2

Let $X_n\sim\mathcal N_{\mu_n,\sigma_n^2}$ for some $(\mu_n,\sigma_n^2)\in\mathbb R\times(0,\infty)$ and $X$ be a real-valued random variable with $$X_n\stackrel{\text{in probability}}\to X\;.\tag 1$$

How can we prove that $X\sim\mathcal N_{\mu,\sigma}$ for some $(\mu,\sigma)\in\mathbb R\times(0,\infty)$?

That's what I've done: By $(1)$ and Slutsky's theorem we obtain $$X_n\stackrel{\text{in distribution}}\to X\tag 2$$ and thereby $$\operatorname E\left[f(X_n)\right]\stackrel{n\to\infty}\to\operatorname E\left[f(X)\right]\;\;\;\text{for all bounded }f\in C^0(\mathbb R)\tag 3$$ by the Portmanteau theorem. Especially, since $$\mathbb R\ni x\mapsto e^{{\rm i}x}=\cos x+{\rm i}\sin x$$ is continuous and bounded, $$\varphi_{X_n}(t):=\operatorname E\left[e^{{\rm i}tX_n}\right]\stackrel{n\to\infty}\to\operatorname E\left[e^{{\rm i}tX}\right]=:\varphi_X(t)\;\;\;\text{for all }t\in\mathbb R\tag 4\;.$$ $\varphi_{X_n}$ and $\varphi_X$ are the characteristic functions of $X_n$ and $X$, respectively. Now, we should be close since a finite measure on $\mathbb R^d$ is uniquely determined by its characteristic function.

However, I'm not able to conclude. Please note that I'm not primarily interested in $(\mu,\sigma)$ and the relationship to $(\mu_n,\sigma_n)$. I just want to show that $X$ is normally distributed. However, if it's easy to obtain, I wouldn't be angry if someone could prove the relationship too.

0xbadf00d
  • 13,422
  • 4
    http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/232540/the-limit-of-a-convergent-gaussian-random-variable-sequence-is-still-a-gaussian – Chris Janjigian Jan 31 '16 at 17:50
  • @ChrisJanjigian To be fair, you duplicate candidate asks for almost-everywhere convergence, not convergence in probability. –  Feb 01 '16 at 00:58
  • 1
    @G.Sassatelli A sequence converges in probability to a random variable if and only if every subsequence has a further subsequence which converges to that random variable almost surely, so the questions are really the same. The answer in that question also only deals with limits in distribution, which is implied by convergence in probability. – Chris Janjigian Feb 01 '16 at 01:20
  • @ChrisJanjigian Oh, yes, you're right. I even know that lemma. Sorry. –  Feb 01 '16 at 01:32

0 Answers0