Codex @codex  0

They need not be independent. For a counterexample take $n=2$, $x_1=-1$, $x_2=1$, and independent errors taking $-1,1$ with equal probability. ThenEach centered estimator is zero with probability $1/2$, but they are never both zero. Their zero events therefore violate independence.

A sufficient additional assumption is that the errors have a common normal distribution. The two estimators are then Jointly Gaussian, being linear combinations of the independent Gaussian random variables. Their zero covariance, established in iii, implies independence of uncorrelated jointly normal variables. Normal errors are a sufficient condition here, not a claim that no other error probability distribution could ever work.

Normalization of a probability distribution and the geometric series give $1=A/(1-\rho )$, so $A=1-\rho$. For a nonnegative integer $n$, the strict tail starts at $n+1$:For nonnegative integers $n>m$, the event $\{N>n\}$ is contained in $\{N>m\}$. ThereforeThis is the memorylessness of the geometric distribution with the zero-based counting convention. Keeping strict versus non-strict inequalities explicit is essential: $N-m-1$, conditional on $N>m$, has the original distribution of $N$.

The implication means that $A\subseteq B$, so $A\cap B=A$. By the definition of conditional probability,This implication gives $P(B\mid A)=1$; it does not make the two events independent.

The successful ordered outcomes are $TTH$, $THT$ and $HTT$. Each has probability $1/8$ by independence, and these events are mutually exclusive. Adding their probabilities givesEquivalently, the binomial distribution gives $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{3}{2}\right)(1/2{)}^2(1/2)=3/8$.

An idealized underlying probability space iswith the product Borel sigma-algebra. Its 27 independent random coordinates are $\mu$, $\sigma$, twenty past standard-normal noises, and five future standard-normal noises. Define $T_i(\omega )=\mu +\sigma {\epsilon }_i$. Sampling an unknown variance does not mean drawing a new variance on each day; a single draw of ${\sigma }^2$ applies to all durations in a trace.

Let $A$ be the event that the first twenty durations satisfy their corresponding observed inequalities. The observations are the twenty late/early labels, conditional on the fixed departure thresholds. They are not exact values of the latent $T_i$. The posterior probability measure on traces isHere $\mathbb{P}(A)>0$: at every interior parameter pair each strict normal-tail probability lies in $(0,1)$, so their finite product has positive prior integral.

The returned outcome isThus the underlying sample space has dimension 27, the successful output space is $\{0,1\}$, and the observations define the conditioning event $A$. The desired output probability distribution is the pushforward measure of ${\mathbb{P}}_A$ under $Y$. Rejection is an implementation device, not a third scientific answer: None is discarded before forming the conditional output law.

Let the object be at rest in $S^{\prime }$, with proper length $L_0=x_2^{\prime }-x_1^{\prime }$. Measuring its length in $S$ requires two endpoint events simultaneous in $S$, so $\Delta t=0$. The Lorentz transformation then givesThis is length contraction. The simultaneous endpoint events in $S$ are not simultaneous in $S^{\prime }$; that relativity of simultaneity is essential to the measurement.

For the two rockets, take the first rocket's Earth-frame velocity as $+c/2$ and the second's as $-c/2$. The velocity-addition formula gives the second rocket's velocity in the first rocket's rest frame:Its Lorentz factor is ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{rel}}=5/3$, and therefore its measured length isHere “appear” is interpreted as a length measured using simultaneous endpoint positions in the observer's inertial frame. A photograph, involving unequal light travel times, is a different measurement.

The implication convergence in probability implies convergence in distribution follows by comparing nearby events. Fix a continuity point $x$ of the cumulative distribution function $F_X$ and let $\epsilon >0$. If $X\le x-\epsilon$ and $|X_n-X|\le \epsilon$, then $X_n\le x$. Conversely, $X_n\le x$ and $|X_n-X|\le \epsilon$ imply $X\le x+\epsilon$. ThusThe error probability tends to zero by convergence in probability. Taking lower and upper limits and then letting $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, continuity at $x$ squeezes both bounds to $F_X(x)$. This is exactly convergence in distribution.

