3

Let $X_1,X_2, \cdots$ be a sequence of random variables that converges to random variable $X$ almost surely OR in $L_p$ norm OR in probability OR in distribution. That is $$X_n\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow} X$$ OR $$X_n\stackrel{L_p}{\longrightarrow}X$$ OR $$X_n\stackrel{\mathscr{P}}{\rightarrow} X$$ OR $$X_n\stackrel{\mathscr{D}}{\rightarrow} X$$

Let $Y=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i$, I am interested in the convergence of the average sequence $\{Y_n\}$ in different cases. i.e. Which of the following conjectures is true?

$$X_n\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow} X \Rightarrow Y_n\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow} X$$

$$X_n\stackrel{L_p}{\longrightarrow}X\Rightarrow Y_n\stackrel{L_p}{\longrightarrow} X$$

$$X_n\stackrel{\mathscr{P}}{\rightarrow} X\Rightarrow Y_n\stackrel{\mathscr{P}}{\longrightarrow} X$$

$$X_n\stackrel{\mathscr{D}}{\rightarrow} X\Rightarrow Y_n\stackrel{\mathscr{D}}{\longrightarrow} X$$

If any one of them is incorrect, please give a specific counter example where the limit random variable $X$ is a non-degenerate variable, i.e. $X$ is not a real number(if it is possible). If there is not an $X$ could be non-degenerate, why?

(Maybe we can add a non-degenerate $X$ to the existing counter example? Namely, if $X$ is non-degenerate, then let $X_n^{\prime}=X_n-X$. Thus, we have $X_n^{\prime}\rightarrow 0$ in different modes. By the additivity of limit, it is make sense for non-degenrate case. Would it be all right? )

Many thanks.

Update: Now we know that for the arithmetic mean, case 1 and case 2 are true, meanwhile case 3 and case 4 are false.

Further, I want to know can the conclusion be extended to geometric mean, harmonic mean and quadratic mean? By the continuous mapping theorem, I think, for case 1, so does geometric mean, harmonic mean and quadratic mean as well. But I am not sure about the case 2. Moreover, for the other forms of mean, will the conclusions of the other two cases change?

  • 1
    The first one stems from Stolz-Cesaro. The second one can be proved with a similar argument. 4. is wrong, because you can choose $U$ a Gaussian random variable, and set $X_{2n+1}=U$, $X_{2n}=U$ so that $X_n$ converges in law to $U$ while $Y_n$ converges as to $0$. – Aphelli Oct 19 '19 at 11:13
  • is even wrong in the iid case because of the law of large numbers.
  • – Aphelli Oct 19 '19 at 11:30
  • @Mindlack In your first comment you wanted to type $U$ in one place and $-U$ in the other right? – Kavi Rama Murthy Oct 19 '19 at 11:43
  • @Kabo Murphy: right, thanks for pointing it out. – Aphelli Oct 19 '19 at 12:47
  • @Mindlack Thanks! I think case 2 also can be prove by Minkowski inequality, right? And I wonder what about case 3. (in probability)--in particular, a counter example can be constructed when X follows a degenerate distribution. However, for the non-degenerate case, I can't find a good proof. – Skylin Chern Oct 19 '19 at 13:49
  • Do you have any idea, e.g., under what conditions, that statement "$Y_n$ converges in probability to 0" holds? – TrungDung Jan 17 '22 at 14:15