Question
Let be i.i.d. random variables satisfying , and denote . Prove: (1) (2)
Step-by-step solution
(1) Proof that Step 1. Prove 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 (almost surely). By the first Borel--Cantelli lemma, it suffices to show that the series converges. Using the given tail probability : Setting : Since , we have . This is a -series with , so converges. By the first Borel--Cantelli lemma, . Since is arbitrary, a.s.
Step 2. Prove a.s. For any , the events are mutually independent since the are i.i.d. . Since , the series diverges. By the second Borel--Cantelli lemma, . Since is arbitrary, a.s.
Step 3. Combining Steps 1 and 2 yields a.s.
(2) Proof that
Step 4. Prove a.s. From Part (1), for any , there exists such that for all a.s. Let . Then , so . Since is arbitrary, a.s.
Step 5. Prove a.s. For : . Since , by the first Borel--Cantelli lemma, a.s.
Step 6. Combining Steps 4 and 5 completes the proof.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the marking scheme (total: 7 points).
1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Part (1): (3 pts)
- Tail probability computation
- Correctly compute the general form of the tail probability , or the specific expression for .
- [1 pt]
- Upper bound for the limsup ()
- Show that converges and invoke the first Borel--Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
- Lower bound for the limsup ()
- Show that diverges, explicitly mention independence (i.i.d.), and invoke the second Borel--Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
Part (2): (4 pts)
- Upper bound logic for the maximum ()
- Use the conclusion of Part (1) (i.e., is eventually a.s. less than ) to derive the asymptotic behavior of .
- Key logical requirement: Must handle the maximum over the finite prefix. That is, argue and that .
- *If the conclusion is merely asserted to follow directly from (1) without addressing the first terms, award 1 point.*
- [2 pts]
- Lower bound probability setup for the maximum ()
- Set up the event and use independence to write its probability:
- [1 pt]
- Convergence analysis for the lower bound of the maximum
- Correctly analyze the asymptotic behavior of the above probability (e.g., or prove it is dominated by an integrable function), and show the series converges.
- Invoke the first Borel--Cantelli lemma to conclude a.s.
- [1 pt]
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-credit items
- Only proving convergence in probability: Only computing without discussing almost sure convergence via series convergence (Borel--Cantelli is the core of this problem).
- Incorrect series convergence test: Claiming () converges.
- Direct substitution: In Part (2), directly assuming without any probability estimate or logical derivation.
- Citing the wrong lemma: In the upper bound proof of Part (2), attempting to apply BC1 directly to , obtaining the divergent series , and falsely claiming it converges.
3. Deductions
- Missing independence statement (-1): When using the second Borel--Cantelli lemma (Part 1 lower bound proof), failing to mention the "independence" or "i.i.d." condition.
- Logical gap / incorrect conclusion (-1): In the Part 2 lower bound proof, directly asserting series convergence without any asymptotic analysis of (e.g., taking logarithms or exponential approximation).
- Confusing constants and variables (-1): Treating as depending on , or failing to state the arbitrariness of in a way that seriously affects the proof structure.