Search

A Surprising Proof of an Inequality

Problem : Prove that for real numbers x1,,xn,
i=1nj=1n|xixj|ri=1nj=1n|xi+xj|r
for any r[0,2].

Solution : The cases r=0,2 can be checked by hand. So, we assume r(0,2) and begin by noting that the integral
I(α)=01cos(αx)xr+1dx
is positive and finite. Also, it is easy to prove using the substitution y=|α|x that I(α)=|α|I(1).

Now, using this, we have
|a+b|r|ab|r=1I(1)0cos((ab)x)cos((a+b)x)xr+1dx=1I(1)02sin(ax)sin(bx)xr+1dx
and hence
i=1nj=1n|xixj|ri=1nj=1n|xi+xj|r=2I(1)0(i=1nsin(xix))2xr+1dx0
hence completing the proof.

Prokhorov’s Theorem

The aim is to give a proof of Prokhorov’s Theorem.

Theorem : Let {μn:n1} be a sequence of probability measures on (Rd,B(Rd)). If {μn:n1} is tight, then every sequence has a further subsequence that converges weakly to some probability measure.

We will use the following (well known) fact in our proof.
Fact : Let {μn:n1} be a sequence of probability measures on (Rd,B(Rd)). Then, weak convergence μndμ0 is equivalent to gdμngdμ0 for all compactly supported continuous functions.

With this at hand, we give the proof of the theorem.

Proof of Theorem : Let KN=[N,N]d. Then, μn induces a subprobability νnN:=μn|KN on KN. By weak compactness, we can find a subsequence νnkN such that νnkNwνN for a subprobability measure νN on KN. Repeating the argument starting with this subsequence on KN+1 gives a new limit νN+1. Repeating this procedure countably many times (and noticing that νN=νN+1 on KN), we get
μ(A):=limNνN(AKN)
for AB(Rd).

Now, we will show that μ is a probability measure. From here, it follows using the mentioned fact that our subsequence converges weakly to μ.

Clearly μ(Ω)1 as each νN is a subprobability. Given ε>0, tightness yields Nε such that μn(KNε)1ε for all n1. It follows that μ(Ω)μ(KNε)1ε. This shows that μ(Ω)=1. It remains to prove that μ is σ-additive. Clearly μ is monotone. Let first
A=i=1IAi
be a disjoint union of finitely many measurable sets. Then
|μ(i=1IAi)i=1Iμ(Ai)||μ(i=1IAiKNε)i=1Iμ(AiKNε)|+(I+1)ε=(I+1)ε
since the restriction of μ to KNε (which is νNε) is σ-additive. Thus μ is finitely additive. It follows that μ is σ-superadditive as
μ(A)μ(i=1IAi)=i=1Iμ(Ai)i=1μ(Ai)
by letting I.

Conversely, using again that the restriction of μ to KNε is σ-additive, we have
μ(A)=μ(AKNε)+μ(i=1AiKNε)=μ(AKNε)+i=1μ(AiKNε)ε+i=1μ(Ai)
thus completing the proof.

Worst Way to Calculate Area of a Triangle

A useful technique from Complex Analysis helps us to identify whether a real number u is positive or negative by checking a discontinuous ...