arXiv:2005.03967v6 [math.PR] 24 Aug 2021 tmd’ hoe ([ Theorem Etemadi’s [email protected] enBron nvriyo ¨rc nery21.A h tim the At 2019. early Z¨urich in of University Bertoin, Jean lydntdby denoted ally numbers eea LN ilfis tt h anTermo [ of Theorem main the state first will prov I and SLLN. variables general random distributed identically for SLLN fZrc 10 itrhrrtas,85 Z¨urich, Switze 8057 Winterthurerstrasse, (190, Zurich of Notation. use. will I [ publication results In and Introduction 1 itiue admvralswith variables random distributed omgrffsSrn a fLreNumbers Large of Law Strong Kolmogoroff’s * rgnlvrinwitno a ,22;Tx atudtdMa updated last Text 2020; 8, May on written version Original h ae a ntal rte o tdn eia nprob on seminar student a for written initially was paper The http://mi.mathnet.ru/tvp5459 https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/S0040585X97T9903 Doi: 263–275. Pages 2, Issue 66, classical Volume the of i proof not simple are another which to variables leads random here uncor on approach “quasi particular for in also focusing (and am uncorrelated pairwise for namely Doi: ,Pgs327–341. Pages 2, of edition Russian the [ 1 n t lbrto n[ in elaboration its and ] od o arieucreae random uncorrelated pairwise for holds ulse n(nls edition): (English in Published ulse n(usa edition): (Russian in Published sn h praho .EeaifrteSrn a fLreNu Large of Law Strong the for Etemadi N. of approach the Using R If . https://doi.org/10.4213/tvp5459 https://doi.org/10.1137/S0040585X97T990381 hogotteppr (Ω paper, the Throughout X 1 X sarno aibe write I variable, random a is rm18,N tmd ekndterqieet fKolmogo of requirements the weakened Etemadi N. 1981, from ] ora nomto pae nAgs 5 2021 25, August on updated information Journal or n lim →∞ X n magaut tdn tteMteaisDprmn fthe of Department Mathematics the at student graduate a am I . X 1 r sue ob esrbefntosfo otesto re of set the to Ω from functions measurable be to assumed are ) hoyo rbblt n t Applications its and Probability of Theory 1 ]). + 5 X Let ,Igv ekrcniin ne hc h LNsilholds, still SLLN the which under conditions weaker give I ], 2 aiiinJanisch Maximilian + n E ( X | · · · X . n , 1 ) variables A | n + ∈ < , N X P Abstract ∞ sapoaiiysae l admvrals(usu- variables random All space. probability a is ) hoyo rbblt n t Applications its and Probability of Theory n easqec of sequence a be e ry eoanse ePrimeneniya ee i Veroyatnostei Teoriya Then . E = . X E rland). o t xetdvleand value expected its for X 1 1 lotsrl (a.s.) surely almost fe nrdcn oenttosthat notations some introducing after ] a 5yasod yealadesis address email My old. years 15 was I e . blt hoyudrspriino Prof. of supervision under theory ability dda lmnaypofo more a of proof elementary an ided * eae” admvrals I variables. random related”) pairwise SLLN. 81 etclydsrbtd My distributed. dentically . ,22,Vlm 6 Issue 66, Volume 2021, ), needn,identically independent, br ( mbers . V X o t variance. its for ,2021; 6, y SLLN ti is (this 2021, , o’ first roff’s in ) University (1) al SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

Remark 1. Following Remark 2 from chapter 4.3 in Shiryaev’s book [4], we notice that if EX = , then (1) still holds. 1 ∞ The main improvement of Etemadi’s Theorem compared to Kolmogoroff’s first SLLN is the replacement of independence by pairwise independence. The condition “identically distributed” still remains. There have been several extentions of this Theorem. For example, Chandra and Goswami gave a sufficient SLLN condition for non-identically distributed random variables. For convenience, I will from now on always use the notation S := X + + X . n 1 ··· n

Theorem 1 (Chandra, Goswami [3]). Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of pairwise independent ran- dom variables such that ∞ sup P( Xn > t) dt< . Z0 n∈N | | ∞ Then S ES lim n − n =0 a.s. n→∞ n However, Etemadi’s arguments enable an elegant proof for large classes of non-identically distributed random variables. First, let me introduce a few useful notions:

