1
$\begingroup$

Let $X_1,...X_n$ be a sequence of random variables such that $X_n=1 $ or $0$ and $P(X_1=1) \geq \alpha$ and $P(X_n=1|X_1,...X_{n-1}) \geq \alpha$ for $n=2,3,...$ where $\alpha >0$

I need to show $P(X_n=1$ infinitely often )$ =1$

Using Borel-Cantelli lemma,

I can show that $\sum P(X_n=1) =\infty $ because

$\sum P(X_n=1) = P(X_1=1) + P(X_2 =1| X1) + P(X_3|X_1,X2) + .... > \alpha + \alpha + .... =\infty $

But to apply the Borel-Cantelli lemma, the sequence should be independent . But in this case it is not.

Can anyone help me to figure out how to find an independent sub sequence ? Also is there any better approach than Borel-Cantelli lemma for this question?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think Borel-Cantelli is helpful in this case. What if you compute the probability of never getting another 1 after index $n$? $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jul 8, 2018 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael . Did you mean to calculate $P(X_n =0 $ I.O $) $ and take the complement or calculate $p(X_n =1 $ for some n $)$ ? $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2018 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael I tried to calculate $P(X_n =0 $ i.o $)$ . Then i need to calculate $\sum P(X_n=0)$ isn't it ? . But then i am getting $\sum P(X_n=0) = \infty $ because if $\alpha >0 $ , then $ 1- \alpha > 0 $ too. so the sum goes to $ \infty $ . Am i correct or did i do something wrong ? $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2018 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ I meant to use $$\{\mbox{finite number of 1s}\} = \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}\{\mbox{there are no 1s after index $n$}\} $$ $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jul 9, 2018 at 3:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, except the last step should be $\leq$ because $P[\cap_{m=n}^k \{X_m=0\}]\leq (1-\alpha)^{k-n+1}$. Similar to how you are using the union bound, you could also say $$ P[\mbox{finite number of 1s}] \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}P[\mbox{there are no 1s after index $n$}]$$ $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jul 9, 2018 at 16:19

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{F}_n=\sigma(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ and $\mathcal{F}_0=\{0,\emptyset\}$. Then by the generalized Borell-Cantelli lemma, $$ \{X_n=1\text{ i.o.}\}=\left\{\sum_{n\ge 1 }\mathsf{P}(X_n=1\mid\mathcal{F}_{n-1})=\infty\right\}, $$ and the probability of the RHS is $1$.


Instead you may adjust the proof of the unconditional B-C lemma. Specifically, let $A_n=\{X_n=1\}$. Indpendence is used to show that $$ \mathsf{P}\left(\bigcap_{n\ge m} A_n^c\right)=\prod_{n\ge m}\mathsf{P}(A_n^c)=0. $$ In your case, \begin{align} \mathsf{P}\left(\bigcap_{m\le n\le r} A_n^c\right)&=\mathsf{E}\left[\mathsf{E}\left[1_{A_r^c}\mid \mathcal{F}_{r-1}\right]1_{\bigcap_{m\le n\le r-1} A_n^c}\right]\le (1-\alpha)\mathsf{P}\left(\bigcap_{m\le n\le r-1} A_n^c\right) \\ &\le(1-\alpha)^2\mathsf{P}\left(\bigcap_{m\le n\le r-2} A_n^c\right)\le\cdots\le(1-\alpha)^{r-m+1}. \end{align} Taking $r\to\infty$ implies that $\mathsf{P}\left(\bigcap_{n\ge m} A_n^c\right)=0$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ True, but this seems to be a homework problem and usually it is not a good idea to solve homeworks by throwing a more sophisticated theorem at a problem. If the asker had access to this generalization, likely the question would not be asked. Though I give +1 since it is useful to learn of existence of this generalization. $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jul 8, 2018 at 6:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael It seems that the question fits this result perfectly... $\endgroup$
    – user140541
    Jul 8, 2018 at 6:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does fit it perfectly but (according to my best guess) this homework problem expects students to use basic principles. $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jul 8, 2018 at 6:15

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.