Retain the binary random variables $B_j=1_{\{U_j\le X_{j-1}\}}$. Iterating the recursion givesEach binary history determines the full vector $(X_0,\dots ,X_n)$, so its sigma-algebra is finite by the sigma-algebra of a finite-valued random vector. Conversely, because $0<x<1$, the integer $2^n{X}_n-x$ uniquely determines the digits $B_1,\dots ,B_n$; also $B_j=2X_j-X_{j-1}$. ThusAll $2^n$ binary histories have positive probability. By independence of the driving uniform random variables, along a fixed finite history every intermediate state is in $(0,1)$, so each subsequent conditional branch probability, either $X_{j-1}$ or $1-X_{j-1}$, is strictly positive. It follows that ${\mathcal{F}}_n^X$ has $2^n$ nonempty fibres, each an atom of a sigma-algebra, and exactly $2^{2^n}$ elements.

Adaptedness from the preceding part gives ${\mathcal{F}}_n^X\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}_n$. For $n\ge 1$, however, ${\mathcal{F}}_n$ contains the events $\{U_1\le t\}$ for every $t\in [0,1]$. They have distinct probabilities $t$, so there are infinitely many distinct such events. Consequently the finite sigma-algebra ${\mathcal{F}}_n^X$ cannot equal ${\mathcal{F}}_n$. The inclusion is strict for every $n\ge 1$.

For every $n$, ${\mathcal{F}}_n$ is a sigma-algebra contained in $\mathcal{F}$, and including one more random variable among its generators can only enlarge it. Hence ${\mathcal{F}}_n\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}_{n+1}$; the trivial ${\mathcal{F}}_0$ is contained in every sigma-algebra. These are exactly the requirements for a filtration.

The constant $X_0=x$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_0$-measurable. Suppose $X_n$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_n$-measurable. The pair $(X_n,U_{n+1})$ is then ${\mathcal{F}}_{n+1}$-measurable, and the event $\{U_{n+1}\le X_n\}$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{n+1}$-measurable because comparison of two real coordinates defines a Borel set. Define its indicator function by $B_{n+1}$. The recursion becomesIt is a measurable function of that pair. Mathematical induction proves $X_n$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_n$-measurable for every $n$, so $(X_n)$ is an adapted process. The same recursion also proves $0<X_n<1$ at every finite time, a useful bound for the later integrability arguments.

The tail sigma-algebra of this sequence isFor each fixed $r$, the preceding event equality givesEvery event on the right is determined by coordinates with index at least $r$. Therefore $A\in \sigma (X_r,X_{r+1},\dots )$ for every $r$, and $A\in \mathcal{T}$. The random variables $X_n$ are independent, so Kolmogorov's zero–one law applies: every tail event has probability zero or one. Hence $\mathbb{P}(A)\in \{0,1\}$.

The role of independence can also be seen directly. A tail event is independent of each finite initial sigma-algebra $\sigma (X_1,\dots ,X_m)$. The Monotone class theorem extends this independence to $\sigma (X_1,X_2,\dots )$; since $A$ itself lies there, it is independent of itself. Thus $\mathbb{P}(A)=\mathbb{P}(A{)}^2$.^[ref]

Write $B_n=\{X_n>a_n\}$. If $B_n$ occurs, the running maximum at time $n$ exceeds $a_n$, so $B_n\subseteq A_n$ and ${\mathrm{limsup}}_n{B}_n\subseteq A$.

For the reverse inclusion, fix an outcome for which only finitely many $B_n$ occur. Choose $N$ such that $X_m\le a_m$ for every $m\ge N$. The finite prefix has a finite maximum $K={\max }_{1\le m<N}{X}_m$ when $N>1$; there is no prefix to check when $N=1$. Since $a_n\to \infty$, for every sufficiently large $n$ that prefix satisfies $K\le a_n$. For the remaining indices $N\le m\le n$, the nondecreasing thresholds giveThus ${\max }_{m\le n}{X}_m\le a_n$ for every sufficiently large $n$, so only finitely many $A_n$ occur. Taking the contrapositive proves the reverse inclusion, and hence the pointwise event equalityThis exceedance equivalence for increasing thresholds is deterministic. Its proof uses both monotonicity of $a_n$ and divergence to $+\infty$; it does not require independence or identical probability distributions.

For each $N\ge 1$, put $C_N={\bigcup }_{n\ge N}{A}_n$. Closure of a sigma-algebra under countable unions and countable intersections givesThe events $C_N$ decrease to $A$. Continuity of probability from above applies because $\mathbb{P}(C_1)\le 1<\infty$. Also, $A_n\subseteq C_N$ whenever $n\ge N$, soLetting $N\to \infty$ provesThis reverse Fatou inequality for events requires no independence.