Definition 1. A sequence (Xn)n∈N of (arbitrarily distributed) random variables is said to i. Satisfy the Kolmogoroff condition if and only if each one of the X′ s, n N has finite n ∈ variance VXn and VXn 2 < . (2) N n ∞ nX∈ ii. Be quasi uncorrelated if and only if each one of the X′ s, n N has finite variance and n ∈ there exists a positive constant c such that VS c n VX for all n N. n ≤ k=1 k ∈ iii. Satisfy the SLLN if and only if P S ES lim n − n = 0 a.s. n→∞ n

Notice that if a := limn→∞ EXn exists, this is (by Ces`aro summation) equivalent to the 1 relation limn→∞ n Sn = a a.s.

Theorem 2 (SLLN under the Kolmogoroff condition (2)). Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of non- negative, quasi uncorrelated random variables satisfying the Kolmogoroff condition (2) such that ESn A := sup N < . Then the sequence (X ) N satisfies the SLLN. n∈ n ∞ n n∈ Remark 2. After having finished the proof of this Theorem and the proof of Theorem 3, I became aware of the paper by Korchevsky [2], where the above Theorem 2 is formulated as Lemma 1. Korchevsky refers to the work of Chandra-Goswami [3]. For completeness, I will give a detailed proof of Theorem 2, whereas the proof in [3] is only briefly outlined.

ESn ESn Remark 3. The condition sup N < can be replaced by sup N < for any un- n∈ n ∞ n∈ bn ∞ bounded, non-decreasing sequence of positive real numbers bn. In that case, if the condi- ∞ VXn ∞ VXn tion 2 < is replaced by 2 < , then the sequence (Xn)n∈N will satisfy n=1 n n=1 bn E ∞ ∞ lim Sn− Sn = 0 a.s. During the proof I will make remarks that show how the proof has to n→∞P bn P be adapted in order to work for such bn. Remark 4. Of course Theorem 2 is also true if non-negative is replaced by a.s. non-negative. For my purposes here, these two notions can be seen as synonymous.

Page 2 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

V n V Remark 5. If the Xn’s are pairwise uncorrelated, we have the equality Sn = k=1 Xk (Bi- enaym´e) and thus the Xn are, in particular, quasi uncorrelated. P Remark 6. If X is a random variable, I use the notation ess inf X for the essential infimum of X, i.e. the largest number r such that X r a.s. Applying Theorem 2 to the transformation ≥ ESn X˜ := X ess inf X shows that the condition sup N < can be replaced by the weaker n n − n n∈ n ∞ condition ES n ess inf X sup n − k=1 k < . (3) n∈N P n ∞

Since for any numerical sequence a 0, sup N a = implies n ≥ n∈ n ∞

lim sup an = lim sup ak = , n→∞ n→∞ k≥n ∞ condition (3) is equivalent to

ES n ess inf X lim sup n − k=1 k < . n→∞ P n ∞ Remark 7. My proof of Theorem 2 relies heavily on the proof by Cs¨orgo et al. [5]. In their paper, it is also shown that the condition of non-negativity cannot be removed. More precisely, in their Theorem 4, the authors construct a sequence of pairwise uncorrelated random variables Xn satisfying the Kolmogoroff condition (2) and the condition

n E X EX lim k=1 | k − k| =0 n→∞ P n and S ES lim sup | n − n| = . n→∞ n ∞

If we require the Xn to be pairwise independent instead of just pairwise uncorrelated, the non-negativity assumption can be dropped:

Corollary 2.1. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of pairwise independent random variables satisfying the Kolmogoroff condition (2) and suppose further that

n E X EX lim sup k=1 | k − k| < . (4) n→∞ P n ∞

Then the sequence (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN. Remark 8. Thanks to linearity of E, the non-negativity condition in Theorem 2 can be replaced by a.s. uniform boundedness of each X (or even of X EX ) from below or above. For n n − n example, if each Xn is bounded from below by the real number r, then Theorem 2 can be applied to X˜ := X r. In fact, one can always try to use the transformation X˜ := X ess inf N X n n − n n − n∈ n and check if that transformation satiesfies all conditions of Theorem 2. Remark 9. Kolmogoroff’s classical SLLN is very similar to Corollary 2.1, except that pairwise independence is replaced by independence but the auxilliary condition (4) is dropped. However, as is proven in [5], Theorem 3, there is a sequence of pairwise independent random variables (Xn)n∈N satisfying the Kolmogoroff condition (2) such that the SLLN is not satisfied. Hence, an auxilliary condition like (4) in Corollary 2.1 is necessary.

