Philosophical question about central limit theorem

  • #1
200
12
Well, this is probably a stupid question, but I don't see why (yet).

Let Xi be random variables identically distributed, with mean 0, such that the cumulative distribution is = 0 for all -1 < x < 1. So, I believe it is clear that for all n, the cumulative distribution of Z = (X1 + X2 ... Xn)/n is = 0 for all x < -1. But the central limit theorem implies that this distribution (normalized by the square root of n), converges in distribution to the Normal distribution. So, for some n sufficiently large, the cumulative distribution of Z must be > 0 for some x < -1. Where is the fallacy in this paradox?
thx.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
7,583
1,472
But the central limit theorem implies that this distribution (normalized by the square root of n),
.
The normalization involves multiplying the sample mean by [itex] \sqrt{n} [/itex]. The quantity that is approximately normally distributed (for a sample of size n , sample mean [itex] S_n [/itex] and population mean [itex] \mu [/itex] for each individual random variable) is [itex] \sqrt{n}(S_n - \mu) [/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #3
chiro
Science Advisor
4,790
132
If you have issues with the application of the theorem to a particular distribution I would recommend opening a statistical software package and simulating a number of random variables and then graphing the result of the random vectors that get the arithmetic mean and see what happens.

It should help convince you through some examples of how the CLT holds.
 
  • #4
200
12
Thx all.
I have understood my error.
 

Related Threads on Philosophical question about central limit theorem

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
555
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Top