PlanetMath (more info)
 Math for the people, by the people. Sponsor PlanetMath
Encyclopedia | Requests | Forums | Docs | Wiki | Random | RSS  
Login
create new user
name:
pass:
forget your password?
Main Menu
Owner confidence rating: Low Entry average rating: No information on entry rating
tight and relatively compact measures (Definition)
Definition 1   Let $\M=\{\mu_i,i \in I \}$ be a family of finite measures on the Borel subsets of a metric space $\Omega$ . We say that $\M$ is tight iff for each $\epsilon>0$ there is a compact set $K$ such that $\mu_i(\Omega-K)<\epsilon$ for all $i$ . We say that $\M$ is relatively compact iff each sequence in $\M$ has a subsequence converging weakly to a finite measure on $\B(\Omega)$ .

If $\{F_i,i \in I \}$ is a family of distribution functions, relative compactness or tightness of $\{F_i\}$ refers to relative compactness or tightness of the corresponding measures.


Theorem 1   Let $\{F_i,i \in I \}$ be a family of distribution functions with $F_i(\infty)-F_i(-\infty)<M<\infty$ for all $i$ . The family is tight iff it is relatively compact.
Proof. Coming soon...(needs other theorems before) $ \qedsymbol$




"tight and relatively compact measures" is owned by fernsanz.
(view preamble | get metadata)

View style:

See Also: Lindeberg's central limit theorem

Keywords:  tight measures, weak convergence measures, Helly's theoerem, Levy's theorem, Prokhorov theorem
Log in to rate this entry.
(view current ratings)

Cross-references: theorems, compactness, distribution functions, subsequence, sequence, relatively compact, compact set, iff, tight, metric space, Borel subsets, measures, finite

This is version 3 of tight and relatively compact measures, born on 2007-06-26, modified 2007-06-26.
Object id is 9679, canonical name is TightAndRelativelyCompactMeasures.
Accessed 1249 times total.

Classification:
AMS MSC60F05 (Probability theory and stochastic processes :: Limit theorems :: Central limit and other weak theorems)

Pending Errata and Addenda
None.
[ View all 1 ]
Discussion
Style: Expand: Order:
forum policy
still confused by Koro on 2007-06-26 09:03:58
Your modification doesn't quite address my points (you don't mention anything about \omega being a topological space or metric space). You added "a measurable set (\omega, F)", which i think you mean "a measurable space". You say that F is "a sigma-algebra of subsets of omega" but are you sure you don't need F to be the Borel sigma-algebra?

I'm also confused now about the second statement. What exactly do you mean by weak convergence? I assumed that there is some \mu such that int f d\mu_n converges to int f d\mu for any continuous function f. But again, this is only useful when \omega is a complete -probably separable- metric space (or something like that) and \mu_n are borel measures (otherwise, continuous functions need not be measurable)

I insist on these facts because the theorem you state afterwards is not true in general. If you don't require the measures to be Borel, then tightness does not imply relative compactness. Moreover, I think you want the measures to be PROBABILITY measures.

For example, if \omega is a compact space, then according to your definition *any* family of measures is tight. Thus you're saying that any family of measures has a weakly convergent subsequence. This is generally not true unless you're assuming that the measures are probability measures. In fact if \mu is any measure, then {n\mu : n natural} is a family of measures which has no convergent subsequence. That shows that you need the \mu_n to be probability measures.

I'm not sure what the claims about F_n means either. What are the definition of distribution functions corresponding to a measure on a general space \omega? distributions in what sense?

Finally, some minor remarks:

- The first definition would be cleaner if you explicited whether mu_n is a sequence, or a general family. If you mean sequence (as i assume you do) maybe you could make it explicit by writing \{mu_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} at least the first time it appears (and using the word "sequence" instead of family). If you mean a general family, then maybe you should use a different notation.

- Also in the first definition you should write
"(...) is said to be tight if *for each $\epsilon>0$* there is a compact subset $K$ (...)".

- In the second definition, make explicit what you mean by weak convergence (at least by linking "weakly" to the appropriate entry).

- All paragraphs are missing the final period.


[ reply | up ]

Interact
post | correct | update request | add derivation | add example | add (any)