Suppose $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ are iid standard Cauchy random variables, does $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i$ converge in probability or almost surely?

I know that by stable law, $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i \sim Cauchy(0,1)$, but how can I find if it converges in probability or not by the definition of convergence in probability?


It's pretty clear that it can't converge (in either sense) to a number, since it always has the Cauchy(0,1) distribution. To see that it can't converge to anything, observe that $$ \frac{S_{2n}}{2n}-\frac{S_n}{n} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{S_{2n}-S_n}{n} -\frac{1}{2}\frac{S_n}{n}.$$ where $S_n = \sum_{k=1}^n X_k.$ $(S_{2n}-S_{n})/n$ and $S_n/n$ are independent Cauchys, so their difference is stable and the distance between $S_{2n}/2n$ and $S_n/n$ cannot go to zero as $n$ gets large.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I am curious about two things. 1) What is it about the Cauchy(0,1) distribution that it cant converge to a number? 2) What is it about a stable law such that it can't go to zero? Thanks!!!! $\endgroup$ – user321627 Jan 13 '17 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user321627 First I should say I'm the upvote on the other answer which is essentially the same as mine but in better detail. By 'a number' I meant a fixed number (as opposed to a random variable). If its limiting distribution is Cauchy(0,1) then there's no fixed number that it could be going toward, since it has density everywhere. If it converged to a number it would converge in distribution to a number (i.e. a distribution where $P(X=\mu) = 1$ for some number $\mu.$) $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen Jan 13 '17 at 5:07
  • $\begingroup$ @user321627 By 'stable' I just meant the difference has the same distribution regardless of how large $n$ gets. So it can't obey the Cauchy sequence version of convergence in probability, which the other answerer shows means it can't converge in probability (same proof as convergence => cauchy sequence for non-random sequences) (Sorry there's two unrelated uses of 'cauchy' in this problem) $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen Jan 13 '17 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ @user321627 To the answer to the first question, I should add - in case it's still confusing- that there's nothing special about the cauchy distribution that means the sequence can't converge to a number. The same would be true if the limiting distribution were normal or any distribution that's not concentrated entirely on a single value. $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen Jan 13 '17 at 5:17

Let $Z_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i$.

Now $$Z_{2n} - Z_{n} = \underset{A_n}{\underbrace{-\frac{1}{2n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i}} +\underset{B_n}{\underbrace{\frac{1}{2n} \sum_{i=n+1}^{2n} X_i}}.$$

Then $A_n$ and $B_n$ are independent identically distributed Cauchy $(0,\frac 12)$. Hence, $A_n + B_n $ is Cauchy $(0,1)$.

In particular,

$$P(|Z_n -Z_{2n}|>\epsilon )=c,$$

where $c$ is the probability that Cauchy $(0,1)$ has absolute value larger than $\epsilon$ (explicitly, $c= \frac{2}{\pi} \arctan\epsilon$). This is a constant independent of $n$.

From this we conclude that the sequence $(Z_n)$ does not converge in probability and therefore also not a.s. It is Cauchy distributed, but unfortunately, it is not a Cauchy sequence is probability...

Indeed, for any random variable $Z$ we have

$$|Z_n - Z_{2n}|= |Z_n -Z+ Z-Z_{2n}|\le |Z_n - Z| + |Z_{2n}-Z|.$$

Therefore, the event $\{|Z_n-Z_{2n}|>\epsilon\}$ is contained in the event $\{|Z_n -z|+|Z_{2n}-Z|>\epsilon\}$. But the latter event is contained in the event $\{|Z_n-Z|>\epsilon/2\}\cup \{|Z_{2n}-Z|>\epsilon/2\}$. Or:

$$c = P(|Z_n-Z_{2n}|>\epsilon) \le P(|Z_n -Z|>\epsilon/2)+P(|Z_{2n}-Z|>\epsilon/2).$$

Since the righthand side is bounded below by $c$, it follows that $Z$ is not the limit in probability of $(Z_n)$ (if it were, both summands on RHS would go to zero as $n\to\infty$).


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.