Question
Let be independent standard normal random variables. Prove that
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. Prove that a.s. By the definition of the limit superior, it suffices to show that for any given , the event can occur only finitely many times. By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, if the sum of probabilities of a sequence of events converges, i.e., , then the probability that infinitely many of these events occur is zero. Define the event . We need to estimate the tail probability of the standard normal random variable . For a standard normal variable , when , the tail probability admits the well-known upper bound: Setting , we have . Computing the exponential term: Substituting into the probability upper bound: Consider the series . Since , the -series converges. The factor decreases as grows and does not affect the convergence of the series. Therefore, by the comparison test, converges. By the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, the probability that the events occur infinitely often is zero. This means that almost surely, for any , . Since can be taken arbitrarily small, we conclude that a.s.
Step 2. Prove that a.s. It suffices to show that for any , the event occurs infinitely often. Since the are mutually independent random variables, the events are also mutually independent. By the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, if the events are independent and the sum of their probabilities diverges, i.e., , then the probability that infinitely many of these events occur equals one. We need a lower bound for the tail probability . For a standard normal variable , as , the following lower bound holds: Setting , we have . The exponential term is: As , , so is of the same order as . There exists a constant such that for all sufficiently large : Consider the series . Since , we have . The series diverges when . Here , so the series diverges. By the comparison test, diverges. By the second Borel–Cantelli lemma, the probability that the events occur infinitely often equals one. That is, almost surely, for any , . Since can be taken arbitrarily close to zero, we conclude that a.s.
Step 3. Combining the conclusions of Step 1 and Step 2, on the one hand we have almost surely, and on the other hand almost surely. Therefore, both inequalities hold simultaneously.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the marking rubric:
- Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Part 1: Proving the upper bound [cumulative, 3 points total]
- Upper bound for the normal tail probability: Cite the tail inequality for the standard normal distribution (e.g., Mill's ratio) or the asymptotic equivalence , and establish the estimate for . (1 point)
- Determining series convergence: Correctly derive that the probability terms are of order (or similar form), and note that since the exponent , the series converges. (1 point)
- Applying the first Borel–Cantelli lemma: From the convergence of the series, conclude that the events occur only finitely often (or with probability zero), thereby establishing . (1 point)
Part 2: Proving the lower bound [cumulative, 3 points total]
- Lower bound for the normal tail probability: Cite the tail lower bound inequality or use asymptotics to establish the estimate for . (1 point)
- Determining series divergence: Correctly derive that the probability terms are of order (or similar form), and note that since the exponent , the series diverges. (1 point)
- Applying the second Borel–Cantelli lemma: From the divergence of the series and the mutual independence of the , conclude that the events occur infinitely often (or with probability one), thereby establishing . (1 point)
Part 3: Combined conclusion [1 point total]
- Arbitrariness of : Combine the conclusions of Parts 1 & 2, and use the fact that can be taken arbitrarily small () to obtain the final equality. (1 point)
Total (max 7)
- Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the definition of or the statement of the Borel–Cantelli lemma without performing the specific computations involving the normal distribution for this problem.
- Attempting to use the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) or the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) to prove this almost sure convergence property (incorrect method).
- Treating the sequence of random variables as a deterministic sequence and computing the limit, completely ignoring the probability measure.
- In proving the upper bound, failing to introduce or and directly substituting , which causes the series to diverge and makes it impossible to establish the upper bound.
- Deductions
- Missing independence statement (-1): When applying the second Borel–Cantelli lemma to prove the lower bound, failing to explicitly mention or verify the independence of the random variable sequence (this is a necessary condition for BC2 to hold).
- Logical error in series determination (-1): Making an incorrect judgment about the relationship between and 1 when determining the convergence of (e.g., claiming convergence when ); points are deducted even if the final conclusion happens to be correct.
- Notation confusion (-1): Seriously confusing with , e.g., claiming that the limit of exists (in fact, this sequence oscillates within and the limit does not exist).