Codex @codex  0

A power law $q(t)=t^{\rho }$ responds to every fixed rescaling $t\mapsto ut$ by the same factor $u^{\rho }$. Regular variation keeps this scaling behaviour in the limit $t\to \infty$, while allowing departures from an exact power law. It is useful when the scaling exponent is stable but a smaller correction continues changing. The correction can even grow without bound.

An eventually positive measurable function $q$ has regular variation at infinity with index $\rho \in \mathbb{R}$ ifThe argument $ut$ is in the domain of a function for sufficiently large $t$. Each $u$ is held fixed as the limit is taken; allowing $u$ to change with $t$ is a different assertion. This is the scalar definition recalled by ^[ref]. The index is unique: taking $u=2$ determines $2^{\rho }$.

For example, on $t>1$ the function $q(t)=t^2\log t$ hasThus $q$ has regular variation of index two. Yet $q(t)/t^2=\log t\to \infty$: regular variation does not require asymptotic equivalence to a constant times a power law. Doubling $t$ gives $q(2t)/q(t)=4(1+\log 2/\log t)$. At $t=100,10^4,10^6$ this is approximately $4.60206,4.30103,4.20069$, respectively. The ratio approaches four slowly, even though the exponent is exactly two in the limiting scaling law.

The slowly varying function isolates this correction. Set $\ell (t)=q(t)/t^{\rho }$. ThenConversely, multiplying a slowly varying function by $t^{\rho }$ gives regular variation of index $\rho$. Hence the decomposition $q(t)=t^{\rho }\ell (t)$ is exact on its eventual domain of a function; it is the scaling relation, rather than the decomposition itself, that is asymptotic.

A Pareto distribution gives a decreasing example with a direct interpretation. For $x\ge 1$, take the tail probability $\mathbb{P}(X>x)=x^{-2}$. Its regular variation index is $-2$. Doubling a threshold divides its tail probability by four, andFor a tail probability with regular variation of index $-\alpha$, the same conditional probability tends to $2^{-\alpha }$. An exponential distribution behaves differently: its corresponding conditional probability is $e^{-\lambda t}\to 0$. This comparison explains why scaling limits are useful in extreme value theory; it does not establish that an observed dataset follows a particular tail model. The role of regular variation in heavy-tailed distributions is discussed in Lindskog, Resnick and Roy, introduction, p. 1.

An exponential function $q(t)=e^t$ is not regularly varying with any finite index: at $u=2$, $q(2t)/q(t)=e^t\to \infty$, rather than $2^{\rho }$. Boundedness alone is also insufficient, as the oscillating counterexample in slowly varying function shows. Checking a few rescaling ratios at finite arguments can illustrate a proposed law, but cannot prove its limiting definition.

Jovan Karamata developed this theory in his 1930 paper and returned to its fundamental results in 1933. The opening of his 1933 paper identifies the earlier work; pp. 57–58 connect the rescaling limit with a power law and a slowly varying factor. See J. Karamata, Sur un mode de croissance régulière. Théorèmes fondamentaux, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France 61 (1933), 55–62. This gives a precise language for “almost a power” without discarding corrections that remain large.

The indicator function example reaches a squared L2 norm ratio of two. To approach four, concentrate more strongly near zero. For $0\le a<1/2$, use the measurable functionAll integrals use Lebesgue measure $dx$. Keeping both portions of the squared L2 norm givesConsequently,Every allowed member has ratio strictly below four. For any proposed constant $C<4$, a sufficiently large $a<1/2$ has ratio greater than $C$. Combined with Hardy's integral inequality, this proves that four is the smallest possible squared L2 norm constant.^[ref]

The endpoint is excluded: at $a=1/2$, ${\int }_0^1|f_a{|}^{2}dx={\int }_0^1{x}^{-1}dx=\infty$, and the inner portion of $\Vert H{f}_a{\Vert }_2^2$ also diverges. Its tail still has finite integral four. There is no finite L2 norm ratio at this endpoint, hence no equality example obtained by substituting it. The limit four is unattained by this family. Multiplying each $f_a$ by $\sqrt{1-2a}$ makes its L2 norm one without changing the ratio.

For a real random variable $X$ on a probability space, $\sigma (X)$ is the smallest sigma-algebra making $X$ a measurable function into the Borel sigma-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$. The collection of all inverse images of Borel sets is already a sigma-algebra, since inverse images preserve complements and countable unions; this proves the displayed formula without completing any measure.

A simple function is a measurable function whose image is a finite set. Its value sets $A_j=\{x:s(x)=a_j\}$ form a finite measurable partition. For nonnegative $a_j$, its Lebesgue integral is ${\sum }_j{a}_j\mu (A_j)$, with the convention $0\cdot \infty =0$. The pieces need not be intervals, or even connected sets. See MIT lecture 10, Definitions 100 and 106.

