Strong law of large numbers for Poisson rvs with different parameter












0












$begingroup$


Let $X_n$ be independent Poisson random variables with $E[X_i] = mu_i$, and let $Y_n = X_1+...+X_n$. I want to show that if $sum_n mu_n = infty $ then $Y_n/E[Y_n] rightarrow 1$ almost surly.

What I do know is that if $X_1,...$ are independent, and $Eleft[X^4right] < infty$, then $Y_n/n rightarrow E[X]$ a.s.* So What I tried is to center the random variables: let $C_n := X_n-mu_n$. The $C$'s are independent, $E[C_n^4]< infty, E[C_n] = 0$, which means:
$frac{C_1 +...+C_n}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s., or $frac{sum X_i - sum mu_i}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s. which, I think, completes the proof.



However I am not sure why the requirement $sum_n mu_n = infty $ is necessary, so I suspect this proof is incorrect. Is it?



Edit: This argument is incorrect since the theorem requires $E[C^4]$ to be uniformly bounded, not just bounded. Any ideas?




  • This is the statement of the theorem from "Probability with Martingales"






probability probability-theory probability-distributions poisson-distribution law-of-large-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:04










  • $begingroup$
    To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:07












  • $begingroup$
    @Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:15












  • $begingroup$
    Except you misquoted heavily.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17










  • $begingroup$
    @kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17
















0












$begingroup$


Let $X_n$ be independent Poisson random variables with $E[X_i] = mu_i$, and let $Y_n = X_1+...+X_n$. I want to show that if $sum_n mu_n = infty $ then $Y_n/E[Y_n] rightarrow 1$ almost surly.

What I do know is that if $X_1,...$ are independent, and $Eleft[X^4right] < infty$, then $Y_n/n rightarrow E[X]$ a.s.* So What I tried is to center the random variables: let $C_n := X_n-mu_n$. The $C$'s are independent, $E[C_n^4]< infty, E[C_n] = 0$, which means:
$frac{C_1 +...+C_n}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s., or $frac{sum X_i - sum mu_i}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s. which, I think, completes the proof.



However I am not sure why the requirement $sum_n mu_n = infty $ is necessary, so I suspect this proof is incorrect. Is it?



Edit: This argument is incorrect since the theorem requires $E[C^4]$ to be uniformly bounded, not just bounded. Any ideas?




  • This is the statement of the theorem from "Probability with Martingales"






probability probability-theory probability-distributions poisson-distribution law-of-large-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:04










  • $begingroup$
    To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:07












  • $begingroup$
    @Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:15












  • $begingroup$
    Except you misquoted heavily.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17










  • $begingroup$
    @kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17














0












0








0





$begingroup$


Let $X_n$ be independent Poisson random variables with $E[X_i] = mu_i$, and let $Y_n = X_1+...+X_n$. I want to show that if $sum_n mu_n = infty $ then $Y_n/E[Y_n] rightarrow 1$ almost surly.

What I do know is that if $X_1,...$ are independent, and $Eleft[X^4right] < infty$, then $Y_n/n rightarrow E[X]$ a.s.* So What I tried is to center the random variables: let $C_n := X_n-mu_n$. The $C$'s are independent, $E[C_n^4]< infty, E[C_n] = 0$, which means:
$frac{C_1 +...+C_n}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s., or $frac{sum X_i - sum mu_i}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s. which, I think, completes the proof.



However I am not sure why the requirement $sum_n mu_n = infty $ is necessary, so I suspect this proof is incorrect. Is it?



Edit: This argument is incorrect since the theorem requires $E[C^4]$ to be uniformly bounded, not just bounded. Any ideas?




  • This is the statement of the theorem from "Probability with Martingales"






probability probability-theory probability-distributions poisson-distribution law-of-large-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $X_n$ be independent Poisson random variables with $E[X_i] = mu_i$, and let $Y_n = X_1+...+X_n$. I want to show that if $sum_n mu_n = infty $ then $Y_n/E[Y_n] rightarrow 1$ almost surly.

What I do know is that if $X_1,...$ are independent, and $Eleft[X^4right] < infty$, then $Y_n/n rightarrow E[X]$ a.s.* So What I tried is to center the random variables: let $C_n := X_n-mu_n$. The $C$'s are independent, $E[C_n^4]< infty, E[C_n] = 0$, which means:
$frac{C_1 +...+C_n}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s., or $frac{sum X_i - sum mu_i}{n} rightarrow 0$ a.s. which, I think, completes the proof.