Page 3 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

We can try to relax the Kolmogoroff condition (2) for the Xn using truncation arguments. For this, however, the condition that all Xn’s are pairwise uncorrelated has to be replaced by a condition of pairwise independence. The reason for this is that the truncations of the Xn’s are still pairwise independent if the Xn’s are pairwise independent, while the truncations need not be pairwise uncorrelated if the Xn’s are only pairwise uncorrelated.

More precisely, the truncations of Xn that I will look at are Yn := Xn 1{Xn≤n}, where 1 is the indicator function of the event X n . · {Xn≤n} { n ≤ } Remark 10. It should be noted that the truncated variables Y , n N, do not have to satisfy n ∈ the Kolmogoroff condition (2)! It depends on the Xn’s. For example, if the Xn’s are random P P 1 V V n2 variables with (Xn = n) = (Xn = 0) = 2 , then (Yn) = (Xn) = 4 , which is too large for the Kolmogoroff condition (2) to hold. In this case, however, it is not surprising, because the sequence (Xn)n∈N also does not satisfy the SLLN. Interestingly, the sequence (Xn)n∈N does not even satisfy the Weak Law of Large Numbers (WLLN). Indeed, let X˜ = X EX . Then n n − n S ES = n X˜ and P X˜ = n = P X˜ = n = 1 , so that for n 2, n − n k=1 k n − 2 n 2 2 ≥ P     n P n−1 ˜ P n−1 ˜ n n k=1 Xk 0 + k=1 Xk n 1 P Sn ESn = P X˜k = ≥ ≥ , − ≥ 2 ≥ 2 ! P  2 P  ≥ 4   kX=1 where the last inequality is true by the symmetry of X˜ , i.e. P n−1 X˜ 0 1 . k k=1 k ≥ ≥ 2 Remark 11. Since the SLLN implies the WLLN, the sequence of randomP variables from Remark 10 satisfy neither the SLLN nor the WLLN. For completeness, I refer to examples 15.3 and 15.4 in [6] for sequences of random variables that satisfy the WLLN but not the SLLN.

Theorem 3 (SLLN for random variables with the Kolmogoroff condition for the truncations). Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of non-negative, pairwise independent random variables such that the truncated sequence (Yn)n∈N, where Yn := Xn 1{Xn≤n}, satisfies the Kolmogoroff condition (2) 1 · and such that Xn Yn goes to 0 in L -sense and a.s. as n . Then the sequence (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN.− →∞

Remark 12. Remark 8 also applies to Theorem 3. Of course, we can slightly modify the assumptions to avoid non-negativity. The following two standard notations, X+ := max X , 0 and X− := min X , 0 , will be used. n { n } n − { n } + Corollary 3.1. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of random variables such that both sequences (Xn )n∈N − and (Xn )n∈N satisfy the conditions of Theorem 3. Then the sequence (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN.

Finally, I want to prove a (well-known) statement which shows that Etemadi’s result follows from Corollary 3.1 since identically distributed random variables “behave nicely”:

Theorem 4. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of non-negative, identically distributed, integrable random variables. Then the truncated sequence (Yn)n∈N, defined by Yn := Xn 1{Xn≤n}, satisfies the Kolmogoroff condition, and, as n , X Y 0 both in L1-sense and· a.s. →∞ n − n →

If we are given any identically distributed, pairwise independent random variables X1,X2,... E + − with X1 < , we can apply Theorem 4 to each one of the sequences (Xn )n∈N and (Xn )n∈N to see that| all| conditions∞ of Corollary 3.1 are satisfied. As a consequence, we obtain the conclusion of Etemadi’s Theorem.

Page 4 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

2 Examples

In order to illustrate my results I will now give two examples.

Example 1. Let X be a (continuous) uniformly distributed random variable over the interval [ 1, 1]. Define the sequence − X := cos(2πnX) for n N. (5) n ∈ Claim. The following three statements are true:

1) The sequence (Xn)n∈N is pairwise uncorrelated. 2) Each pair (X ,X ) for i, j N is not independent. i j ∈

3) The sequence (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN.

