong.

  • $\begingroup$ And I also wonder how can you prove that $\mathbb{P}(\{\Omega:\limsup_{n\to+\infty}|\frac{S_n}{n}(\omega)|=+\infty\})=1$. Is it proved by using Kolmogorov Zero-One law? $\endgroup$ – lostlife Jun 19 '16 at 5:13

Corollary 3 (p. 1195) in [Kesten (1970)][1] states:

If $$\mathbb E[X_1^+]=\mathbb E[X_1^-]=\infty,$$ then one of the following three cases must prevail

(i) $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n = \infty$ w.p. 1

(ii) $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n = -\infty$ w.p. 1

(iii) $\displaystyle\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n = -\infty$ and $\displaystyle\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n = +\infty$ w.p. 1

From the equivalence of (b) and (c) in Theorem 6:

If $\mathbb E[X_1^+]=\infty$ then the following statements are equivalent

(b) $\displaystyle\mathbb P\left(\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n>-\infty\right)=1$

(c) $\displaystyle\mathbb P\left(\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n=+\infty\right)=1$

and the Hewitt-Savage zero-one law, if (ii) holds then $$\mathbb P\left(\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n=\infty\right)=1. $$ If neither (i) nor (ii) hold, then similarly $$\mathbb P\left(\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n=-\infty\right)=1,$$ from which the result follows.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am still confused by the inequality $\frac{S_{m_{n_j}}}{m_{n_j}}>m$. How can it hold? $\endgroup$ – lostlife Jun 19 '16 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ @lostlife That part of the proof does need revision. I couldn't figure out exactly how to use $\mathbb P\left(\limsup_{n\to\infty} \{X_{n+1}>n\}\right)=1$ to show that $\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{S_n}n=\infty$ almost surely. $\endgroup$ – Math1000 Jun 19 '16 at 4:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By using this condition, I can only show that $\mathbb{P}(\lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac{S_n}{n}=+\infty)=1$ or $\mathbb{P}(\lim_{n\to+\infty}\frac{S_n}{n}=-\infty)=1$ or $\mathbb{P}(\limsup_{n\to+\infty}\frac{S_n}{n}=+\infty)=\mathbb{P}(\liminf_{n\to+\infty}\frac{S_n}{n}=-\infty)=1$, one of the three holds. But why not the first two, I have no idea. $\endgroup$ – lostlife Jun 19 '16 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @lostlife Indeed, you are correct: ams.org/journals/tran/1973-185-00/S0002-9947-1973-0336806-5/… $\endgroup$ – Math1000 Jun 19 '16 at 7:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. I have read that paper. $\endgroup$ – lostlife Jun 19 '16 at 7:44

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.