Question
Let be independent and identically distributed random variables.\\ (1) If , prove that for , .\\ (2) If and , evaluate .
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. Establish the asymptotic behavior of the partial sums via the law of large numbers. Since are i.i.d. with , the strong law of large numbers yields almost surely. This implies that for every , there exists a positive integer such that for all , almost surely, i.e., almost surely.
Step 2. Analyze the relative orders of magnitude of and . Since , we have , so as . For a fixed , when is sufficiently large, ; multiplying both sides by gives .
Step 3. Derive the probability limit. By Steps 1 and 2, for sufficiently large , almost surely, whence . Since the strong law of large numbers implies convergence in probability, , and therefore . Since probability is bounded above by 1, we conclude .
We continue with the partial sums and apply the central limit theorem to analyze the probability limit. Given and , the i.i.d. central limit theorem gives (convergence in distribution), where denotes the normal distribution with mean 0 and variance , and is the standard normal distribution function.
Rewrite the target probability as . Setting , we consider three cases according to the limiting behavior of :
- When : , so as . By the tail behavior of the normal distribution, as , hence .
- When : . By the definition of convergence in distribution, , so .
- When : , so as . By the continuity of the normal CDF, , hence .
Final answer
(1) QED. (2) The limiting values are as follows: - If , the limit is 0; - If , the limit is , where denotes the standard normal distribution function; - If , the limit is .
Marking scheme
The following rubric is designed for this problem and its official solution. Note that although the original problem statement may contain notational ambiguity (the problem uses , while the solution treats the partial sum ), this rubric is written entirely according to the logic of the official solution (i.e., analyzing the limiting behavior of the partial sum ).
1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Part (1): Application of the law of large numbers (3 pts)
- Invoking the law of large numbers [additive]: State that (almost surely or in probability) or . (1 pt)
- Order-of-magnitude comparison and bounding [additive]: Use and to show that for sufficiently large , (or ), thereby establishing that exceeds . (1 pt)
- Part (1) conclusion [additive]: Combine the above steps to conclude . (1 pt)
Part (2): Central limit theorem and case analysis (4 pts)
- CLT reformulation and standardization [additive]: Invoke the central limit theorem and transform the target probability into . (1 pt)
- Case 1: [additive]: Observe that the threshold , yielding a probability limit of 0. (1 pt)
- Case 2: [additive]: Observe that the threshold , yielding a probability limit of . (1 pt)
- Case 3: [additive]: Observe that the threshold is the constant 1, yielding a probability limit of or . (1 pt)
- *Note: The result must explicitly contain . Writing (assuming by default) without a general justification earns no credit for this checkpoint.*
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the given hypotheses (e.g., are i.i.d., , etc.).
- Merely stating the general formulas for the law of large numbers or the central limit theorem without substituting or performing any problem-specific manipulation.
- In Part (1), asserting the result equals 1 by intuition without providing a proof.
- In Part (2), giving a single vague guess without performing a case analysis.
3. Deductions
- Symbolic/logical error: In the limit computation, if a quantity depending on (such as ) is erroneously treated as a constant, causing a logical gap in the conclusion, deduct 1 point.
- Missing essential constant: In Part (2), if the origin or definition of is not stated (although the problem implicitly assumes , the student should explicitly use the symbol ), resulting in being absent or dimensionally incorrect in the final expression, deduct 1 point (no double deduction if credit was already withheld at the corresponding checkpoint).
- Logical gap: In Part (1), if Chebyshev's inequality is used without addressing whether the variance exists (the hypothesis of Part (1) specifies only the first moment; the second moment is given only in Part (2)), leniency may be granted if the logic is otherwise sound, but if an undefined second moment is used without justification, deduct 1 point.
- Misinterpretation: If the student computes literally for a single random variable rather than , since this contradicts the intent of the official solution (which tests knowledge of limit theorems) and typically leads to a divergent or zero result, award at most 0--1 sympathy points for that part; the main score is determined by the official solution pathway.