TheoremBase

Proof of Independence is Preserved by Limits in Probability

lemmalem:independence-limits-in-probability-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron Β·
Verified by 0 users Β· Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Initial publication of the proof (Borel-Cantelli subsequence, dominated convergence, Dynkin induction), with its theorem (batch publication approved by coauthor).

Proof

Step 0 (An almost surely convergent subsequence). Choose a strictly increasing sequence (kj)j∈N(k_j)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} such that for every jj and every i∈{1,…,p}i\in\{1,\dots,p\},

P(∣Xikjβˆ’Xi∣>2βˆ’j)≀2βˆ’j;P\bigl(|X^{k_j}_i-X_i|>2^{-j}\bigr)\le 2^{-j};

this is possible because, for each of the finitely many ii, convergence in probability provides a threshold beyond which P(∣Xikβˆ’Xi∣β‰₯2βˆ’j)≀2βˆ’jP(|X^{k}_i-X_i|\ge2^{-j})\le2^{-j}, and {∣Xikβˆ’Xi∣>2βˆ’j}βŠ†{∣Xikβˆ’Xi∣β‰₯2βˆ’j}\{|X^k_i-X_i|>2^{-j}\}\subseteq\{|X^k_i-X_i|\ge2^{-j}\}. For fixed ii, the events Aji={∣Xikjβˆ’Xi∣>2βˆ’j}A^i_j=\{|X^{k_j}_i-X_i|>2^{-j}\} satisfy βˆ‘jP(Aji)<∞\sum_j P(A^i_j)<\infty, so by the first Borel-Cantelli lemma P(lim sup⁑jAji)=0P(\limsup_j A^i_j)=0. Off lim sup⁑jAji\limsup_j A^i_j, one has ∣Xikjβˆ’Xiβˆ£β‰€2βˆ’j|X^{k_j}_i-X_i|\le2^{-j} for all large jj, hence Xikjβ†’XiX^{k_j}_i\to X_i in the sense of Limit of a Sequence of Real Numbers. Let Ξ©0=β‹‚i=1p(Ξ©βˆ–lim sup⁑jAji)\Omega_0=\bigcap_{i=1}^{p}(\Omega\setminus\limsup_j A^i_j); then P(Ξ©0)=1P(\Omega_0)=1 (finite intersection of events of probability one) and on Ξ©0\Omega_0 all pp convergences hold.

Step 1 (Factorization over bounded continuous functions). Let f1,…,fp:Rβ†’Rf_1,\dots,f_p:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} be bounded continuous functions, say ∣fiβˆ£β‰€Ci|f_i|\le C_i. Continuous functions are measurable for the Borel Οƒ\sigma-algebra (preimages of open sets are open, and open sets generate the Borel Οƒ\sigma-algebra), so each fi(Xik)f_i(X^k_i) is a random variable with Οƒ(fi(Xik))βŠ†Οƒ(Xik)\sigma(f_i(X^k_i))\subseteq\sigma(X^k_i), since (fi∘Xik)βˆ’1(B)=(Xik)βˆ’1(fiβˆ’1(B))(f_i\circ X^k_i)^{-1}(B)=(X^k_i)^{-1}(f_i^{-1}(B)) (elementary set algebra) with fiβˆ’1(B)f_i^{-1}(B) Borel, and Οƒ(Xik)={(Xik)βˆ’1(Bβ€²):Bβ€²Β Borel}\sigma(X^k_i)=\{(X^k_i)^{-1}(B'):B'\ \text{Borel}\} by Sigma-Algebra Generated by Random Variables and Independence of Sigma-Algebras.

