6

Given $p_j \geq 0$ for all $j \geq 1$ and $\sum_{j=1}^\infty p_j = 1$, I am asked to show that $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^\infty \left( 1 - (1-p_j)^n\right) \to 0 ~~ \textrm{as} ~~ n \to \infty.$$ Unfortunately, using only the fact that $(1-p_j)^n \geq 1 - np_j$ will not be enough, as this inequality only gives us $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^\infty \left( 1 - (1-p_j)^n\right) \leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^\infty np_j = 1.$$ Can anyone provide a hint towards the proof?


Remark: This problem is related to exercise 3.8 in this monograph.

Fei Cao
  • 2,830
  • @KentaS I don't think so by a quick try... If you could do it can you show me the details...? For someone who voted "close", may I know the reason? – Fei Cao Dec 23 '21 at 03:56
  • I did not vote to close, but the reason given was lack of context. – robjohn Dec 23 '21 at 08:33
  • If you provide some context, other answers will most likely be posted. Furthermore, it should prevent more close votes and the probable delete votes following. I think this is a good question, it just needs to be expanded to meet the site requirements. Where did you get the problem? Did this come up in a course/book; if so which course/book? What tools are being discussed in the course/book? etc. – robjohn Dec 23 '21 at 16:54
  • Even if, in your question, you just showed that $(1-p_j)^n \ge1-np_j$, as is, only seems to show that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty\left(1-(1-p_j)^n\right)\le\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty p_j=1$, that would add more context. – robjohn Dec 24 '21 at 13:40
  • @robjohn thanks for your suggestion, I will keep that in mind in my future questions. Merry Christmas! – Fei Cao Dec 24 '21 at 18:11
  • Why not add it to this question? I know you've already gotten and accepted a solution, but there may be others who are reluctant to answer because the question does not meet the site requirements (which is why there was already one close vote). It would be a benefit to future readers to keep this question from being closed and deleted, and to encourage other answers. However, if all you were interested in was the answer to a homework question, then you can ignore my comments. – robjohn Dec 24 '21 at 18:50
  • Merry Christmas! (a comment that does not need to be ignored :-) – robjohn Dec 24 '21 at 19:23
  • 1
    @robjohn I have taken care of your suggestions and the original post has been modified~ Merry Christmas! – Fei Cao Dec 25 '21 at 01:12
  • Thank you! I don't think there should be any more close votes. I have already upvoted your answer, and have now unhidden my answer. It may not be as simple as Nicolas' answer, but it shows a bit of a different approach. – robjohn Dec 25 '21 at 02:32

5 Answers5

11

I think your bound suffices! In fact, we have that $$ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=k+1}^\infty (1-(1-p_j)^n) \leq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=k+1}^\infty n p_j = \sum_{j=k+1}^\infty p_j. $$ This way, for each $k$ we can bound the total sum as \begin{align*} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^\infty (1-(1-p_j)^n) &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^k (1-(1-p_j)^n) + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty (1-(1-p_j)^n) \\ &\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^k 1+\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty p_j \\ &= \frac{k}{n} +\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty p_j. \end{align*} Now, the result follows by truncating. Fix $\varepsilon>0$. Take $k>0$ such that the sum $\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty p_j$ is less than $\varepsilon/2$, and then take $n>2k/\varepsilon$. The computation from above shows that $$ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^\infty (1-(1-p_j)^n) \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}=\varepsilon, $$ which proves the statement.

Nicolás Vilches
  • 3,525
  • 1
  • 14
  • 14
5

From the inequality that OP observed, we get $(1-p_j)^n \geq \max\{1 - np_j, 0\}$ and hence

$$ 1 - (1-p_j)^n \leq \min\{np_j, 1\}, $$

From this, we get

$$ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} (1 - (1-p_j)^n) \leq \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \min\{p_j, 1/n\}. $$

Since the $j$th summand of the last sum is always bounded by $p_j$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} p_j$ converges, by the dominated convergence theorem

$$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \min\{p_j, 1/n\} = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \lim_{n\to\infty} \min\{p_j, 1/n\} = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \min\{p_j, 0\} = 0. $$

So by the squeezing theorem,

$$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n} (1 - (1-p_j)^n) = 0. $$

Sangchul Lee
  • 167,468
1

Applying the Stolz-Cesaro theorem, we have to compute $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(1-(1-p_j)^{n+1}\right)-\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(1-(1-p_j)^{n}\right)\right] \\=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}p_j(1-p_j)^n $$ From the given sum it follows that $p_j\le 1$. Thus, $0\le p_j(1-p_j)^n\le p_j$, and we know $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}p_j$ converges. This implies that we can switch the limit and the summation in the previous line. $$\lim_{n\to\infty}p_j(1-p_j)^n=0 \\ \Rightarrow \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}p_j(1-p_j)^n=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}0=0 $$

bjorn93
  • 6,787
1

Here is another approach to splitting the sum at a strategic point.