Remark 13. As will be seen in the proof, my Theorem 2 can be used to prove that (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN. Notice that, because of statement 2), the original Theorem in [5] cannot be applied.

Proof of the statements. Let me start with the most important statement, 3). Consider X˜n := E(X˜1+···+X˜n) 1 + X . Then (see (5)), E(X˜ )= 1+ E(X ) = 1. Hence sup N = 1 < . n n n n∈ n ∞ Additionally, all of the random variables X˜n are in the interval [0, 2], which implies that the Kolmogoroff condition is satisfied. Statement 1) guarantees that Theorem 2 can be applied to conclude that the sequence (Xn)n∈N satisfies the SLLN.

To prove statement 1), we need to show that E(XiXj) = E(Xi)E(Xj) for all i = j. This is true by the following two simple computations: 6

1 E(Xi)= cos(2πix) dx =0= E(Xj), Z−1 1 E(XiXj)= cos(2πix) cos(2πjx) dx = 0. Z−1 The last equality follows from the elementary trigonometric identity

cos(2π(i j)x) + cos(2π(i + j)x) cos(2πix) cos(2πjx)= − . 2

To prove statement 2), let ε> 0 and suppose that Xi > 1 ε for some i N. This means that cos(2πiX) > 1 ε. Consider the arccos “branch”, defined− by ∈ − arccos : [ 1, 1] [2iπ, (2i + 1)π], (6) i − → cos(x) x. (7) 7→ This function is continuous and thus there exist δ(ε) > 0 such that

2πiX ]2πk δ(ε), 2πk + δ(ε)[ ∈ − for some k Z and such that lim δ(ε) = 0. This means that ∈ ε→0 i k δ(ε) k δ(ε) X , + Def.= D. ∈ # i − i i i " k=[−i

Page 5 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

2δ(ε) Each interval in the union has length i and there are 2i intervals. Hence, since cos is 1-Lipschitz, for any j N, cos(2πjD) has Lebesgue measure at most 4δ(ε). If ε is small ∈ enough, we have 4δ(ε) < 2 = length([ 1, 1]). Hence in that case, as P(Xj [a, b]) > 0 for any 0 a < b 1, − ∈ ≤ ≤ P(X [ 1, 1] cos(2πjD) X > 1 ε)=0 < P(X [ 1, 1] cos(2πjD)) j ∈ − \ | i − j ∈ − \ and thus the pair (Xi,Xj) is not independent. Example 2. Let Z , n N, be independent standard normal random variables (i.e. each Z has n ∈ n a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1). Let W be a random variable, independent 1 of every Zn for n N, such that P(W = 0)= P(W =1)= /2. Then the statements 1), 2), 3) from Example 1 also∈ hold for the random variables X := WZ , n N. n n ∈ Proof. To prove 1), note that, by symmetry of each Zn and by the independence assumptions, for all i = j N, 6 ∈ 2 E(Xi)E(Xj)= E(W )E(Zi)E(Xj) = 0 and E(XiXj)= E(W )E(Zi)E(Zj)=0.

To prove 2), notice that if there exists any i N for which Xi > 0, then W = 1. Hence, for all i, j N with i = j, ∈ ∈ 6 1 1 P(X > 0 X > 0) = P(Z > 0) = > P(Z > 0 and W =1)= = P(X > 0). j | i j 2 j 4 j

X1+···+Xn Z1+···+Zn Z1+···+Zn Finally I will prove 3). Since n = W n , and n has a normal distribution 1 N with mean 0 and variance n , we see that the SLLN holds for the sequence (Xn)n∈ in question.