Fix kk and abbreviate Yi=fi(Xik)Y_i=f_i(X^k_i). We claim E[Y1β‹―Yp]=E[Y1]β‹―E[Yp]\mathbb{E}[Y_1\cdots Y_p]=\mathbb{E}[Y_1]\cdots\mathbb{E}[Y_p], by induction on pp. For p=1p=1 the claim is trivial. Bounded random variables are integrable on a probability space (dominated by an integrable constant, using monotonicity from Linearity and Monotonicity of the Lebesgue Integral). For the induction step with pβ‰₯2p\ge2, the grouping lemma applied to the independent family (X1k,…,Xpk)(X^k_1,\dots,X^k_p) with the nonempty disjoint blocks {1}\{1\} and {2,…,p}\{2,\dots,p\} shows that Y1Y_1 (which is Οƒ(X1k)\sigma(X^k_1)-measurable) and Y2β‹―YpY_2\cdots Y_p (which is Οƒ(X2k,…,Xpk)\sigma(X^k_2,\dots,X^k_p)-measurable, products of measurable functions being measurable by the argument recorded in the preliminaries of Square-Integrable Random Variables and the Mean-Square Inner Product) are independent. Both are bounded, hence integrable, so Expectation of a Product of Independent Random Variables gives E[Y1(Y2β‹―Yp)]=E[Y1] E[Y2β‹―Yp]\mathbb{E}[Y_1(Y_2\cdots Y_p)]=\mathbb{E}[Y_1]\,\mathbb{E}[Y_2\cdots Y_p], and the induction hypothesis finishes the claim.

Now pass to the limit along (kj)(k_j). Define

g~j=1Ξ©0∏i=1pfi(Xikj)+1Ξ©βˆ–Ξ©0∏i=1pfi(Xi),\tilde g_j=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\prod_{i=1}^{p}f_i(X^{k_j}_i)+\mathbf{1}_{\Omega\setminus\Omega_0}\prod_{i=1}^{p}f_i(X_i),

a random variable with ∣g~jβˆ£β‰€C1β‹―Cp|\tilde g_j|\le C_1\cdots C_p everywhere. On Ξ©0\Omega_0, continuity of each fif_i gives fi(Xikj)β†’fi(Xi)f_i(X^{k_j}_i)\to f_i(X_i), and products of convergent real sequences converge to the product of the limits; off Ξ©0\Omega_0 the sequence is constant. Hence g~jβ†’βˆifi(Xi)\tilde g_j\to\prod_i f_i(X_i) at every point of Ξ©\Omega, and the dominated convergence theorem (with the constant dominating function) yields E[g~j]β†’E[∏ifi(Xi)]\mathbb{E}[\tilde g_j]\to\mathbb{E}[\prod_i f_i(X_i)]. Moreover ∣E[g~j]βˆ’E[∏ifi(Xikj)]βˆ£β‰€2C1β‹―Cp P(Ξ©βˆ–Ξ©0)=0\bigl|\mathbb{E}[\tilde g_j]-\mathbb{E}[\prod_i f_i(X^{k_j}_i)]\bigr|\le 2C_1\cdots C_p\,P(\Omega\setminus\Omega_0)=0. The same argument applied to a single factor gives E[fi(Xikj)]β†’E[fi(Xi)]\mathbb{E}[f_i(X^{k_j}_i)]\to\mathbb{E}[f_i(X_i)]. Combining with the stage-kjk_j factorization:

E[∏i=1pfi(Xi)]=lim⁑j∏i=1pE[fi(Xikj)]=∏i=1pE[fi(Xi)].\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\prod_{i=1}^{p}f_i(X_i)\Bigr]=\lim_j\prod_{i=1}^{p}\mathbb{E}[f_i(X^{k_j}_i)]=\prod_{i=1}^{p}\mathbb{E}[f_i(X_i)].

Step 2 (Half-line factorization). Fix a1,…,ap∈Ra_1,\dots,a_p\in\mathbb{R}. For mβ‰₯1m\ge1 let fam(x)=1f^m_{a}(x)=1 for x≀ax\le a, fam(x)=1βˆ’m(xβˆ’a)f^m_a(x)=1-m(x-a) for a<x<a+1/ma<x<a+1/m, and fam(x)=0f^m_a(x)=0 for xβ‰₯a+1/mx\ge a+1/m; each famf^m_a is continuous and bounded by 11. As mβ†’βˆžm\to\infty, fam(x)β†’1(βˆ’βˆž,a](x)f^m_a(x)\to\mathbf{1}_{(-\infty,a]}(x) at every xx. Applying Step 1 with fi=faimf_i=f^m_{a_i} and letting mβ†’βˆžm\to\infty with the dominated convergence theorem (dominating constant 11; the product of the indicators is the indicator of the intersection) gives