However I am not sure why the requirement $sum_n mu_n = infty $ is necessary, so I suspect this proof is incorrect. Is it?



Edit: This argument is incorrect since the theorem requires $E[C^4]$ to be uniformly bounded, not just bounded. Any ideas?




  • This is the statement of the theorem from "Probability with Martingales"






probability probability-theory probability-distributions poisson-distribution law-of-large-numbers




probability probability-theory probability-distributions poisson-distribution law-of-large-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 16 '18 at 13:51







SomeoneHAHA

















asked Dec 16 '18 at 12:49









SomeoneHAHASomeoneHAHA

83




83








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:04










  • $begingroup$
    To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:07












  • $begingroup$
    @Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:15












  • $begingroup$
    Except you misquoted heavily.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17










  • $begingroup$
    @kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:04










  • $begingroup$
    To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:07












  • $begingroup$
    @Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:15












  • $begingroup$
    Except you misquoted heavily.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17










  • $begingroup$
    @kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:17








1




1




$begingroup$
You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 16 '18 at 13:04




$begingroup$
You cannot apply the result you recall since it requires the increments are identically distributed -- which is not true in your case (except if $mu_n$ does not depend on $mu$).
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 16 '18 at 13:04












$begingroup$
To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
$endgroup$
– kimchi lover
Dec 16 '18 at 13:07






$begingroup$
To see why the $sum_nmu_n=infty$ requirement is needed consider what happens if $mu_1=1$ and $mu_n=0$ for $n>1$.
$endgroup$
– kimchi lover
Dec 16 '18 at 13:07














$begingroup$
@Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:15






$begingroup$
@Did - The result I cited does not require i.d. See "Probability with martingales" Chapter 7
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:15














$begingroup$
Except you misquoted heavily.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 16 '18 at 13:17




$begingroup$
Except you misquoted heavily.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 16 '18 at 13:17












$begingroup$
@kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:17




$begingroup$
@kimchilover If $mu_n = 0$ it would mean that $X_n = 0$, so I am not sure where is the problem
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:17










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

If, in your argument, $M=sum_n mu_n<infty$ then your $Y_n$ converge in distribution to a Poisson rv. with expectation $M$, and your ratio $Y_n/EY_n$ has a non trivial limit distribution, violating a.s. convergence to a constant.



And, the theorem you quote needs a uniform 4th moment bound $EX_k^4le K$, which need not hold given your hypotheses.



A better way to prove your result might be to write your $Y_n$ as $Y_n=Y(M_n)$, where $M_n=sum_{tle n} mu_t$ and where $Y(t)$ is a Poisson process, as described in the wikipedia article. You might be able to show $Y(t)/tto 1$ almost surely.



Alternatively, you could use your argument with the added hypothesis that $mu_nle1$ for all $n$ and then use that to prove the general result by representing each $mu_n$ as a sum of quantities that are individually bounded by $1$, and your corresponding $Y_n$ as sums of independent Poissons whose expectations are bounded and add up to the right thing.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:49










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:58










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 14:55











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042579%2fstrong-law-of-large-numbers-for-poisson-rvs-with-different-parameter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0












$begingroup$

If, in your argument, $M=sum_n mu_n<infty$ then your $Y_n$ converge in distribution to a Poisson rv. with expectation $M$, and your ratio $Y_n/EY_n$ has a non trivial limit distribution, violating a.s. convergence to a constant.



And, the theorem you quote needs a uniform 4th moment bound $EX_k^4le K$, which need not hold given your hypotheses.



A better way to prove your result might be to write your $Y_n$ as $Y_n=Y(M_n)$, where $M_n=sum_{tle n} mu_t$ and where $Y(t)$ is a Poisson process, as described in the wikipedia article. You might be able to show $Y(t)/tto 1$ almost surely.



Alternatively, you could use your argument with the added hypothesis that $mu_nle1$ for all $n$ and then use that to prove the general result by representing each $mu_n$ as a sum of quantities that are individually bounded by $1$, and your corresponding $Y_n$ as sums of independent Poissons whose expectations are bounded and add up to the right thing.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:49










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:58










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 14:55
















0












$begingroup$

If, in your argument, $M=sum_n mu_n<infty$ then your $Y_n$ converge in distribution to a Poisson rv. with expectation $M$, and your ratio $Y_n/EY_n$ has a non trivial limit distribution, violating a.s. convergence to a constant.