Remark 14. Example 2 also is an example of a sequence of random variables for which the SLLN holds, but for which the non-negativity/bounded-from-below assumption in Theorem 2 is not + satisfied. If we try to treat this problem by applying Theorem 2 separately to Xn := max Xn, 0 and X− := min X , 0 , n N, then we will run into other issues because { } n − { n } ∈ V + + V + n E + + E + E + (X1 + + Xn )= n (X1 )+ ( (X1 X2 ) (X1 ) (X2 )), (8) ··· 2! − while V(X+)+ + V(X+)= nV(X+). (9) 1 ··· n 1 We can compute1 ∞ ∞ E + E + P + 1 P 1 (X2 )= (X1 )= (X1 > t) dt = (Z1 > t) dt = 0.20 Z0 2 Z0 2√2π ≈ and x2 y2 ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ exp exp E + + P + + − 2 − 2 (X1 X2 )= (X1 X2 > t) dt =     dy dx dt 0.16. Z0 Z0 Z0 Zt/x √2π √2π ≈ In particular, we see that E(X+X+) > E(X+)E(X+), and hence by (8), V(X+ + + X+) is 1 2 1 2 1 ··· n bigger than some positive constant (independent of n) times n for all n N. Comparing this 2 ∈ with (9) shows that the variables X+, n N are not even quasi-uncorrelated.  n ∈ 1See for instance https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Erfc.html for more on the integral of the complemen- ∞ P tary error function (which I used in the computation of 0 (Z1 > t) dt). In the second computation, I use that for t> 0, R + + 1 P(X X >t)= P(X1X2 >t and X1 > 0 and X2 > 0) = P(Z1Z2 >t and Z1 > 0 and Z2 > 0). 1 2 2

Page 6 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

Remark 15. These two examples were added thanks to a suggestion by Jordan Stoyanov to provide examples of (infinite) sequences of random variables that are pairwise uncorrelated but not pairwise independent. The above examples can be considered as an extension to infinite sequences of a property for a pair of random variables. (Examples of such pairs can be found in [6], chapter 7).

3 Proofs

3.1 Tools for Theorem 2

Definition 2. From now on, fix real numbers α> 1 and ε> 0. The random variables Xn are ESn as in Theorem 2. Recall that, by assumption, A := sup N < . Hence it is possible to n∈ n ∞ define the integer L := A , where denotes “the largest integer smaller than, or equal to, ε ⌊•⌋ •” (also known as the “floorj k part”). For every n N let m(n) := log n . Then ∈ ⌊ α ⌋ m(n) as n and αm(n) n < αm(n)+1 for all n. →∞ →∞ ≤ For a non-negative random variable X , let s(n) 0,...,L be natural numbers such that n ∈{ } E(S ) n [ε s(n),ε (s(n)+1)[. (10) n ∈ · · The numbers s(n) are always uniquely well-defined because the intervals in (10) are disjoint and their union contains the interval [0, A].

Definition 3. Let the random variables Xn, n N, be as in Theorem 2. For any n N and s 0,...,L , consider the sets ∈ ∈ ∈{ } E(S ) T := k N : αn k < αn+1 and ε s k <ε (s + 1) . (11) n,s { ∈ ≤ · ≤ k · } For some n and s, T can be empty. However, T is never empty as n T for n,s m(n),s(n) ∈ m(n),s(n) any n N. If T is not empty, set k(n, s)+ := max T and k(n, s)− := min T . Otherwise, ∈ n,s n,s n,s if Tn,s is empty, take k(n, s)+ = k(n, s)− := αn . ⌊ ⌋ From now on, I will use the symbol k(n, s)± in statements that are true for both k(n, s)+ and k(n, s)−, respectively. For example, we have k(n, s)± αn as n . ≥ ⌊ ⌋→∞ →∞ E E Remark 16. If we are dealing with Sn− Sn instead of Sn− Sn as described in Remark 3, then bn n E E one has to replace Sn in (10) and (11) with Sn . n bn

The next statement is about the Kolmogoroff condition for the Sk(n,s)± subsequences.

Lemma 1. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of random variables satisfying the assumptions of The- orem 1. Then the Sk(n,s)± subsequences satisfy the Kolmogoroff condition, i.e.

∞ V(S ± ) k(n,s) < for any s 0,...,L . (12) (k(n, s)±)2 ∞ ∈{ } nX=1

Remark 17. Lemma 1 is not surprising because (Xn)n∈N satisfies the Kolmogoroff condition (2) and the numbers k(n, s)± grow exponentially in n.

