1

Question: Let $X_k \sim Bern(p)$ and for $n,l \in \mathbb N$: $$ A_n^l = \{X_n = X_{n+1} = .... = X_{n+l-1} = 1 \} $$ which is the event that a run of luck of at least length l starts at time n, further, let: $$ A^l = \limsup_{n \to \infty} A^l_n $$ Show that $P(\bigcap_{l = 1}^{\infty} A^l)=1$ That is, with probability 1 there are infinitely many runs of luck of arbitrary length.

Attempt: Im really confused with how to interpret $A^l$. For example, when $l=1$, then: \begin{align*} A^1 &= \limsup_{n \to \infty} A^1_n\\ &=\bigcap^\infty_{j=1} \left ( \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=j} A_n^1\right)\\ &=(A_1^1 \cup A_2^1 \cup A_3^1 \cup...) \cap (A_2^1 \cup A_3^1 \cup ...)\cap ( A_3^1 \cup A_4^1 \cup ...)\\ \end{align*}

thanks to @GenericNickname, we can see that $\mathbb P(A^1) = 1$. By the same reasoning for $l=2$: $$ \mathbb P(A^2) = \lim _{n \to \infty} (1 -\mathbb P \text{(two successes in a row occurs at least once for $m\ge n$)} ) $$

Intuitively this will be equal to 1 as well. Not as intuitive when we take $l=100$ for example. The next hint from @GenericNickname is to use the Borel-Cantelli lemma to prove this, which states for a sequence $S_n$:

$$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathbb P(S_n) < \infty \implies \mathbb P(\limsup_{n \to \infty} S_n) = 0 $$

Still confused but working on it:

If we take $S_n = A^l_n$ above. Then: $$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathbb P(A_n^l)=p^l + p^l+p^l+.... \to \infty $$ So, the lemma doesn't hold here

Gabriel Romon
  • 35,428
  • 5
  • 65
  • 157
WeakLearner
  • 5,982

2 Answers2

3

You seem to be using a wrong notion of $\limsup$. Usually one has $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} A^l_n = \bigcap_{n = 1}^{\infty} \bigcup_{m=n}^{\infty} A^l_m$$ According to this definition, $\limsup A^l_n$ is the set of elementary events that occur in infinitely many $A^l_n$. In this exercise it would be the set of runs that contain infinitely many strings of luck of length $l$.

Hence, $$A^1 = \{ X_n = 1 \text{ for infinitely many } n \in \mathbb{N}\}$$ and $$\mathbb{P}(A^1) = 1.$$

EDIT: Maybe I should explain in detail how one can compute $\mathbb{P}(A^1)=1$. First off, I use continuity from above of $\mathbb{P}$, i.e. for sets $B_n$ such that $B_{n+1}\subseteq B_n$ we have $$\mathbb{P}(\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty} B_n) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(B_n).$$ If we set $B_n:= \bigcup_{m=n}^{\infty} A_m^1$ we get $B_n = (A_n^1 \cup B_{n+1}) \supseteq B_{n+1}$ and hence $$\mathbb{P}(A^1) = \mathbb{P}( \bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty} B_n ) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(B_n).$$

Now lets look at $\mathbb{P}(B_n)$. We have $A_m^1 = \{X_m = 1\}$ and \begin{align*} \mathbb{P}(B_n) &= \mathbb{P}(\bigcup_{m=n}^{\infty} A_m^1 ) = \mathbb{P}(\{ X_k = 1 \text{ for some } m \geq n\})\\ & = 1 - \mathbb{P}(\{X_k = 0 \text{ for all } m \geq n\}). \end{align*}

We can use either intuition or a similiar argument to before to see that $$\mathbb{P}(\{X_k = 0 \text{ for all } k \geq m\}) = 0$$ for all $n$. But this means that $\mathbb{P}(B_n) =1$ for all $n$ and hence $$\mathbb{P}(A^1) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(B_n) = 1.$$ I hope this makes it a little bit clearer for you.

