Convergence of Random Variables on Discrete Prob Spaces

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between weak convergence in probability and almost sure convergence in discrete probability spaces. A professor claims that in such spaces, weak convergence implies almost sure convergence, which some participants dispute, citing counterexamples. The conversation highlights confusion over the professor's assertion and attempts to clarify the conditions under which these forms of convergence can be equivalent. One participant suggests that to prove the professor's claim, one could analyze the behavior of sequences on discrete events with non-zero probabilities. The thread emphasizes the complexity of understanding convergence concepts in discrete settings.
IniquiTrance
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
Well, I thought I understood the difference between (weak) convergence in probability, and almost sure convergence.

My prof stated that when dealing with discrete probability spaces, both forms of convergence are the same.

That is, not only does A.S. convergence imply weak convergence, as it always does, but in the discrete case, weak convergence implies A.S. convergence.

I've been trying to wrap my head around why this is so, but can't seem to "see" it.

Any ideas?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think it's true that weak convergence implies a.s. conv. in the discrete case.
 
@bpet:
Thanks for that example in that thread. Like I said, I thought I finally understood the difference.

Yet my professor said one can prove that on a discrete probability space:

X_n(\omega)\stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} X(\omega)\implies X_n(\omega)\stackrel{A.S}{\longrightarrow} X(\omega)

This is a totally different question!
 
Last edited:
Eynstone said:
I don't think it's true that weak convergence implies a.s. conv. in the discrete case.

I don't either, yet my prof said it can be proven that this is true... I can't see how though...
 
IniquiTrance said:
@bpet:
Thanks for that example in that thread. Like I said, I thought I finally understood the difference.

Yet my professor said one can prove that on a discrete probability space:

X_n(\omega)\stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} X(\omega)\implies X_n(\omega)\stackrel{A.S}{\longrightarrow} X(\omega)

This is a totally different question!

Ok sorry I didn't take into account that, even though the individual archery outcomes are discrete, there isn't necessarily a discrete event space underlying the joint distribution of the infinite sequence.

An approach for the discrete space could be to assume that a sequence does not a.s. converge and show that this happens on at least one discrete event with non-zero probability (because every non-zero probability contains at least one atom), and this prevents the sequence from weak convergence.

HTH
 
36t25hj.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top