Question
Let be i.i.d. random variables satisfying , and let . Prove that: (1) (2)
Step-by-step solution
(1) Proof that
Step 1. Prove that a.s. By the definition of the limit superior, it suffices to show that for every , the event can occur only finitely many times (almost surely). By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, it suffices to show that the series converges. Using the given condition , we compute the probability: Setting and substituting into the tail probability formula: Consider the series . Since , we have . This is a -series with , and therefore it converges. By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, the probability that the event occurs infinitely often is zero. That is, almost surely, for every , . Since can be taken arbitrarily small, we conclude that a.s.
Step 2. Prove that a.s. It suffices to show that for every , the event occurs infinitely often (almost surely). Since the are i.i.d., the events are mutually independent. By the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, if diverges, then . We compute : Consider the series . Since , we have . This is a -series with , and therefore it diverges. By the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, the probability that the event occurs infinitely often is . That is, almost surely, for every , . Since can be taken arbitrarily small, we conclude that a.s.
Step 3. Combining the conclusions of Step 1 and Step 2, namely a.s. and a.s.
(2) Proof that To show that the limit exists and equals , we must prove separately that the limit superior is at most and the limit inferior is at least .
Step 4. Prove that a.s. is a non-decreasing sequence. From the proof of part (1), we know that a.s. This means that for almost every sample point, for any given , there exists a positive integer such that for all . For any , we can decompose as: Let , which is a finite random variable. For , we have . Therefore, . Hence, for , . Dividing both sides by : As , . Therefore, for all sufficiently large , . This implies . Since is an arbitrary positive number, we conclude that a.s.
Step 5. Prove that a.s. It suffices to show that for every , the event can occur only finitely many times (almost surely). By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, it suffices to show that the series converges. We compute the probability: Since the are i.i.d., this equals: Since , the probability becomes: As , let , so that . Using the limit , we obtain: Consider the series . Since , grows with , so tends to zero extremely rapidly, faster than any polynomial (). For example, comparing with the convergent series , we have . Therefore, the series converges. By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, the probability that the event occurs infinitely often is zero. That is, almost surely, for every , . Since can be taken arbitrarily small, we conclude that a.s.
Step 6. Combining the conclusions of Step 4 and Step 5, namely a.s. and a.s., we obtain the final conclusion.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the grading rubric for this problem, with a total of 7 points.
1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Part (1): (3 pts)
- Tail probability computation
- Correctly computes the general form of the tail probability , or the specific expression for .
- [1 pt]
- Upper bound for the lim sup ()
- States that converges and invokes the first Borel–Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
- Lower bound for the lim sup ()
- States that diverges, explicitly mentions independence (i.i.d.), and invokes the second Borel–Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
Part (2): (4 pts)
- Upper bound argument for the maximum ()
- Uses the conclusion of part (1) (namely that is eventually almost surely less than ) to deduce the asymptotic behavior of .
- Key logical requirement: Must handle the maximum over the finite prefix. That is, the argument must show and that the constant term satisfies .
- *If the conclusion is merely asserted to follow directly from (1) without addressing the effect of the first terms, award 1 point.*
- [2 pts]
- Probability setup for the lower bound of the maximum ()
- Formulates the event and uses independence to write its probability as:
- [1 pt]
- Convergence analysis for the lower bound of the maximum
- Correctly analyzes the asymptotic behavior of the above probability (e.g., or shows it is dominated by a summable function), and establishes that the series converges.
- Invokes the first Borel–Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-credit items
- Proving only convergence in probability: Only computing without discussing almost sure convergence via series convergence (the Borel–Cantelli lemmas are the core of this problem).
- Incorrect series convergence test: Claiming that () converges.
- Direct substitution: In Part (2), directly assuming without any probabilistic estimate or logical argument.
- Citing the wrong lemma: In the upper bound proof of Part (2), attempting to apply BC1 directly to but obtaining the divergent series and incorrectly claiming it converges.
3. Deductions
- Missing independence statement (-1): When applying the second Borel–Cantelli lemma (in the lower bound proof of Part 1), failing to mention the "independence" or "i.i.d." condition.
- Logical gap / incorrect conclusion (-1): In the lower bound proof of Part 2, directly asserting that the series converges without performing any asymptotic analysis of (such as taking logarithms or using exponential approximation).
- Confusing constants and variables (-1): Treating as a quantity depending on , or failing to state the arbitrariness of , thereby compromising the rigor of the proof (deduct only when this seriously affects the proof structure).