EDIT #2: My hint regarding the Borel-Cantelli Lemma was aimed at a statement that is often regarded as the lemma's 2nd statement:

If $(E_n)$ is a sequence of pairwise independent events such that $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathbb{P}(E_n) = \infty$, then $$\mathbb{P}(\limsup_n E_n) = 1$$

j4GGy
  • 3,721
  • I don't understand how I am using the wrong notation? This is exactly what I've written down isn't it ? – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 13:37
  • @dimebucker91 I just realized that you may just have a typo in your computation because you use two intersections instead of the intersection of unions. What I don't get is why you stopped after $A^1_3$. Where are the other $A^1_n$'s? – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 13:38
  • Should it instead be: $$ =(A_1^1 \cup A_2^1 \cup A_3^1) \cap (A_2^1 \cup A_3^1 \cup A_4^1)\cap ( A_3^1\cup A_4^1\cup A_5^1)\cup ... $$ Wouldn't this then just be the null set? – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 13:43
  • @dimebucker91 Again, where is the $3$ coming from? It should be $$= (\cup_{n \geq 1} A_n^1) \cap (\cup_{n \geq 2} A_n^1) \cap (\cup_{n \geq 3} A_n^1) \cap \ldots$$ – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 13:45
  • So : $$ =(A_1^1 \cup A_2^1 \cup A_3^1 .......) \cap (A_2^1 \cup A_3^1 \cup A_4^1 ..........)\cap ( A_3^1\cup A_4^1\cup A_5^1 ........)\cup ... $$ – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 13:47
  • @dimebucker91 Yes, that's right. – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 13:47
  • I'm kind of confused of how to solve this – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 13:47
  • @dimebucker91 I edited my answer above to compute $\mathbb{P}(A^1)$. It is much easier if you think about it in terms of occurs in infinitely many $A^1_n$' – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 13:48
  • @dimebucker91 If you want, I can post the complete solution to the problem/question. I just dont want to "spoil" you if you wanna try it yourself. – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 13:52
  • I updated my attempt to reflect your advice, I'll keep updating as I work on it – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 13:56
  • I don't understand how you get that the probability is 1, I thought that the intersection of those sets is the null – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 14:02
  • @dimebucker91 I edited my answer again to really show you how to compute $\mathbb{P}(A^1)$. I hope that helps. – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 14:20
  • Thanks, I've worked through your new answer and it makes more sense for the case L=1, Im trying to apply it to the L=2 case, I get to the point where I say $P(B_n) = P ( { X_k=X_{k+1}=1 ~~\text{for some} ~~m \ge n } ) =\ 1-P(\text{Event that we get no two consecutive successes}) = 1$ – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 15:03
  • but doesn't the 'intuitive' reasoning become harder to justify for say L=100? – WeakLearner May 06 '15 at 15:03
  • @dimebucker91 It does indeed get harder to argue intuitively. That is why I think you should use the Borel-Cantelli-Lemma to completely solve the exercise :) – j4GGy May 06 '15 at 16:22
  • OK, thanks for your help, I'll keep updating as I figure things out – WeakLearner May 07 '15 at 08:43
  • Did you mean that I can use the lemma to prove the whole question? Or just the last part I was confused about, I keep running around in circles – WeakLearner May 07 '15 at 13:00
  • @dimebucker91 I did not completely think it through, but I guess you can use the Borel-Cantelli Lemma to prove that $P(A^l) = P(\limsup A_n^l) = 1$ for every $l$ and from there $P(\cap A^l) = 1$ should not be hard. – j4GGy May 07 '15 at 13:04
  • but in order to use it we have to assume that l is sufficiently large, otherwise it doesnt satisfy the condition? – WeakLearner May 07 '15 at 13:07
0

I preassume that the $X_n$ are independent (this should be mentioned in your question) and step in where it has been proved allready that $\mathbb P(A^1)=1$.

Define $Y_k:=X_{kl}\times\cdots\times X_{kl+l-1}$. Then the $Y_k$ are iid with Bernouilli-distribution having parameter $p^l$ and $A_{kl}^l=\{Y_k=1\}$.

With the same method used to prove that $\mathbb P(A^1)=1$ it can be proved that $P\{Y_k=1\mid\text{ for infinitely many }k\}=1$ and this implies that $P(A^l)=1$.

drhab
  • 151,093