Exist $epsilon>0$ such that $P(X>epsilon)>0$
$begingroup$
I have the next exercice:
Let $(X_n)_n$ a sequence of random variables i.i.d with law $X$, where $Xge 0$ almost surely et $P(X>0)>0$.
- Show that exists $epsilon ge 0$ such that $P(X>epsilon)>0$.
- Let $A_n={X_nge epsilon}$. What can be said about the set $limsup A_n$?
My ideas:
Let $B_k={Xgefrac{1}{k}}$
$bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k={X>0}$
$sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)ge P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)=P(X>0)>0$, i.e exist $min mathbb{N}$ such that $P(Xgefrac{1}{m})=P(B_m)>0$.
Where $epsilon =frac{1}{m}$.
My idea is correct? and they could give me suggestions for the second item.
probability-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have the next exercice:
Let $(X_n)_n$ a sequence of random variables i.i.d with law $X$, where $Xge 0$ almost surely et $P(X>0)>0$.
- Show that exists $epsilon ge 0$ such that $P(X>epsilon)>0$.
- Let $A_n={X_nge epsilon}$. What can be said about the set $limsup A_n$?
My ideas:
Let $B_k={Xgefrac{1}{k}}$
$bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k={X>0}$
$sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)ge P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)=P(X>0)>0$, i.e exist $min mathbb{N}$ such that $P(Xgefrac{1}{m})=P(B_m)>0$.
Where $epsilon =frac{1}{m}$.
My idea is correct? and they could give me suggestions for the second item.
probability-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have the next exercice:
Let $(X_n)_n$ a sequence of random variables i.i.d with law $X$, where $Xge 0$ almost surely et $P(X>0)>0$.
- Show that exists $epsilon ge 0$ such that $P(X>epsilon)>0$.
- Let $A_n={X_nge epsilon}$. What can be said about the set $limsup A_n$?
My ideas:
Let $B_k={Xgefrac{1}{k}}$
$bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k={X>0}$
$sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)ge P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)=P(X>0)>0$, i.e exist $min mathbb{N}$ such that $P(Xgefrac{1}{m})=P(B_m)>0$.
Where $epsilon =frac{1}{m}$.
My idea is correct? and they could give me suggestions for the second item.
probability-theory
$endgroup$
I have the next exercice:
Let $(X_n)_n$ a sequence of random variables i.i.d with law $X$, where $Xge 0$ almost surely et $P(X>0)>0$.
- Show that exists $epsilon ge 0$ such that $P(X>epsilon)>0$.
- Let $A_n={X_nge epsilon}$. What can be said about the set $limsup A_n$?
My ideas:
Let $B_k={Xgefrac{1}{k}}$
$bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k={X>0}$
$sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)ge P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)=P(X>0)>0$, i.e exist $min mathbb{N}$ such that $P(Xgefrac{1}{m})=P(B_m)>0$.
Where $epsilon =frac{1}{m}$.
My idea is correct? and they could give me suggestions for the second item.
probability-theory
probability-theory
edited Dec 13 '18 at 22:44
Alex Pozo
asked Dec 13 '18 at 22:36
Alex PozoAlex Pozo
515214
515214
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Hint
For the second question apply the Borel cantelli lemma, i.e. compute $sum P(A_n)$. Is it finite or infinite? What does it tell you about $P(limsup A_n)$?
Your proof for one does not work. It is not true that $sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)=P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)$. It is true by measure continuity that $sup P(B_k)=lim P(B_k)=P(X>0)>0$. Hence there exists at least one $k$ such that $P(B_k)>0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038668%2fexist-epsilon0-such-that-px-epsilon0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Hint
For the second question apply the Borel cantelli lemma, i.e. compute $sum P(A_n)$. Is it finite or infinite? What does it tell you about $P(limsup A_n)$?
Your proof for one does not work. It is not true that $sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)=P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)$. It is true by measure continuity that $sup P(B_k)=lim P(B_k)=P(X>0)>0$. Hence there exists at least one $k$ such that $P(B_k)>0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
For the second question apply the Borel cantelli lemma, i.e. compute $sum P(A_n)$. Is it finite or infinite? What does it tell you about $P(limsup A_n)$?
Your proof for one does not work. It is not true that $sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)=P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)$. It is true by measure continuity that $sup P(B_k)=lim P(B_k)=P(X>0)>0$. Hence there exists at least one $k$ such that $P(B_k)>0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
For the second question apply the Borel cantelli lemma, i.e. compute $sum P(A_n)$. Is it finite or infinite? What does it tell you about $P(limsup A_n)$?
Your proof for one does not work. It is not true that $sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)=P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)$. It is true by measure continuity that $sup P(B_k)=lim P(B_k)=P(X>0)>0$. Hence there exists at least one $k$ such that $P(B_k)>0$.
$endgroup$
Hint
For the second question apply the Borel cantelli lemma, i.e. compute $sum P(A_n)$. Is it finite or infinite? What does it tell you about $P(limsup A_n)$?
Your proof for one does not work. It is not true that $sum_{k=1}^{infty}P(B_k)=P(bigcup_{k=1}^{infty}B_k)$. It is true by measure continuity that $sup P(B_k)=lim P(B_k)=P(X>0)>0$. Hence there exists at least one $k$ such that $P(B_k)>0$.
answered Dec 13 '18 at 22:45
Foobaz JohnFoobaz John
22.3k41452
22.3k41452
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
I found that $sum P(A_n)$ is finite and by Borel Cantelli Lemma $P(limsup A_n) =0$
$endgroup$
– Alex Pozo
Dec 13 '18 at 22:56
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
$begingroup$
By the proof of a) we know that there exists $epsilon>0$ such that $P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$. In particular $P(A_n)=P(X_ngeq epsilon)=P(Xgeq epsilon)>0$, so the sum diverges (as $sum P(A_n)=sum P(Xgeq epsilon)=infty$) By Borel cantelli, $P(limsup A_n)=1$ since the $X_i$ are independent.
$endgroup$
– Foobaz John
Dec 13 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038668%2fexist-epsilon0-such-that-px-epsilon0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The $B_k$ are not disjoint so the equality between the sum of probabilities and the probability of the union does not hold. Replace it with an inequality, and your reasoning is sound.
$endgroup$
– Math1000
Dec 13 '18 at 22:43