Page 7 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

Remark 18. If we consider the case of Remark 3, then in the same way one can prove that ∞ V Sk(n,s)± 2 < . b ± ∞ nX=1 k(n,s)

Proof of Lemma 1. Because the variables Xn are quasi-uncorrelated, we have

± ∞ V ∞ k(n,s) Sk(n,s)± 1 c VXj (k(n, s)±)2 ≤ (k(n, s)±)2 ! nX=1 nX=1 jX=1 (13) ∞ V 1 = c Xj ± 2 ± (k(n, s) ) ! jX=1 {n:k(n,sX) ≥j} 1 ± (the last equality holds by rearranging the terms). For brevity, I define κj := {n:k(n,s) ≥j} (k(n,s)±)2 . By Definition 3, we have that for all n, s, P j αn k(n, s)± αn+1 so that n : k(n, s)± j n : αn . ⌊ ⌋ ≤ ≤ { ≥ } ⊂  ≥ α It follows that 1 α2 ∞ 1 α2 α2 κj n = 2 n 2 2 C 2 for some C > 0. (14) ≤ n j α j n=0 α ≤ j α 1 n:αX≥ α ⌊ ⌋ X ⌊ ⌋ − { } ∞ 1 In the last inequality, I have used that n=0 ⌊αn⌋2 behaves like a geometric series. Using (14) in (13) we get, as the Xn satisfy the KolmogoroffP condition,

∞ 4 ∞ VS ± α VX k(n,s) c C j < . (k(n, s)±)2 ≤ · α2 1 j2 ∞ nX=1 − jX=1 This completes the proof of (12).

Lemma 2 (SLLN for the Sk(n,s)± subsequences). Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of random variables as in Theorem 1. Then the SLLN holds for the subsequences S ± , n N, i.e. we have k(n,s) ∈ S ± ES ± lim k(n,s) − k(n,s) =0 a.s. for any s 0,...,L . n→∞ k(n, s)± ∈{ } Remark 19. If we deal with the case of Remark 3, then one can prove in the same way as below that S ± ES ± lim k(n,s) − k(n,s) = 0 a.s. for all s 0,...,L . n→∞ bk(n,s)± ∈{ } Proof of Lemma 2. Fix s 0,...,L . For δ > 0, define the events ∈{ }

Sk(n,s)± Sk(n,s)± Aδ(n) := E > δ . ( k(n, s)± − k(n, s)± )

Then

± A (n)= S ± ES ± >k(n, s) δ δ k(n,s) − k(n,s) · (15) n 2 ± o2 2 = S ± ES ± > (k(n, s) ) δ . k(n,s) − k(n,s) ·  

Page 8 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

We can now use the Chebyshev inequality and Lemma 1 to derive that ∞ ∞ Chebyshev 1 VS ± Lemma 1 P(A (n)) k(n,s) < . (16) δ ≤ δ2 (k(n, s)±)2 ∞ nX=1 nX=1 Consider the sets Aδ := lim sup Aδ(n). n→∞

The relation (16) allows us to apply the Borel-Cantelli Lemma to obtain that P(Aδ) = 0 for S ± S ± k(n,s) E k(n,s) any δ > 0. This implies the a.s. convergence of k(n,s)± k(n,s)± to 0 as n by standard − →∞ results from probability theory and thus also proves Lemma 2.

3.2 Proof of Theorem 2 Proof of Theorem 2. From now on, I will abbreviate k(m(n),s(n))± by k±. The idea of the proof is to use the fact that the SLLN holds for the k±-subsequence and conclude that it also holds for the sequence (Xn)n∈N using monotonicity arguments. This is the place where the non-negativity of the Xn’s is necessary. Using definitions 2, 3 and the bound (10), we obtain that for any ε> 0 and n N: ∈ ES ± ES k− n k+ and k n ε. (17) ≤ ≤ k± − n ≤

Since all Xn’s are non-negative, we have

′ 0 S S ′ for all n n . In particular, 0 ES ES ′ . (18) ≤ n ≤ n ≤ ≤ n ≤ n Note that by Definitions 2 and 3, we have n k+/α. Thus 1/n α/k+ and ≥ ≤ E 1 α Sk+ S + +(α 1) (α 1)B, (19) n − k+ k − k+ ≤ − E   Sk+ 1 α since B and S + 0. Bound (19) is equivalent to k+ ≤ n − k+ k ≤   E Sk+ Sk+ α (S + ES + )+(α 1)B. (20) n − k+ ≤ k+ k − k − It is also true that αk− n. Thus 1/(αk−) 1/n. By the definition of B, ≥ ≤ 1 1 1 1 1 1 B + (S − ES − ) 1 ES − + (S − ES − ) − − α αk− k − k ≤ − − α k− k αk− k − k     (21) Sk− E Sk− Sk− E Sn = − − + ε αk − k (≤17) n − n