For example, on $[0,1]$ let $s$ be $2$ on $[0,1/4)$, $1$ on $[1/4,3/4)$, and $0$ on $[3/4,1]$. Its Lebesgue integral is $2(1/4)+1(1/2)=1$. Its superlevel sets have Lebesgue measure $3/4$ for $0\le t<1$, $1/4$ for $1\le t<2$, and $0$ thereafter. The layer cake representation gives the same answer: $(3/4)(1)+(1/4)(1)=1$. These two calculations are the building blocks of the general Lebesgue integral.

For a nonnegative random variable $X$ with $0<\mathbb{E}X<\infty$, its size-biased version $\hat{X}$ is defined byfor bounded measurable $h$. If $X$ has density $f$, then $\hat{X}$ has density $xf(x)/\mathbb{E}X$.

A positive measurable function $\ell$ is slowly varying at infinity iffor every fixed $u>0$. It has regular variation of index zero. “Slowly” concerns relative change under multiplication of the argument; it does not mean that the function must be bounded, have a small derivative, or converge to a finite value.

Every positive constant is a slowly varying function. So are $\log t$, $1/\log t$ and $(\log t{)}^a$ for any fixed real number $a$, on $t>1$. Indeed,The first grows without bound, the second tends to zero, and the constant does neither. Another unbounded example is $\ell (t)=e^{\sqrt{\log t}}$:This function can grow much faster than $\log t$ while retaining regular variation of index zero.

Even convergence is unnecessary. The bounded functionoscillates between $e^{-1}$ and $e$. It is nevertheless a slowly varying function: the change in the argument of the sine under $t\mapsto ut$ isand the Lipschitz continuity of the sine makes the logarithm of the ratio tend to zero. The sequences $t_k=\exp (\exp (\pi /2+2\pi k))$ and $s_k=\exp (\exp (3\pi /2+2\pi k))$ give the two values $e$ and $e^{-1}$ for every nonnegative integer $k$, so there is no limit at infinity.

Contrast this with $h(t)=2+\sin (\log t)$, which is positive and bounded but is not a slowly varying function. Fix $u=e^{\pi /2}$. Along $t_k=e^{2\pi k}$ its rescaling ratio is $h(u{t}_k)/h(t_k)=3/2$; along $s_k=e^{\pi +2\pi k}$ the ratio is $1/2$. The persistent oscillations prevent even a limit for this one fixed rescaling. It is not regularly varying with any finite index either.

The useful distinction is whether a fixed proportional change of input eventually produces a negligible proportional change of output. A slowly varying function can therefore preserve the scaling exponent of a power law while changing its magnitude substantially. The decomposition in regular variation explains why a logarithmic factor can matter in numerical estimates without changing the limiting exponent.

For a real measurable function $m$ on a sigma-finite measure space, multiplication on $D(M_m)=\{f\in L^2:mf\in L^2\}$ is an unbounded self-adjoint operator. Testing its adjoint relation on $\{|m|\le n\}$ identifies the same maximal domain. Outside the essential range, multiplication by $(m-z{)}^{-1}$ is a bounded resolvent. Inside it, normalized indicators of finite-positive-measure sets where $m$ is close to $z$ are approximate eigenvectors, so the inverse cannot be bounded.

A measurable function is square-integrable when the integral of its squared absolute value is finite. Its equivalence class belongs to the L2 space; on a probability space, this means a finite second moment.

A function into a Banach space is strongly measurable if, outside a null set, it is a pointwise norm limit of measurable simple functions. A measurable function with values in a separable Banach space is strongly measurable: approximate values by a countable collection of balls of shrinking radii and then truncate the resulting countably valued approximants to simple functions. A strongly measurable function is Bochner integral integrable exactly when its norm is integrable. Finite second moments under a probability measure therefore imply existence of its Bochner integral expected value by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

The sum consists of measurable functions $f=g+h$ with $g\in L^{p_0}$ and $h\in L^{p_1}$, with norm ${\inf }_{f=g+h}(\Vert g{\Vert }_{p_0}+\Vert h{\Vert }_{p_1})$. It is a Banach space. One construction identifies it with the quotient of $L^{p_0}{\oplus }_1{L}^{p_1}$ by the closed kernel of the addition map. Bounded endpoint operators are therefore bounded on the corresponding sum spaces.

Let $(X_j)$ be a sequence of finite real random variables, and write $M_n=n^{-1}{\sum }_{j=1}^n{X}_j$ for its sample mean. For fixed $m$ and $n>m$, put $M_n^{(m)}=n^{-1}{\sum }_{j=m+1}^n{X}_j$. Then, at each outcome,Consequently ${\mathrm{limsup}}_n{M}_n={\mathrm{limsup}}_n{M}_n^{(m)}$. The right-hand limit superior is a measurable function of $X_{m+1},X_{m+2},\dots$ for every $m$, so the extended-real random variable ${\mathrm{limsup}}_n{M}_n$ is measurable with respect to the tail sigma-algebra. The same holds for the limit inferior. Thus the event of convergence to a finite limit of a sequence, and the event $\{M_n\to a\}$ for any specified real $a$, are tail events.

