Proof of central limit theorem

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the central limit theorem using moment-generating functions without referencing the standard normal distribution. The user aims to demonstrate that the moment-generating function of the average of independent variables converges to the moment-generating function of a normal distribution as n approaches infinity. They derive the moment-generating function for the average and apply l'Hôpital's rule to evaluate the limit, but encounter an issue in obtaining the correct form, specifically missing the term sigma^2/2. The user seeks clarification on their calculations and where they might have overlooked a step in the derivation. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in proving the central limit theorem through this method.
skwey
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi I want to prove this using momentgenerating functions. I would like to do this without going into the standard normal distribution, just the normal distribution.

I would like to show that the momentgenerating function of
(x1+x2+x3...xn)/n--->e^(ut+sigma^2t/2) as n-->infinity.

x1, x2, x3,xn =independent variables with mean u and variance sigma^2
e^(ut+sigma^2t/2)=momentgenerating function of a normal distribution


1.calculating the moment generating function
This I get to be

[M(t/n)]^n where M(t) is the momentgenerating function of the variable x1 or x2 or xn. [M(t/n)]^n is the momentgenerating function of (x1+x2+x3..xn)/n

2.
Finding the limit as n->infinity.

I take the natural logarithm and get n*ln[M(t/n)]=ln[M(t/n)]/(1/n)
as n->infinity we get 0/0 since M(0)=1 and ln(1)=0

I then use l'Hopital to get:

M'(t/n)*t/M(t/n)

when n goes to infinity this goes to ut since M'(0)=u, but it should be ut+sigma^2/2

Does anyone see why I do not get the last part, what have I forgotten?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The l'Hopital part:

ln[M(t/n)]' / (1/n) '
=[M'(t/n)*-t/n^2 / M(t/n)] / [-1/n^2]= M'(t/n)*t/M(t/n). As n-> infinity this becomes ut.
 
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
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
964
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K