Proof of Central Limit Theorem

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and the reliance on the uniqueness of moment generating functions. Participants note that while moment generating functions are not unique, characteristic functions are, and they can serve as an alternative proof method for the CLT. A brief proof is available on Wikipedia, and resources for understanding characteristic functions are shared. It is acknowledged that a solid background is necessary for these proofs, which is why they are often omitted in undergraduate studies. The conversation highlights that while characteristic functions are a convenient tool, other methods like Stein's method also exist for proving the CLT.
chingkui
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
I have been reading some books about the proof of the Central Limit Theorem, all of them use the uniqueness of moment generating function. But since I have not yet seen a proof of the uniqueness properties, is there any proof that does not use this result? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It can be done in terms of Characteristic functions also. A brief proof is given on the wikipedia site for Central Limit Theorem. Uniqueness of a characteristic function holds because it is just the Fourier transform of the corresponding density function, up to a multiplicative constant
 
chingkui said:
I have been reading some books about the proof of the Central Limit Theorem, all of them use the uniqueness of moment generating function. But since I have not yet seen a proof of the uniqueness properties, is there any proof that does not use this result? Thanks.

Moment generating functions are not unique in general. Proof of CLT uses characteristic function and CF's are unique.
 
Last edited:
I am not familiar with the characteristic function, is there a place I can quickly read about its uniqueness? Is characteristic function a necessary step in existing CLT proofs? Thanks.
 
1) http://tt.lamf.uwindsor.ca/65-540/540Files/11.pdf
2) http://tt.lamf.uwindsor.ca/65-540/540Files/13.pdf

You need a lot of background to prove this result, which is why it's often skipped in undergraduate courses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ch.f is not the only tool for proving CLT, however in proper setting it is quick and convinient; as far as i know, stein's method another approach:cool:
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
708
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K