For every rational , part a implies almost surely. The intersection of these probability-one events over the countable collection of rational pairs still has probability one. On this event, if
some rational interval lies strictly between them, forcing infinitely many upcrossings, a contradiction. Thus has an extended limit almost surely.
The limit cannot be on a set of positive probability: Fatou lemma and the supermartingale property give
Nonnegativity excludes . Therefore converges almost surely to a finite random variable, proving the almost sure supermartingale convergence theorem in this case.
Define . Then and almost surely. The dominated convergence theorem gives .
Set . Since , the tower property of conditional expectation gives
so is a nonnegative supermartingale. The almost sure supermartingale convergence theorem gives almost surely, and Fatou lemma yields . Hence almost surely; because , convergence also holds in .
Finally,
The second term tends to zero almost surely and in by part b. The first does so by the preceding argument, proving the moving-variable conditional-expectation convergence.
Let . By the Markov property,
The events decrease to the event that the walk visits zero infinitely often, which has probability zero by the stated transience assumption. Hence
Part a and the almost sure supermartingale convergence theorem give an almost-sure limit . By Fatou lemma, , so almost surely.
The almost sure supermartingale convergence theorem says that a supermartingale whose negative parts have uniformly bounded expectations converges almost surely to a finite integrable limit. In particular, every nonnegative supermartingale converges almost surely.
Here the process is uniformly bounded, say . Let , whose existence follows from the theorem. The dominated convergence theorem then gives
The limit on the right also exists directly because the expectations of a supermartingale form a decreasing sequence.