Borel-Cantelli Lemma

  • Thread starter e12514
  • Start date
  • #1
30
0
Let (A_n)_n>=1 be any event in some probability space { Omega, F, P }, then

(i) SUM_n (P(A_n)) < oo => P( limsup_n->oo (A_n) ) = 0

(ii) If in addition the A_n are independent then
P( limsup_n->oo (A_n) ) <1 => SUM_n (P(A_n)) < oo




Does that mean if the A_n are independent then P( limsup_n->oo (A_n)) must be either 0 or 1??

If so, why bother using "<1" in (ii) and not just use "=0" instead?

If not, then when it is strictly between 0 and 1 we have
from (ii) that SUM_n (P(A_n)) < oo
and then from (i) we get P( limsup_n->oo (A_n) ) = 0, a contradiction.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Does that mean if the A_n are independent then P( limsup_n->oo (A_n)) must be either 0 or 1??
It must be zero or one in any case.
 
  • #3
quadraphonics
Does that mean if the A_n are independent then P( limsup_n->oo (A_n)) must be either 0 or 1??

If so, why bother using "<1" in (ii) and not just use "=0" instead?
It's a weaker condition, and so could (potentially) be easier to employ. That said, I suspect the specific phrasing is an artifact. I.e., the usual way of phrasing the second theorem is to say that if the sum diverges, then the probability of the limsup is 1. The phrasing you've used is the contrapositive of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Borel-Cantelli Lemma

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
798
Top