Proof of Central Limit Theorem

AI Thread 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:
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top