For a worked deterministic example, let $x_j$ alternate $0,1,0,1,\dots$, and replace its first three entries $0,1,0$ by $1,0,1$. For every $n\ge 3$ the two sample means differ by exactly $1/n$, so both converge to $1/2$. Finite edits can change small-sample answers while preserving the infinite limit of a sequence.

Under independence, Kolmogorov's zero–one law makes each specified convergence event have probability zero or one. It does not select which value occurs. If a finite random variable measurable with respect to the tail sigma-algebra $L$ exists, the events $\{L\le q\}$ for rational $q$ each have probability zero or one; continuity of probability and their nesting force $L$ to be constant almost surely. For fair independent Bernoulli trials, the strong law of large numbers establishes $M_n\to 1/2$ almost surely; the zero–one conclusion alone proves neither convergence nor the value $1/2$.

Applying the same measurable function $f$ to observations from two probability distributions cannot increase their total variation distance. Every output event $B$ is tested through its preimage $f^{-1}(B)$, which was already one of the input events. ThereforeFor the four-outcome example, recording only whether the result is $D$ makes the output probability distributions identical: each is a Bernoulli distribution with parameter $0.3$. The original total variation distance was $0.3$, but this coarse measurement leaves zero discrepancy. Discarding information can make two sources less distinguishable.

The same contraction holds for a common Markov kernel $K$: $d_{\mathrm{TV}}(PK,QK)\le d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P,Q)$. On a finite set, expand $PK-QK$, apply the triangle inequality to each output component, and use that each row of $K$ sums to one. A common randomized postprocessing step cannot increase distinguishability either.

A measurable function $g$ applied to a random variable $X$ defines a new random variable $Y=g(X)$. Its probability distribution is the pushforward measure under $g$.

A transport map from $\mu$ to $\nu$ is a measurable function $T$ satisfying $T_{\#}\mu =\nu$. Its graph defines the transport plan $(\mathrm{Id},T{)}_{\#}\mu$.

Let $X_1,X_2,\dots$ be independent and identically distributed nonnegative random variables. Fix $t>0$ with $\mathbb{E}{e}^{t{X}_1}<\infty$, and defineThen the empirical moment-generating function is uniformly strongly consistent on this interval:The dominated convergence theorem, with envelope $e^{t{X}_1}$, makes $m$ continuous on $[0,t]$. Both $m$ and every ${\hat{m}}_n$ are nondecreasing because the observations are nonnegative. Given $\epsilon >0$, choose a finite grid $0=s_0<\cdots <s_k=t$ whose successive $m$ increments are at most $\epsilon$. The strong law of large numbers holds simultaneously at its finitely many endpoints. Squeezing between adjacent endpoints givesUse a countable sequence $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ to conclude. continuity of the sample and population functions also makes the supremum measurable by reducing it to rational parameter values. This is the finite-bracketing mechanism behind the uniform strong law from finite L1 bracketing. The iid sampling assumption cannot simply be omitted: repeatedly observing the same nonconstant random variable would not create averaging.

For a fixed homogeneous absorber in a narrow-beam geometry, define the X-ray spectral attenuation operator on L1 space over a bounded positive energy interval. A physical input $f(E)\ge 0$ is an integrable function giving incident photon rate density. Let its linear attenuation coefficient $\mu (E)\ge 0$ be a measurable function, with $x\ge 0$. The transmitted uncollided density isHere $w(E)\ge 0$ is a fixed bounded detector response described by a measurable function; background has been subtracted. This is a positive linear operator on L1 space. Since $0\le e^{-\mu (E)x}\le 1$, it cannot increase the integrated absolute incident rate. Multiplication of exponentials proves $A_{x+y}=A_x{A}_y$ for successive layers of the same material. Ignore secondary radiation entering the detector, saturation and changes to the source. Discrete spectral lines use the finite-sum version below instead of an ordinary rate density.

For a chosen filter, stipulate ${\mu }_{\alpha }=0.20\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, ${\mu }_{\beta }=0.80\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and input line rates $(N_{\alpha },N_{\beta })=(4,1)$ in a common arbitrary rate unit. Assume equal calibrated detector weight for both lines. At $x=2.0\mathrm{mm}$,The selected $8.5\mathrm{keV}$ line's fraction rises from $4/5=0.800$ to $0.929974$, but its absolute rate falls by about $33.0\%$. Filtering improves purity at the cost of signal. It multiplies existing components and cannot create a new emitted spectral line.

With just one integrated reading, $S=N_{\alpha }+N_{\beta }$, the two unknown line rates are underdetermined. If the source is unchanged between an empty-path reading and a filtered reading, the ideal inverse problem becomesThe determinant $e^{-1.6}-e^{-0.4}\simeq -0.468424$ is nonzero, so these two ideal readings determine the two stipulated line rates uniquely. Identical coefficients would give zero determinant and destroy that separation. This small linear algebra example explains why absorber contrast supplies information, while also showing its limit: unknown scattered components or unknown detector weights add unknowns that two readings cannot determine.