Convergence of indicator functions for L1 r.v.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the equivalence of three conditions related to the convergence of indicator functions for L1 random variables. It is established that E(|X|) < infinity implies that I(|X| > n) approaches 0 as n increases, and that I(|X| > n) going to 0 leads to P(|X| > n) going to 0. The main inquiry is whether the reverse implications hold, specifically if I(|X| > n) going to 0 guarantees E(|X|) < infinity, and if P(|X| > n) going to 0 ensures I(|X| > n) goes to 0. Additionally, the discussion raises a question regarding the validity of these implications for the Cauchy distribution. The thread seeks clarification on these mathematical relationships.
jk_zhengli
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I wonder if the following are equivalent.

1) E(|X|) < infinity

2) I(|X| > n) goes to 0 as n goes to infinity (I is the indicator function)

3) P(|X| > n) goes to 0 as n goes to infinity.


1) => 2) and 2) => 3) are easy to see, please help me to show 2) => 1) and 3) => 2) if they are indeed true. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K