Ad
related to: borel cantelli lemma test kit 2 in 1 digital air and deep fryer black
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It is named after Émile Borel and Francesco Paolo Cantelli, who gave statement to the lemma in the first decades of the 20th century. [1] [2] A related result, sometimes called the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, is a partial converse of the first Borel–Cantelli lemma. The lemma states that, under certain conditions, an event will have ...
Proofs of Borel's lemma can be found in many text books on analysis, including Golubitsky & Guillemin (1974) and Hörmander (1990), from which the proof below is taken. Note that it suffices to prove the result for a small interval I = (− ε , ε ), since if ψ ( t ) is a smooth bump function with compact support in (− ε , ε ) equal ...
In mathematics, the limit of a sequence of sets,, … (subsets of a common set ) is a set whose elements are determined by the sequence in either of two equivalent ways: (1) by upper and lower bounds on the sequence that converge monotonically to the same set (analogous to convergence of real-valued sequences) and (2) by convergence of a sequence of indicator functions which are themselves ...
Burnside's lemma also known as the Cauchy–Frobenius lemma; Frattini's lemma (finite groups) Goursat's lemma; Mautner's lemma (representation theory) Ping-pong lemma (geometric group theory) Schreier's subgroup lemma; Schur's lemma (representation theory) Zassenhaus lemma
For (,) a measurable space, a sequence μ n is said to converge setwise to a limit μ if = ()for every set .. Typical arrow notations are and .. For example, as a consequence of the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma, the sequence μ n of measures on the interval [−1, 1] given by μ n (dx) = (1 + sin(nx))dx converges setwise to Lebesgue measure, but it does not converge in total variation.
Proof: We will prove this statement using the portmanteau lemma, part A. First we want to show that (X n, c) converges in distribution to (X, c). By the portmanteau lemma this will be true if we can show that E[f(X n, c)] → E[f(X, c)] for any bounded continuous function f(x, y). So let f be such arbitrary bounded continuous function.
Given a Borel measure μ on a metric space X such that μ(X) > 0 and μ(B(x, r)) ≤ r s holds for some constant s > 0 and for every ball B(x, r) in X, then the Hausdorff dimension dim Haus (X) ≥ s. A partial converse is provided by the Frostman lemma: [7] Lemma: Let A be a Borel subset of R n, and let s > 0. Then the following are equivalent:
A main area of study in invariant descriptive set theory is the relative complexity of equivalence relations. An equivalence relation on a set is considered more complex than an equivalence relation on a set if one can "compute using " - formally, if there is a function : which is well behaved in some sense (for example, one often requires that is Borel measurable) such that ,: ().