Question
Let be i.i.d. with . Define . Prove that .
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. To prove that converges almost surely to 1, we need to show that for any , both of the following hold: Equivalently, we prove that for any : where i.o. stands for "infinitely often."
Step 2. Proof that a.s. By the Borel--Cantelli lemma, if a sequence of events satisfies , then . Let for a given . Since , the event equals . By the union bound: Since the are i.i.d.: Using the standard normal tail probability estimate: for , . Let . Then . Substituting into the bound on : The exponent is . Since , the exponent is negative. Therefore, each term of is bounded by where . By comparison with the -series, the sum converges. So . By the Borel--Cantelli lemma, . This means that almost surely, the event occurs only finitely many times. Since this holds for any , we conclude: a.s.
Step 3. Proof that a.s. We need to show that for any , . Equivalently, almost surely, for all sufficiently large , . Consider an exponentially growing subsequence , where is a constant to be determined. Let . We first prove . Using the inequality : Using the lower bound for the standard normal tail probability: for , . For sufficiently large , . Let . Since , the exponent . Therefore, as , . Hence decays faster than any geometric series. Therefore, the series converges. By the Borel--Cantelli lemma, . That is, almost surely, there exists such that for all , .
Step 4. Extension from the subsequence to the full sequence. For any integer , there exists such that . Since is non-decreasing, . For sufficiently large (so that ): Since , we have . Therefore . As , . By the squeeze theorem, as , . So for any , when is sufficiently large, . Therefore, . Since can be arbitrarily small, . Since this holds for any , we conclude: a.s.
Step 5. Combined conclusion. Combining the results of Steps 2 and 4: a.s. a.s. These two inequalities together imply that the limit exists and equals 1, almost surely. a.s.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the rubric based on the official solution for this undergraduate mathematics problem. Please follow this rubric strictly when grading.
1. Checkpoints (Total: 7 points)
Divide the solution into the following three logical modules. Points within each module are additive, and points across modules are also additive.
Part 1: Upper bound estimate ( a.s.) [Max 3]
- Constructing the probability upper bound: Use the union bound combined with the normal tail estimate ( or similar form) to establish the inequality for . [1 point]
- Series convergence analysis: Substitute , show through algebraic computation that the probability terms decay as (or similar form), and argue that converges. [1 point]
- Borel--Cantelli conclusion: Invoke the first part of the Borel--Cantelli lemma to conclude that for any , holds almost surely. [1 point]
- *Note: If the student uses a subsequence method to prove the upper bound and the logic is correct, full marks are also awarded.*
Part 2: Lower bound subsequence estimate ( a.s.) [Max 2]
- Subsequence and probability bounding: Choose an exponentially growing subsequence (e.g., ), and use the independence formula to bound the event . [1 point]
- Subsequence convergence conclusion: Prove that the corresponding probability series converges, and by the Borel--Cantelli lemma, assert that eventually holds almost surely. [1 point]
Part 3: Extension by density and combined conclusion [Max 2]
- Using monotonicity to fill the gaps: Use the non-decreasing property of to note that for , . [1 point]
- Squeeze limit argument: By showing that (or a similar ratio limit), extend the subsequence lower bound to the full sequence, and combine with Part 1 to state the final conclusion. [1 point]
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the problem statement or listing the given conditions ().
- Only computing or limits without addressing the probability series determination required for almost sure convergence.
- Only citing the names "extreme value theory" or "Gumbel distribution" without providing a concrete series convergence proof.
- Incorrectly asserting that or almost surely.
3. Deductions
For obvious logical gaps or writing errors, apply the following single maximum deduction:
- Missing logical quantifiers: The proof does not reflect "for any " or fails to let at the end, making the conclusion imprecise. (-1 point)
- Confusion of convergence types: Proves convergence in probability () but does not verify series convergence (i.e., does not sufficiently prove almost sure convergence). (Capped at 4/7)
- Skipping the subsequence step: In the lower bound proof, directly applies the Borel--Cantelli lemma to all (which typically causes the series to diverge, a logical error) without using a subsequence. (-2 points)
- Missing monotonicity: When extending from the subsequence to the full sequence, does not mention the monotonicity of and directly assumes the limit exists. (-1 point)