Question
Let follow the standard normal distribution. Prove that
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. Prove that a.s. By the definition of limsup, this is equivalent to showing 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 these events occur infinitely often is 0. 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 has the well-known upper bound: Let , then . Computing the exponential part: Substituting into the probability upper bound estimate: Consider the series . Since , the -series converges. The factor decreases as increases and does not affect the convergence of the series. Therefore, by the comparison test, converges. By the first Borel-Cantelli lemma, the probability that occurs infinitely often is 0. This means that almost surely, for any , . Since can be arbitrarily small, we conclude a.s.
Step 2. Prove that a.s. This is equivalent to showing 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 sum of probabilities of independent events diverges, i.e., , then the probability that these events occur infinitely often is 1. We need a lower bound estimate for the tail probability . For a standard normal variable , as , the following lower bound holds: Let , then . The exponential part is: As , , so is of the same order as . There exists a constant such that for 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 occurs infinitely often is 1. That is, almost surely, for any , . Since can be arbitrarily close to 0, we conclude a.s.
Step 3. Combining the conclusions of Steps 1 and 2, on the one hand we have almost surely , and on the other hand almost surely . Therefore, both inequalities must hold simultaneously.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the grading rubric:
- Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Part 1: Proving the upper bound [additive, 3 pts total]
- Normal tail probability upper bound estimate: Citing the standard normal tail inequality (e.g., Mill's Ratio) or the asymptotic equivalence , and establishing the estimate for . (1 pt)
- Series convergence determination: Correctly deriving that the probability term is of order (or similar form), and noting that since the exponent , the series converges. (1 pt)
- Applying the first Borel-Cantelli lemma: From the series convergence, concluding that the events occur only finitely often (or with probability 0), thereby establishing . (1 pt)
Part 2: Proving the lower bound [additive, 3 pts total]
- Normal tail probability lower bound estimate: Citing the tail lower bound inequality or using asymptotics, and establishing the estimate for . (1 pt)
- Series divergence determination: Correctly deriving that the probability term is of order (or similar form), and noting that since the exponent , the series diverges. (1 pt)
- Applying the second Borel-Cantelli lemma: From the series divergence and the mutual independence of , concluding that the events occur infinitely often (or with probability 1), thereby establishing . (1 pt)
Part 3: Combined conclusion [1 pt total]
- Arbitrariness of : Combining the conclusions of Parts 1 and 2, using the fact that can be arbitrarily small (), to obtain the final equality. (1 pt)
Total (max 7)
- Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the definition of or the statement of the Borel-Cantelli lemmas without performing any specific computation involving the normal distribution.
- 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, not introducing or and directly substituting , causing the series to diverge and making it impossible to establish the upper bound.
- Deductions
- Missing independence statement (-1): When using 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).
- Series determination logic error (-1): When determining the convergence of , incorrectly judging the relationship between and 1 (e.g., claiming convergence when ); even if the final conclusion happens to be correct, points are still deducted.
- Symbol confusion (-1): Seriously confusing with , e.g., claiming that the limit of exists (in fact, this sequence oscillates between and the limit does not exist).