P(X1≀a1,…,Xp≀ap)=∏i=1pP(Xi≀ai)forΒ allΒ a1,…,ap∈R.(*)P\bigl(X_1\le a_1,\dots,X_p\le a_p\bigr)=\prod_{i=1}^{p}P(X_i\le a_i)\qquad\text{for all }a_1,\dots,a_p\in\mathbb{R}. \tag{*}

Step 3 (From half-lines to Borel sets). We show by induction on r∈{0,1,…,p}r\in\{0,1,\dots,p\} the claim CrC_r: for all Borel sets B1,…,BrB_1,\dots,B_r and all reals ar+1,…,apa_{r+1},\dots,a_p,

P(β‹‚i≀r{Xi∈Bi}βˆ©β‹‚i>r{Xi≀ai})=∏i≀rP(Xi∈Bi)∏i>rP(Xi≀ai).P\Bigl(\bigcap_{i\le r}\{X_i\in B_i\}\cap\bigcap_{i>r}\{X_i\le a_i\}\Bigr)=\prod_{i\le r}P(X_i\in B_i)\prod_{i>r}P(X_i\le a_i).

C0C_0 is (*). Assume Crβˆ’1C_{r-1} and fix Borel B1,…,Brβˆ’1B_1,\dots,B_{r-1} and reals ar+1,…,apa_{r+1},\dots,a_p. Let

Ξ›={B∈B(R):P({Xr∈B}∩D)=P(Xr∈B)β‹…c},\Lambda=\Bigl\{B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}):P\Bigl(\{X_r\in B\}\cap D\Bigr)=P(X_r\in B)\cdot c\Bigr\},

where D=β‹‚i<r{Xi∈Bi}βˆ©β‹‚i>r{Xi≀ai}D=\bigcap_{i<r}\{X_i\in B_i\}\cap\bigcap_{i>r}\{X_i\le a_i\} and c=∏i<rP(Xi∈Bi)∏i>rP(Xi≀ai)c=\prod_{i<r}P(X_i\in B_i)\prod_{i>r}P(X_i\le a_i). By Crβˆ’1C_{r-1}, Ξ›\Lambda contains every half-line (βˆ’βˆž,a](-\infty,a]; it contains R\mathbb{R} by letting aβ†’βˆža\to\infty along (βˆ’βˆž,n]↑R(-\infty,n]\uparrow\mathbb{R} and using continuity of PP from below (countable additivity) on both sides, which yields P(D)=cP(D)=c. Both B↦P({Xr∈B}∩D)B\mapsto P(\{X_r\in B\}\cap D) and B↦P(Xr∈B) cB\mapsto P(X_r\in B)\,c are finitely additive and continuous from below in BB, so Ξ›\Lambda is closed under proper differences and increasing countable unions; together with RβˆˆΞ›\mathbb{R}\in\Lambda this makes Ξ›\Lambda a Ξ»\lambda-system in the sense of Dynkin's Pi-Lambda Theorem. The half-lines form a Ο€\pi-system generating B(R)\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}) (every open interval is a countable combination of half-lines, (a,b)=⋃nβ‰₯1((βˆ’βˆž,bβˆ’(bβˆ’a)/(2n)]βˆ–(βˆ’βˆž,a])(a,b)=\bigcup_{n\ge1}\bigl((-\infty,b-(b-a)/(2n)]\setminus(-\infty,a]\bigr); every open set is a countable union of open intervals with rational endpoints by the density of the rationals; and open sets generate the Borel Οƒ\sigma-algebra by Borel Sigma-Algebra on the Real Line). By Dynkin's theorem, Ξ›=B(R)\Lambda=\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}), which is CrC_r.

Step 4 (Conclusion). CpC_p states that P(β‹‚i=1p{Xi∈Bi})=∏i=1pP(Xi∈Bi)P\bigl(\bigcap_{i=1}^{p}\{X_i\in B_i\}\bigr)=\prod_{i=1}^{p}P(X_i\in B_i) for all Borel B1,…,BpB_1,\dots,B_p. For any nonempty subfamily of indices, choose Bi=RB_i=\mathbb{R} for the omitted indices; the corresponding factors equal 11, so the product identity holds for every subfamily. By Independence of Events and of Random Variables (see also the discussion in Sigma-Algebra Generated by Random Variables and Independence of Sigma-Algebras of inserting Ξ©\Omega for omitted factors), the random variables X1,…,XpX_1,\dots,X_p are independent. β–‘\square

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…