Sk− Sk− where − was used in the last inequality. In conclusion, referring to (21), (18) and (20), αk ≤ n

1 1 Sk− ESn − E − ε 1 B + − (Sk Sk ) − −  − α  αk − ≤ n − n 1 (Sn ESn) ≤ n − (22) 1 1 S + ES + + ε ≤ n k − k+ k α (S + ES + )+(α 1)B + ε. ≤ k+ k − k − Page 9 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

Lemma 2 guarantees that for any α > 1 and ε > 0, there exists a measurable event Ω Ω α,ε ⊂ such that Sk± (ω) ESk± P(Ωα,ε) = 1 and lim − = 0 for all ω Ωα,ε. n→∞ αk± ∈ Using the previously proven inequality (22) yields 1 1 1 ε 1 B lim inf (Sn(ω) ESn) lim sup (Sn(ω) ESn) (α 1)B + ε (23) n→∞ − −  − α  ≤ n − ≤ n→∞ n − ≤ − for every ω Ω . This holds for any α> 1 and ε> 0. By σ-additivity of P, we have ∈ α,ε

P Ω 1 1 =1. (24) 1+ m , k N  k,m\∈  If we substitute α = 1+ 1 and ε = 1 for m, k N into (23) and let m and k go to m k ∈ ∞ simultaneously, then both “outer sides” of (23) go to 0. It follows from (24) that 1 lim Sn(ω) ESn =0 n→∞ n −   for almost every ω Ω. ∈ This completes the proof of Theorem 2. Remark 20. Note that (23) becomes 1 1 1 ε 1 B lim inf (Sn(ω) ESn) lim sup (Sn(ω) ESn) (α 1)B + ε n→∞ − −  − α ≤ bn − ≤ n→∞ bn − ≤ − in the case described in Remark 3.

3.3 Proofs of Corollary 2.1 and Corollary 3.1 Proof of Corollary 2.1. We can assume without loss of generality that the variables X , n N n ∈ are centered, i.e., that EXn = 0 for all n N (otherwise consider X˜n := Xn EXn). Since N ∈ − + the variables Xn, n are pairwise independent, we see that the sequences (Xn )n∈N and − ∈ (Xn )n∈N, consist of non-negative and pairwise independent random variables and that each sequences satisfies the Kolmogoroff condition (since VX+ VX and VX− VX ),2 and that n ≤ n n ≤ n n EX+ n E X sup k=1 k sup k=1 | k| < . n∈N P n ≤ n∈N P n ∞ − The analogous relation is true for (Xk )k∈N. Hence, by Theorem 2, we get n X+ EX+ lim k=1 k − k =0, (25a) n→∞ P n n X− EX− lim k=1 k − k =0. (25b) n→∞ P n Adding the two proves the Corollary. Proof of Corollary 3.1. By using the same decomposition as before and then directly applying + − Theorem 3 to (Xn )n∈N and (Xn )n∈N, we get (25a) and (25b), so that we can conclude once again by adding.

2 2 2 2 + 2 + For any n N, one has V(Xn)= E(Xn) E(Xn) = E(Xn) E (Xn ) V Xn . The same is true for − ∈ − + 2 ≥2 2 ≥ Xn . In the first inequality, I have used that (Xn ) = max Xn, 0  Xn.    { } ≤ Page 10 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

3.4 Tools for Theorem 3 I start with a statement showing that the expected value of the truncations does not differ too much from the original.

Lemma 3. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of non-negative random variables such that, as n , X Y 0 in L1-sense, where Y = X 1 . Then, for T = Y + + Y , →∞ n − n → n n · {Xn≤n} n 1 ··· n ES ET lim n − n =0. n→∞ n Proof. The proof is straight-forward. Indeed,

ES ET n E (X Y ) 0 lim n − n = lim k=1 k − k =0, (26) ≤ n→∞ n n→∞ P n where the last equality is true by Ces`aro summation.

The next result shows that if the SLLN holds for (Tn)n∈N, then it also holds for (Sn)n∈N.

