Central Limit Theorem Proof: Expanding the Exponential

PineApple2
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Hello. This is the most closely matching forum I found for this, so I hope my question fits here. I was looking at the following proof of the Central-Limit theorem:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~peter/250/deriv_climit.pdf
and after Eq. (10) it says: "Expanding out the exponential in the last expression and comparing
powers of k one finds that the fi rst few cumulants are..."
but I don't see how the equalities in the next lines stem from it.
Could someone please explicitly show that?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PineApple2 said:
Hello. This is the most closely matching forum I found for this, so I hope my question fits here. I was looking at the following proof of the Central-Limit theorem:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~peter/250/deriv_climit.pdf
and after Eq. (10) it says: "Expanding out the exponential in the last expression and comparing
powers of k one finds that the fi rst few cumulants are..."
but I don't see how the equalities in the next lines stem from it.
Could someone please explicitly show that?

Thanks.

Hey PineApple2.

I think the best way for you would be to look at how the moments and cumulants are defined with respect to each other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(mathematics)

Specifically with regard to your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulant#Cumulants_and_moments
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top