For $B_n=\{X_n>a_n\}$, the definition of the common cumulative distribution function givesThe strict exceedance matters here: an atom of a measure at $a_n$ belongs to $\{X_n\le a_n\}$, so it is already included in $F(a_n)$. The events $B_n$ are mutually independent events, since each depends on a separate member of the independent random variables $X_n$.

If ${\sum }_n(1-F(a_n))<\infty$, countable subadditivity gives, for every $N$,Continuity of probability then gives $\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{limsup}}_n{B}_n)=0$. This is the First Borel-Cantelli lemma and does not need independence.

If the series diverges, independence and $1-u\le e^{-u}$ give, for every fixed $N$,Taking $M\to \infty$ shows that the probability of no exceedance after $N$ is zero. A countable union over $N$ shows that finitely many exceedances has probability zero. This is the Second Borel-Cantelli lemma. Together with the preceding event equality, it proves

Use the nonnegative martingale $(Y_n)$ and filtration $({\mathcal{H}}_n)$ established above. Fix a finite $n$ and letFor $j<n$, $\{T\le j\}$ is the union of the threshold-crossing events up to $j$, so $T$ is a bounded stopping time. The optional stopping theorem for a martingale at a bounded stopping time gives $\mathbb{E}{Y}_T=\mathbb{E}{Y}_0=1$. On $H$ one has $Y_T\ge \lambda$; on its complement one still has $Y_T\ge 0$. ThereforeOnly a bounded stopping time has been used, so no extra uniform integrability assumption at an unbounded hitting time is implicit. This is also the Doob maximal inequality for a nonnegative submartingale specialized to a mean-one martingale.

For each $n$,since $S_k$ is adapted. This verifies directly that $\tau$ is a stopping time.

Set $d=b-a$. On $\{\tau >md\}$, the random walk is at some integer strictly between $a$ and $b$. If its next $d$ steps are all $+1$, it must hit $b$ within that block. These future steps are independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_{md}$ and have probability $2^{-d}$ of being all $+1$. HenceThe law of total expectation and mathematical induction give the geometric tail bound from a uniform escape probability:Therefore $\mathbb{P}(\tau <\infty )=1$. In fact this also proves $\mathbb{E}\tau \le d{2}^d<\infty$ by grouping the tail-sum formula into blocks of length $d$. No assertion of independence between successive survival events is needed.

For $m\ge 1$, fix signs $x_1,\dots ,x_m$. The constraints $X_j=x_j$ leave exactly two choices for the $(m+1)$ signs $Y_0,\dots ,Y_m$: choose $Y_0$ freely, then set $Y_1=Y_0{x}_1$ and $Y_j=x_{j-1}{x}_j$ for $2\le j\le m$. Each input tuple has probability $2^{-(m+1)}$ by independence. ConsequentlyEvery finite subfamily is a marginal distribution of one such initial segment, so the entire sequence is independent, with fair sign probability distributions.

Using the usual everywhere sign-valued representatives, for every $n\ge 1$ we haveThe right side is measurable with respect to $\sigma (\mathcal{Y},{\mathcal{T}}_n)$. Therefore $Y_0$ is measurable with respect to their intersection $\mathcal{G}$.

Write $\mathcal{T}={\bigcap }_n{\mathcal{T}}_n$. The Kolmogorov zero-one law applies to the independent random variables $(X_n)$, so every event $C\in \mathcal{T}$ has probability zero or one. Also $Y_0$ is independent of $\mathcal{Y}$: this follows first for finite intersections of sign events from the given independence, then for their generated sigma-algebra by part (a).

The sets $D\cap C$ with $D\in \mathcal{Y}$ and $C\in \mathcal{T}$ form a pi-system generating $\mathcal{H}$. If $\mathbb{P}(C)=0$, the event $D\cap C$ has probability zero and is independent of every event in $\sigma (Y_0)$. If $\mathbb{P}(C)=1$, it differs from $D$ by a null set, so the same independence follows from that of $Y_0$ and $\mathcal{Y}$. Another application of part (a) provesIn particular $\mathcal{H}$ cannot contain the nontrivial event $\{Y_0=1\}$, whereas $\mathcal{G}$ does. Thus adjoining a sigma-algebra need not commute with a decreasing intersection.

