Definition of convergence in probabilty

We say that $X_n$ converges in probability to zero, written $X_n = o_p(1)$, if for every $\epsilon> 0$,

$$ P(| X_n | > \epsilon) \rightarrow 0, \qquad n \rightarrow \infty$$

Definition of boundedness in probability (tightness)

We say that $X_n$ is tight, written $X_n = O_p(1)$, if for every $\epsilon> 0$ there exists $\delta(\epsilon) \in (0, \infty)$ such that

$$ P(| X_n | > \delta(\epsilon)) < \epsilon \qquad \forall n$$

We also say that, given a sequence $\{ a_n \}_{n \in N}$, $X_n =O_p(a_n) \iff a_n^{-1} X_n = O_p(1) $ .

Assume we have a sequence $X_n$ of random variables such that $X_n = a + O_p(r_n)$ and $0<r_n \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. And define

$$h(x) := \left[ g(x) - \sum_{j= 0}^s \frac{g^{(j)}(a)}{j!} ( x - a)^j \right] \bigg/ \left[ \frac{(x-a)^s}{s!} \right] \quad x \ne a$$ and $h(a) = 0$ where $g \in C^s$ and $s \in N$.


Why is it that $h(X_n) = h(a) + o_p(1)$?

I understand that $h$ is a continuous function and that for generic continuous function $f$ we have that $X_n = a +o_p(1) \implies f(X_n) = f(a) + o_p(1)$ but in our assumptions we only have that $X_n = a + O_p(r_n)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps the first step is for you to determine how a general person can discern the meaning of $O_p(r_n)$ from your definition of $O_p(1)$. $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Aug 15 '18 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael well said! I edited in the meaning, thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Monolite
    Aug 15 '18 at 9:32

From Taylor's formula, $$ h\left(X_n\right)-h\left(a\right)=f_s\left(X_n\right), $$ where $f_s\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ is such that $\lim_{t\to a}f_s\left(t\right)=0$. Writing $X_n=a+r_nY_n$, where $\left(Y_n\right)_{n\geqslant 1}$ is tight, we have to show that the sequence $\left(f_s\left(a+r_nY_n\right)\right)_{n\geqslant 1}$ converges to $0$ in probability. Suppose not: there exists positive $\varepsilon_0,\delta_0$ and an increasing sequence of integers $\left(n_k\right)_{k\geqslant 1}$ such that for all $k\geqslant 1$, $\Pr\left(\left\lvert f_s\left(a+r_{n_k}Y_{n_k}\right)\right\rvert\gt\varepsilon_0\right)\gt \delta_0$. Since the sequence $\left(Y_{n_k}\right)_{k\geqslant 1}$ is tight, we can extract a subsequence $\left(Y_{n_{j_k}}\right)_{k\geqslant 1}$ which converges in distribution to some $Y$. Therefore, $a+r_{n_{j_k}}Y_{n_{j_k}}\to a$ in probability. Extract a further subsequence which converges almost surely to reach a contradiction (along this further subsequence, $f_s\left(X_n\right)\to 0$ almost surely).

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! should "$a+r_{n_{j_k}}Y_{n_{j_k}}\to 0$ in probability" read $f_s(a+r_{n_{j_k}}Y_{n_{j_k}})\to 0$ in probability? And why does finding a single subsequence that converges almost surely guarantee a contradiction? $\endgroup$
    – Monolite
    Aug 15 '18 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Monolite I meant $a+r_{n_{j_k}}Y_{n_{j_k}}\to a$ in probability. Then along the further subsequence, $a+r_{n_{j_k}}Y_{n_{j_k}}\to a$ a.s. $\endgroup$ Aug 15 '18 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ If $f_s$ was continuous would we still need to extract a further subsequence which converges almost surely or could we just use the fact that $f_s(X_n) \rightarrow f_s(a)$ in probability? $\endgroup$
    – Monolite
    Aug 15 '18 at 12:40

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.