1
$\begingroup$

Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow [0,\infty) $ continuous function and denote by $P$ the space of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and by $P_R \,=\, \{\nu \in P \, | \, \int f d \nu \leqslant R \, \} $ for $R>0$. We equip both spaces with the topology of weak convergence of probability measures.

I am trying to see if $P_R$ is a closed subset of $P$.

My attempt, which shows that it is indeed closed subset, is the following :

Let $\{\mu_n\} \subseteq P_R $ such that $\mu_n \rightarrow \mu \in P $. I will show that $\mu \in P_R$.

$\{\mu_n\} \subseteq P_R \,\,\Rightarrow \,\, \sup \limits_{n} \int f d \mu_n \, \leqslant R < \infty \,\, \Rightarrow \,\, \{\mu_n\}$ tight sequence in $P_R$ $\Rightarrow$ sequentially compact in $P_R$ by Prokhorov's theorem $\Rightarrow$ there exists subsequence $\{\mu_{k_n}\}_n \subseteq P_R$ which converges in $P_R$. So by uniqueness of the limit $\mu \in P_R$.

What do you think ? Is it correct ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Obviously false if you have strict inequality in the definition of $P_R$. (Take degenerate measures) $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Dec 8 '18 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ No I meant less or equal in the definition of P_R.. sorry typo $\endgroup$ – vl.ath Dec 8 '18 at 9:38
2
$\begingroup$

Boundedness of the integrals for one particular $f$ does not give you tightness: take $f \equiv 0$, for example. Hence your argument is invalid. I suppose you meant $P_R=\{\nu: \int f d \nu \leq R\}$. Suppose $\nu_j \to \nu$ weakly. If $N$ is a positive integer and $f_N=\min \{f,N\}$ then $f_N$ is a bounded continuous function. Hence $\int f_N d \nu =\lim_{j \to \infty} \int f_N d\nu_j \leq \lim_{j \to \infty} \int f d\nu_j \leq R$. Now let $N \to \infty$ and apply Monotone Convefrgence Theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have one more question. Based on this math.stackexchange.com/questions/1142631/… , if I also assume that my fuction f goes to $\infty$ as $|x|\rightarrow \infty$, then is my attempt correct ? $\endgroup$ – vl.ath Dec 8 '18 at 15:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @vl.ath In that case tightness is valid but still your argument is circular. You are already assuming that $P_R$ is closed when you say that the limiting measure $\mu \in P_R$. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Dec 8 '18 at 23:17

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.