2
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $X_{n}=o_{p}\left(Y_{n}\right)$. Does this imply that $P\left(Y_{n}=0\right)=0$ for all n ? Or only, e.g., that $P(Y_n = 0)\rightarrow 0$?

I guess it is a matter of definition. If $X_{n}=o_{p}\left(Y_{n}\right)$, then that means that $\frac{X_n}{Y_n}$ converges to 0 in probability. But if $Y_n$ can take value 0 with positive probability for some $n$, then I guess $\frac{X_n}{Y_n}$ is not technically a random variable for that $n$ (because it is not a map from $\Omega$ to R but rather to extended R)? Is that true? If that is true, then can we still talk about probability limit of the sequence?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since the little-o notation expresses something about a limiting value of a sequence, it makes no assertions at all concerning any finite set of values in the sequence. BTW, it isn't obvious that $\Pr(Y_n=0)\to 0:$ could you explain why that might be so? This might shed some light on what you mean by "$o_p(Y_n)$" when $Y_n$ is a sequence of random variables (as it seems to be here) instead of the usual sequence of positive real numbers, as is customary in the definition of this notation. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Nov 23, 2018 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for reply. First, I will delete the part about "obviously true", since I don't want to spread bad information. The reason why I think it is true is because if it does not go to 0 in the limit, then $\frac{X_n}{Y_n}$ has positive probability to be infinity, or undefined (if $X_n$ also is 0), which is not allowed for a random variable because random variables must as far as I know take real number values. $\endgroup$
    – Emp Proc
    Commented Nov 23, 2018 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ Those remarks are not quite correct. $X_n/Y_n$ may have zero probability of being infinite even when $Y_n$ converges to zero. One simple example is the case $X_n=Y_n$ (where $\Pr(Y_n=0)=0$). Also, good accounts of measure theory permit random variables to have infinite values. (See Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis for instance.) But let's return to the heart of the matter: please explain what you mean by "$o(Y_n)$" when the $Y_n$ are random variables. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Nov 24, 2018 at 18:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @whuber That is very helpful. Thank you for all your help here and everywhere on stackexchange (I learn so much from your answers). As for what I mean, it is more that I have seen this notation elsewhere and assumed there was a well-defined notation. Now I understand that my confusion came from that there is no agreed-upon definition when $Y_n$ are random variables. Just understanding that is a big help to me. Now I know if I use that notation for random variables, I should first clearly define it. $\endgroup$
    – Emp Proc
    Commented Nov 25, 2018 at 20:02

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

First, $X_n = o_p(Y_n)$, when we are not disallowing $Y_n = 0$, is probably best expressed as stating, for all $\epsilon > 0$ that $$ P(|X_n| \le \epsilon |Y_n|) \to 1, \qquad (n \to \infty). $$ The "almost-sure" version would be $X_n = o(Y_n)$ with probability $1$, which is equivalent to $$ P(|X_n| \le \epsilon |Y_n| \text{ eventually}) = 1 $$ for all $\epsilon > 0$.

With the definitions clear, we now see that neither $P(Y_n = 0) = 0$ nor $P(Y_n = 0) \to 0$ hold. In fact, we can have $Y_n = 0$ almost surely; we just need $X_n = 0$ almost surely as well.

To make things more interesting, let's add the stipulation that $|X_n| > 0$ almost surely. In this case it is possible for $Y_n = 0$ to occur infinitely often when $X_n = o_p(Y_n)$; just take $Y_n = n |X_n|$ with probability $(n-1)/n$ and $Y_n = 0$ otherwise. But we should have $P(Y_n = 0) \to 0$ in this case, because $Y_n = 0$ implies $|X_n| > \epsilon |Y_n|$.

For the almost-sure version, this does imply $P(Y_n \ne 0 \text{ eventually}) = 1$, because this is a subset of $[|X_n| > 0 \text{ for all $n$, and } |X_n| \le \epsilon Y_n \text{ eventually}]$, which has probability $1$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. This is quite helpful. Do you have a reference where $X_n = o_p(Y_n)$ is defined in the same way you suggest? (I'm interested more in convergence in probability in case that is helpful for reference) $\endgroup$
    – Emp Proc
    Commented Nov 24, 2018 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ @EmpProc I don't have a reference, it just strikes me as the obvious thing to do. If you were going to bother talking about the case where we wanted to allow $|Y_n| = 0$ with positive probability, I can't see any other way of proceeding. The fact that $|X_n| / |Y_n|$ allows for division by zero is more a quirk of the definition than a statement about the concepts underlying big-O. $\endgroup$
    – guy
    Commented Nov 24, 2018 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK makes sense. I have now found some references that use your definition. For example, these notes use similar idea: stat.umn.edu/geyer/8112/notes/ohpee.pdf $\endgroup$
    – Emp Proc
    Commented Nov 25, 2018 at 20:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.