Lemma 4. Let (Xn)n∈N be a sequence of non-negative random variables such that, as n , a.s. →∞ X Y 0. Using the same notation as in Lemma 3, we have n − n −−→ S T lim n − n =0 a.s. n→∞ n Proof. Same idea as in Lemma 3, S T n X Y 0 n − n = k=1 k − k a.s. 0 as n , ≤ n P n −−→ →∞ by Ces`aro-summation.

3.5 Proof of Theorem 3 Proof of Theorem 3. From Lemmas 3 and 4, we know that for almost every ω Ω, we have ∈ S (ω) ES T (ω) ET ET ES S (ω) T (ω) lim n − n = lim n − n + n − n + n − n n→∞ n n→∞ n n n T (ω) ET = lim n − n . n→∞ n

Since the sequence (Yn)n∈N satisfies the Kolmogoroff condition by assumption and since the variables Y , n N are pairwise independent, we can apply Theorem 2 to obtain that n ∈ T ET lim n − n = 0 a.s. n→∞ n This completes the proof.

Page 11 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

3.6 Proof of Theorem 4

Proof of Theorem 4. I will first prove that the sequence (Yn)n∈N satisfies the Kolmogoroff con- ∞ 1 dition. For this, let us bound the tail sums of the convergent series j=1 j2 . Recall that ∞ 1 π2 j=1 j2 = 6 , which is the famous Basel problem. I claim that P P ∞ 1 1 π2 for any k N. (27) j2 ≤ k · 6 ∈ jX=k Notice that if k = 1, then (27) is true (we have equality). For k 2, we have ≥ ∞ 1 ∞ 1 1 2 1 π2 < dx = < . j2 k−1 x2 k 1 ≤ k k · 6 jX=k Z −

Now, using (27) and the abbreviation gk :=1{k

∞ VY ∞ E(Y 2) ∞ E(X2 1 ) j j = 1 · {X1≤j} j2 ≤ j2 j2 jX=1 jX=1 jX=1 N j−1 1 E 2 = lim (X1 gk) N→∞ j2 ·  jX=1 kX=0 N−1 N  E 2 1 = lim (X1 gk) N→∞  · j2  kX=0 j=Xk+1 π2 N−1 E(X2 g )  lim 1 · k ≤ 6 N→∞ k +1 kX=0 2 ∞ π 1 2 P = X1 d 6 k +1 {kn}) = (X1 1{X1>n}). E | E − | − · · Since X1 < by assumption, (X1 1{X1>n}) will converge to 0, as n , by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence∞ Theorem. · → ∞ Now, regarding the a.s. convergence, we have

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ P(Xn = Yn)= P(Xn > n)= P(X1 > n) P(X1 x) dx = EX1 < . 6 ≤ 0 ≥ ∞ nX=1 nX=1 nX=1 Z

Hence, by Borel-Cantelli, with probability 1 it is true that Xn = Yn for n large enough.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jordan Stoyanov for his interest in my work and for his many useful comments and suggestions, most of which are taken into account in this version of the paper.

Page 12 SLLN for pairwise uncorrelated random variables Maximilian Janisch

References

[1] Nasrollah Etemadi, An elementary proof of the Strong Law of Large Numbers. Zeitschrift f¨ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 55, pages 119–122 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013465

[2] Valery Korchevsky, On the Strong Law of Large Numbers for Sequences of Pairwise Independent Random Variables. J Math Sci 244, pages 805–810 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10958-020-04654-y

[3] Tapas K. Chandra and A. Goswami, Ces´aro Uniform Integrability and the Strong Law of Large Numbers. Sankhy¯a: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (1961-2002), vol. 54, no. 2, 1992, pages 215–231. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25050875

[4] Albert N. Shiryaev, Probability 2. Third english edition, 2018. Part of the Springer Graduate Texts in Mathematics book series (GTM, volume 95). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72208-5

[5] Sandor´ Csorg¨ o˝ and K. Tandori and Vilmos Totik, On the Strong Law of Large Numbers for pairwise independent random variables. Acta Math Hung 42, pages 319–330 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956779

[6] Jordan M. Stoyanov, Counterexamples in Probability. Third edi- tion, Dover, Mineola (NY), 2014. Part of Dover Books on Mathematics. https://www.worldcat.org/title/counterexamples-in-probability/oclc/958218408

Page 13