Dominated Convergence says that $$ \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j=0\tag1 $$ Thus, for any $\epsilon\gt0$, there is a $k_\epsilon$ so that for all $k\ge k_\epsilon$ $$ \sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j\le\epsilon\tag2 $$ Therefore, for $n\ge k_\epsilon$, $$ \begin{align} \frac1n\sum_{j=1}^\infty\left(1-(1-p_j)^n\right) &=\frac1n\sum_{j=1}^\infty\frac{1-(1-p_j)^n}{1-(1-p_j)}p_j\tag{3a}\\ &=\frac1n\sum_{j=1}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(1-p_j)^kp_j\tag{3b}\\ &=\frac1n\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j\tag{3c}\\ &=\frac1n\sum_{k=0}^{k_\epsilon-1}\sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j+\frac1n\sum_{k=k_\epsilon}^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j\tag{3d}\\ &\le\frac1n\ \underbrace{\sum_{k=0}^{k_\epsilon-1}\sum_{j=1}^\infty(1-p_j)^kp_j}_\text{constant in $n$}+\underbrace{\ \frac{n-k_\epsilon}{n}\ \vphantom{\sum_j^1}}_{\le1}\ \epsilon\tag{3e} \end{align} $$ Explanation:
$\text{(3a)}$: $1-(1-p_j)=p_j$
$\text{(3b)}$: $\frac{1-x^n}{1-x}=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}x^k$
$\text{(3c)}$: swap order of summation
$\text{(3d)}$: split the outer sum at $k_\epsilon$
$\text{(3e)}$: apply $(2)$

Taking the limit of $(3)$, $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=1}^\infty\left(1-(1-p_j)^n\right) \le\epsilon\tag4 $$ Since $\epsilon\gt0$ was arbitrary, $(4)$ means $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\sum_{j=1}^\infty\left(1-(1-p_j)^n\right)=0\tag5 $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
1

I came to know this $\epsilon$-$N$ argument from the elementary proof of Tannery theorem [1].
(I used Tannery theorem to prove that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \int^1_0 f(x) |\sin(n \pi x)|\,\mathrm{d}x = \frac{2}{\pi} \int^1_0 f(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$ Proving $\lim_{n \to \infty} \int^1_0 f(x) |\sin(n \pi x)|\,dx = \frac{2}{\pi} \int^1_0 f(x)\,dx$ .)

Denote $m = \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor$ where $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ is the floor function. We have \begin{align*} &1 - (1 - p_j)^n\\ =\,& p_j\Big(1 + (1 - p_j) + (1 - p_j)^2 + \cdots + (1 - p_j)^{n - 1}\Big)\\ \le\,& p_j \Big(1 + (1 - p_j) + (1 - p_j)^2 + \cdots + (1 - p_j)^{m - 1} + n (1 - p_j)^m\Big)\\ \le\,& p_j \Big(m + n(1 - p_j)^m\Big). \end{align*} Thus, $$\frac{1}{n}[1 - (1 - p_j)^n] \le \frac{m}{n} p_j + p_j(1 - p_j)^m.$$

It suffices to prove that $$\lim_{m\to \infty} \sum_{j=1}^\infty p_j(1 - p_j)^m = 0.$$

$\epsilon$-$N$ argument:

For any given $\epsilon > 0$, there is an $N$ such that $\sum_{j > N} p_j(1 - p_j)^m \le \sum_{j > N} p_j < \frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
Clearly, for each $j$, there is an $M_j$ such that $p_j(1 - p_j)^m < \frac{\epsilon}{2N}$ for all $m > M_j$.
Let $M = \max(M_1, M_2, \cdots, M_N)$. We have $$\sum_{j=1}^\infty p_j(1 - p_j)^m = \sum_{j\le N} p_j(1 - p_j)^m + \sum_{j > N} p_j(1 - p_j)^m < N \cdot \frac{\epsilon}{2N} + \frac{\epsilon}{2} = \epsilon$$ for all $m > M$.

Reference:

[1] Josef Hofbauer, "A simple proof of 1 + 1/22 + 1/32 + ... = PI2/6 and related identities", American Mathematical Monthly 109 (February 2002), 196-200. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/josef.hofbauer/piq6.htm

River Li
  • 37,323