Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The proof can be found in Page 126 (Theorem 5.3.4) of the book by Kai Lai Chung. [13] However, for a sequence of mutually independent random variables, convergence in probability does not imply almost sure convergence. [14] The dominated convergence theorem gives sufficient conditions for almost sure convergence to imply L 1-convergence:
Proof of the theorem: Recall that in order to prove convergence in distribution, one must show that the sequence of cumulative distribution functions converges to the F X at every point where F X is continuous. Let a be such a point. For every ε > 0, due to the preceding lemma, we have:
Convergence proof techniques are canonical patterns of mathematical proofs that sequences or functions converge to a finite limit when the argument tends to infinity. There are many types of sequences and modes of convergence , and different proof techniques may be more appropriate than others for proving each type of convergence of each type ...
[1] [7]: 620 A sequence () that converges to is said to converge at least R-linearly if there exists an error-bounding sequence () such that | | and () converges Q-linearly to zero; analogous definitions hold for R-superlinear convergence, R-sublinear convergence, R-quadratic convergence, and so on.
In probability theory, Kolmogorov's Three-Series Theorem, named after Andrey Kolmogorov, gives a criterion for the almost sure convergence of an infinite series of random variables in terms of the convergence of three different series involving properties of their probability distributions.
[1] [2] For example, ... Today, the LLN is used in many fields including statistics, probability theory, economics, and insurance. ... Proof using convergence of ...
In this example, the ratio of adjacent terms in the blue sequence converges to L=1/2. We choose r = (L+1)/2 = 3/4. Then the blue sequence is dominated by the red sequence r k for all n ≥ 2. The red sequence converges, so the blue sequence does as well. Below is a proof of the validity of the generalized ratio test.
If r < 1, then the series converges absolutely. If r > 1, then the series diverges. If r = 1, the root test is inconclusive, and the series may converge or diverge. The root test is stronger than the ratio test: whenever the ratio test determines the convergence or divergence of an infinite series, the root test does too, but not conversely. [1]