And, the theorem you quote needs a uniform 4th moment bound $EX_k^4le K$, which need not hold given your hypotheses.



A better way to prove your result might be to write your $Y_n$ as $Y_n=Y(M_n)$, where $M_n=sum_{tle n} mu_t$ and where $Y(t)$ is a Poisson process, as described in the wikipedia article. You might be able to show $Y(t)/tto 1$ almost surely.



Alternatively, you could use your argument with the added hypothesis that $mu_nle1$ for all $n$ and then use that to prove the general result by representing each $mu_n$ as a sum of quantities that are individually bounded by $1$, and your corresponding $Y_n$ as sums of independent Poissons whose expectations are bounded and add up to the right thing.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:49










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:58










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 14:55














0












0








0





$begingroup$

If, in your argument, $M=sum_n mu_n<infty$ then your $Y_n$ converge in distribution to a Poisson rv. with expectation $M$, and your ratio $Y_n/EY_n$ has a non trivial limit distribution, violating a.s. convergence to a constant.



And, the theorem you quote needs a uniform 4th moment bound $EX_k^4le K$, which need not hold given your hypotheses.



A better way to prove your result might be to write your $Y_n$ as $Y_n=Y(M_n)$, where $M_n=sum_{tle n} mu_t$ and where $Y(t)$ is a Poisson process, as described in the wikipedia article. You might be able to show $Y(t)/tto 1$ almost surely.



Alternatively, you could use your argument with the added hypothesis that $mu_nle1$ for all $n$ and then use that to prove the general result by representing each $mu_n$ as a sum of quantities that are individually bounded by $1$, and your corresponding $Y_n$ as sums of independent Poissons whose expectations are bounded and add up to the right thing.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



If, in your argument, $M=sum_n mu_n<infty$ then your $Y_n$ converge in distribution to a Poisson rv. with expectation $M$, and your ratio $Y_n/EY_n$ has a non trivial limit distribution, violating a.s. convergence to a constant.



And, the theorem you quote needs a uniform 4th moment bound $EX_k^4le K$, which need not hold given your hypotheses.



A better way to prove your result might be to write your $Y_n$ as $Y_n=Y(M_n)$, where $M_n=sum_{tle n} mu_t$ and where $Y(t)$ is a Poisson process, as described in the wikipedia article. You might be able to show $Y(t)/tto 1$ almost surely.



Alternatively, you could use your argument with the added hypothesis that $mu_nle1$ for all $n$ and then use that to prove the general result by representing each $mu_n$ as a sum of quantities that are individually bounded by $1$, and your corresponding $Y_n$ as sums of independent Poissons whose expectations are bounded and add up to the right thing.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 16 '18 at 15:03

























answered Dec 16 '18 at 13:23









kimchi loverkimchi lover

9,70631128




9,70631128












  • $begingroup$
    I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:49










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:58










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 14:55


















  • $begingroup$
    I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:38










  • $begingroup$
    Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:49










  • $begingroup$
    I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
    $endgroup$
    – kimchi lover
    Dec 16 '18 at 13:58










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
    $endgroup$
    – SomeoneHAHA
    Dec 16 '18 at 14:55
















$begingroup$
I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:38




$begingroup$
I see. So: the overall argument is correct, except the punch: $C_1+...+C_n /n rightarrow 0$ implies the claim only if $M = infty$, or should I change the entire argument? The comments in the original question made me completely not sure about is correctness. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:38












$begingroup$
Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:49




$begingroup$
Re the edit: I see now that my argument is not true due to the uniform bounded requirement. Do you think that there is a proof which is not going through Poisson process?
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 13:49












$begingroup$
I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
$endgroup$
– kimchi lover
Dec 16 '18 at 13:58




$begingroup$
I suppose there could be a non-Poisson process proof, but it would probably be ugly, like an apparatus designed by a lawyer to not infringe on a particular patent.
$endgroup$
– kimchi lover
Dec 16 '18 at 13:58












$begingroup$
Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 14:55




$begingroup$
Thanks. May you elaborate more on this way of proof? I am not familiar with Poisson processes, so I read about it but still have no idea how to use it here
$endgroup$
– SomeoneHAHA
Dec 16 '18 at 14:55


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042579%2fstrong-law-of-large-numbers-for-poisson-rvs-with-different-parameter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more

Cabo Verde

Image
  Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
Read more

Gyllenstierna

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more