Question
Let be independent and identically distributed random variables.\\ (1) If , prove that for , .\\ (2) If and , compute .
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. Establish the asymptotic behavior of partial sums via the Law of Large Numbers. Since are i.i.d. with , by the Law of Large Numbers we have almost surely. This means that for any , there exists a positive integer such that for , almost surely, i.e., almost surely.
Step 2. Analyze the order-of-magnitude relationship between and . Since , we have , so as . For a fixed , when is sufficiently large, ; multiplying both sides by yields .
Step 3. Derive the probability limit. By Steps 1 and 2, for sufficiently large we have almost surely, so . Moreover, the Strong Law of Large Numbers implies convergence in probability, i.e., , and therefore . Combined with the upper bound of 1 for probabilities, we obtain .
We continue with the partial sums and analyze the probability limit using the Central Limit Theorem. Given and , by the i.i.d. Central Limit Theorem, (convergence in distribution), where denotes the normal distribution with mean 0 and variance , and is the standard normal distribution function.
Rewriting the target probability as , let and consider three cases according to the limit 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 property of convergence in distribution, , hence .
Final answer
(1) QED. (2) The limiting results are as follows: - If , then 0; - If , then (where denotes the standard normal distribution function); - If , then .
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 is phrased in terms of , while the solution treats partial sums ), this rubric is written entirely according to the logic of the official solution (i.e., analyzing the limiting behavior of the partial sums ).
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 that . (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 the form . (1 pt)
- Case 1: [additive]: Identify that the threshold , yielding a probability limit of 0. (1 pt)
- Case 2: [additive]: Identify that the threshold , yielding a probability limit of . (1 pt)
- Case 3: [additive]: Identify that the threshold is the constant 1, yielding a probability limit of or equivalently . (1 pt)
- *Note: The result must explicitly involve . If the answer is written as (implicitly assuming ) without a general justification, no credit is awarded 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 of 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 alone without providing a proof.
- In Part (2), giving a single blanket guess without performing the required case analysis.
3. Deductions
- Symbolic/logical error: If, during the limit computation, 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 (even though the problem implicitly defines , the student should use the symbol explicitly), resulting in being absent or dimensionally incorrect in the final expression, deduct 1 point (no double penalty if credit was already denied at the corresponding checkpoint).
- Logical gap: In Part (1), if Chebyshev's inequality is used but the student does not address whether the variance exists (the problem only assumes a finite first moment in Part (1); the finite second moment is given only in Part (2)), the argument may be accepted if logically coherent, but if an undefined second moment is used without justification, deduct 1 point.
- Misinterpretation: If the student strictly interprets the problem literally and computes for a single random variable rather than , since this contradicts the official solution's intent of testing limit theorems and typically leads to a divergent or trivially zero result, award at most 0--1 sympathy points for that part; primary credit is determined by the official solution's approach.