Suppose
- $X_i, i=1,\ldots, n$ are $i.i.d.$ random variables with mean $\mu_X$ and variance $\sigma^2_X$
- $Y_j, j=1,\ldots, m$ are $i.i.d.$ random variables with mean $\mu_Y$ and variance $\sigma^2_Y$
- $\forall i, j, X_i\perp \!\!\! \perp Y_j$
then by the CLT we have
- $\displaystyle\frac{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^nX_i}{n}-\mu_X}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_X}{n}}}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$
- $\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\sum_{j=1}^mY_j}{m}-\mu_Y}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_Y}{m}}}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ as $m\rightarrow \infty$
My question is, do we also have a similar result for the difference in sample means? $$\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^nX_i}{n}-\frac{\sum_{j=1}^mY_j}{m}\right)-(\mu_X-\mu_Y)}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_X}{n}+\frac{\sigma^2_Y}{m}}}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1) \text{ as }\bigstar\rightarrow\infty$$ If such a result holds, what would be $\bigstar$? Is it $(n, m)$, $n+m$, $n\times m$, or something else? And how can one prove this result?
My intuition is as follows. In the above CLTs, if one is allowed to "sloppily" perform the following manipulations:
- $\displaystyle{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^nX_i}{n}-\mu_X}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,{{\frac{\sigma^2_X}{n}}}\right)$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$
- $\displaystyle {\frac{\sum_{j=1}^mY_j}{m}-\mu_Y}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,{{\frac{\sigma^2_Y}{m}}}\right)$ as $m\rightarrow \infty$
then some sort of continuous mapping argument can perhaps be used to yield $$\displaystyle \displaystyle{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^nX_i}{n}-\mu_X}+{\frac{\sum_{j=1}^mY_j}{m}-\mu_Y}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,{{\frac{\sigma^2_X}{n}}}+{{\frac{\sigma^2_Y}{m}}}\right) \text{ as } \bigstar\rightarrow \infty$$
after which one may again use the sloppy manipulation to put the variance term back into the denominator in the LHS.
But I suppose this argument is not valid, right?
Edit: I forgot to mention that, I guess I know (and also thanks to @periwinkle answer below) that $$\frac{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^nX_i}{n}-\mu_X}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_X}{n}}}-\frac{\frac{\sum_{j=1}^mY_j}{m}-\mu_Y}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2_Y}{m}}}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,2) \text{ as }n, m\rightarrow\infty$$ This result, however, is not quite the same as what I intended to ask. So, is my original statement simply wrong? Is it valid to use some sorts of normal approximation directly on the difference in sample means?