Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does bounded almost surely imply bounded in Lp?

  1. Jun 21, 2010 #1
    Hello all,

    I am a bit confused by the concept of "bounded almost surely".

    If a random variable [tex]X(\omega)[/tex] is bounded a.s., so this means (i) [tex] X \leq K [/tex] for some constant [tex] K [/tex] ? or some [tex] K(\omega) [/tex]?

    Also, if it is bounded almost surely, does that mean it is also bounded in [tex] L^{p} [/tex]? Apparently if case (i) is true, then it should be also bounded in [tex] L^{p} [/tex]?


  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 21, 2010 #2
    [tex] Pr(|X|\leq M)=1[/tex].

    Almost surely=almost everywhere which excludes sets of zero measure.

    If L means sets in Lebesgue measure then sets of zero measure would be excluded, so I believe it would be bounded in L if it's bounded in M.

    [tex] K\leq M [/tex]
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  4. Jun 23, 2010 #3
    The [tex]K(\omega)[/tex] version would be worthless for a single random variable [tex]X[/itex], just take [tex]K(\omega) = |X(\omega)|[/tex]. Now "bounded almost surely" where you talk about a sequence of random variables is another question.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook