Does the following fact have a name?
Theorem 1 Suppose
are a countable collection of 0/1 random variables over a probability space
such that for every integer
and bits
the event
is measurable.
Suppose that
Then
Proof: Intuitively, we want to say that by linearity of expectation we have and so by Markov’s inequality
Just to make sure that this can be made rigorous, let’s belabor the proof step by step, doing everything completely from first principles.
Let .
First of all, the event
is measurable, because it is the countable intersection over all of the events
, which are measurable because each of them is the countable union over all
of the events
. So suppose towards a contradiction that its probability is not zero, then there is
such that
In particular, for every ,
But, by linearity of expectation, Markov’s inequality, and our assumption, we have that for every and every
Now,
which is a contradiction if we choose .
Maybe we should also justify . Define the disjoint events
as
Then
and

12 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Batz
I needed something very similar in a recent paper, and we showed it followed directly from the central limit theorem (we used a version for independent non-identically distributed random variables, see pg 176 in Grimmett “Probability and random processes”).
December 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm
commenter
borel-cantelli
December 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm
harrison
This is exactly the sort of thing MathOverflow is excellent for.
December 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm
harrison
Ahh, wordpress ate my fake HTML tag. So, append [/shameless plug] to the above.
December 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm
anon
confirm, Borel-Cantelli Lemma
December 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm
luca
Thanks, commenter.
Batz, note that the statement is true even if you don’t have independence, which makes it much more versatile.
Harrison: yes, after posting it here it occurred to me that mathoverflow would have been a better place. But I still got an answer in 27 minutes.
December 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm
pierre
Indeed, Borel-Cantelli.
Moreover, your proof seems needlessly complicated. All you need to show is
that
E[ \sum_i X_i] < infinity,
which would immediately rule out the possibility that \sum_i X_i = infinity
with positive probability. But this follows right away from interchanging sum
and expectation; the interchange can be easily justified since each X_i is nonnegative.
December 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Jonathan Vos Post
This comment no verb.
January 4, 2010 at 7:47 pm
anon
Luca, is the big news public yet?
January 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm
reply to anon
What is the big news? Who proved what?
January 5, 2010 at 5:47 pm
anon
Luca proved himself right, I hear.
January 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
reply to anon
Luca to Stanford ?! That’s certainly unexpected..