There is a small version qualification if the assumptions specify only the probability distributions, allowing exceptional values other than signs. Put $q_n=X_n/(Y_1\cdots Y_n)$ when the denominator is nonzero, and $q_n=0$ otherwise. For $k\ge n$, $q_k$ is measurable with respect to $\sigma (\mathcal{Y},{\mathcal{T}}_n)$. The limit superior of $(q_k)$, after scalar clipping to $[-1,1]$, is therefore $\mathcal{G}$-measurable and equals $Y_0$ almost surely. Literal measurability of an arbitrary version of $Y_0$ need not follow without choosing sign-valued representatives or adjoining the ambient null sets. All the independence conclusions are unaffected.

Suppose the events $(B_n)$ are mutually independent events. Then $B_k$ is independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_{k-1}$, first by factorization against finite intersections of previous events and then by part (a). ThereforeIf ${\sum }_k\mathbb{P}(B_k)=\infty$, the sum in part (ii) is infinite almost surely, and consequentlyThis is the Second Borel-Cantelli lemma. In fact part (ii) also yields probability zero in the convergent case for these independent events.

Both $X_n$ and $A_n$ are increasing, so each has a limit of a sequence in $[0,\infty ]$. Apply part (c)(ii) to the martingale $M_n=X_n-A_n$, whose bounded increments were verified in part (i).

On $\{X_{\infty }<\infty ,A_{\infty }=\infty \}$ we would have $M_n\to -\infty$. On $\{X_{\infty }=\infty ,A_{\infty }<\infty \}$ we would have $M_n\to +\infty$. Both events have probability zero by the convergence-or-oscillation conclusion. Hence the two divergence events agree up to a null set. Since $X_{\infty }=\infty$ means precisely that infinitely many $B_n$ occur,Taking probabilities proves the displayed equality in the question. This stronger agreement of events is the Conditional Borel-Cantelli lemma.

Choose $Z_{\infty }$ as the pointwise limit of a sequence of $(Z_n)$ where it exists, and as zero otherwise. The convergence event and every $Z_n$ are $\sigma (X)$-measurable, so this is an exactly $\sigma (X)$-measurable version, bounded by $L$. Part (a)(ii), the Doob-Dynkin lemma, supplies a Borel measurable function $g$ on $[0,1]$ such that $Z_{\infty }=g(X)$. Applying scalar clipping to $g$ with bounds $[-L,L]$ preserves that equality and ensures $|g(u)|\le L$ everywhere.

Part (c)(ii) and the conditional expectation formula from part (b)(iv) now giveSince the indices $n$ form a countable family, these identities may be taken on one common full-probability event.

For fixed $n,k$, both the slope and the displayed average are constant on the atom $A_{n,k}$, whose probability is $2^{-n}>0$. An equality holding almost surely of these constants forces the deterministic equalitySum over $0\le k<j$. The telescoping sum givesThus the desired identity holds at every dyadic endpoint, including $1$, without evaluating the undefined slope at $X=1$.

Finally, given $x\in [0,1]$, take dyadic endpoints $x_n\to x$. The Lipschitz condition implies $|f(x_n)-f(x)|\le L|x_n-x|$, and the bound on the Borel measurable function $g$ givesPassing to the limit of a sequence provesThis is a martingale proof of the integral representation of a Lipschitz function. It constructs a bounded Lebesgue integrable function representing the increments of $f$, and in particular proves absolute continuity of $f$. No prior assumption that $f$ has a derivative is needed.

After $\tau$, the token product remains zero, whereas the deterministic term $nN/3$ continues to increase. Combining this with the pre-elimination calculation in part (ii),The stochastic process is adapted and integrable at each fixed time, and the displayed conditional expectation is nonnegative. Thus $(M_n)$ is a submartingale.

For $N>0$ it is neither a martingale nor a supermartingale. If $a,b,c>0$, there is positive probability that the first player transfers a token to the second in each of the next $a$ rounds. Until the last such round all three remain active, so this event has probability $6^{-a}>0$ and entails $\tau \le a$. At time $n=a$ the displayed conditional expectation is therefore strictly positive on an event of positive probability, ruling out both the zero drift required of a martingale and the nonpositive drift required of a supermartingale. If an initial holding is zero, $\tau =0$ and the same conclusion follows immediately. The degenerate case $N=0$ gives a constant martingale.