Borel–Cantelli Lemmas

If total length is finite, points hit infinitely often form a null set. This scene checks that boundary numerically.

Collect the points where the events keep overlapping. Finite total length makes the overlaps rarer and rarer. With independence, the converse also holds.

For example, in rain whose πŸ’§ water drops keep shrinking, a finite total volume means one spot is almost never hit endlessly.

m(lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn)=0(βˆ‘n=1∞m(En)<∞)m(\limsup_{n\to\infty} E_n) = 0 \quad \left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} m(E_n) < \infty\right)
βˆ‘m(En)=∞,Β EnΒ independentΒ β‡’m(lim sup⁑En)=1\sum m(E_n) = \infty,\ E_n \text{ independent } \Rightarrow m(\limsup E_n) = 1

Examples & Exercises

Let En=[0,1n2]E_n = [0, \frac{1}{n^2}] (nβ‰₯1n \ge 1).

Verify directly that lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn={0}\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n = \{0\}, and prove completely, via the bound m(lim sup⁑En)β‰€βˆ‘kβ‰₯Nm(Ek)m(\limsup E_n) \le \sum_{k \ge N} m(E_k), that m(lim sup⁑En)=0m(\limsup E_n) = 0 β€” the first Borel–Cantelli lemma for this example.

lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn=β‹‚Nβ‰₯1⋃kβ‰₯NEk={0}\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n = \bigcap_{N \ge 1}\bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k = \{0\}
m(lim sup⁑En)β‰€βˆ‘kβ‰₯N1k2β€…β€Šβ†’Nβ†’βˆžβ€…β€Š0m(\limsup E_n) \le \sum_{k \ge N} \frac{1}{k^2} \;\xrightarrow[N \to \infty]{}\; 0
Summable mode, n=20n = 20: cumulative length βˆ‘k≀201k2β‰ˆ1.5962\sum_{k \le 20} \frac{1}{k^2} \approx 1.5962 (of Ο€26β‰ˆ1.6449\frac{\pi^2}{6} \approx 1.6449); the red limsup approximation piles up near [0,0.01][0, 0.01] only.
Show proof
  1. lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn=β‹‚Nβ‰₯1⋃kβ‰₯NEk\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n = \bigcap_{N \ge 1} \bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k is the set of points belonging to infinitely many EkE_k.

    Since Ek=[0,1k2]E_k = [0, \frac{1}{k^2}] is decreasing, ⋃kβ‰₯NEk=EN=[0,1N2]\bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k = E_N = [0, \frac{1}{N^2}], and β‹‚Nβ‰₯1[0,1N2]={0}\bigcap_{N \ge 1} [0, \frac{1}{N^2}] = \{0\} (any nonzero point is dropped once 1N2\frac{1}{N^2} falls below it).

    Hence lim sup⁑En={0}\limsup E_n = \{0\} β€” a single point of measure 0.

  2. Now the measure bound.

    For each NN, lim sup⁑EnβŠ†β‹ƒkβ‰₯NEk\limsup E_n \subseteq \bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k, so by countable subadditivity m(lim sup⁑En)β‰€βˆ‘kβ‰₯Nm(Ek)=βˆ‘kβ‰₯N1k2m(\limsup E_n) \le \sum_{k \ge N} m(E_k) = \sum_{k \ge N} \frac{1}{k^2}.

    This holds for every NN.

  3. First ground the convergence of βˆ‘kβ‰₯11k2\sum_{k \ge 1} \frac{1}{k^2} self-containedly: for kβ‰₯2k \ge 2, 1k2≀1k(kβˆ’1)=1kβˆ’1βˆ’1k\frac{1}{k^2} \le \frac{1}{k(k-1)} = \frac{1}{k-1} - \frac{1}{k}, so the partial sums telescope: βˆ‘k=1N1k2≀1+βˆ‘k=2N(1kβˆ’1βˆ’1k)=2βˆ’1N≀2\sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{1}{k^2} \le 1 + \sum_{k=2}^{N} \left(\frac{1}{k-1} - \frac{1}{k}\right) = 2 - \frac{1}{N} \le 2.

    Hence the series converges (its value is Ο€26\frac{\pi^2}{6}) and the tail sums vanish: for every Ξ΅>0\varepsilon > 0 there is NN with βˆ‘kβ‰₯N1k2<Ξ΅\sum_{k \ge N} \frac{1}{k^2} < \varepsilon.

    Hence m(lim sup⁑En)<Ξ΅m(\limsup E_n) < \varepsilon for every Ξ΅>0\varepsilon > 0, so m(lim sup⁑En)=0m(\limsup E_n) = 0 β€” matching the direct computation {0}\{0\}. That is the first Borel–Cantelli lemma on this example.

In a measure space (X,m)(X, m), prove completely that for any sequence of measurable sets {En}\{E_n\} with βˆ‘nβ‰₯1m(En)<∞\sum_{n \ge 1} m(E_n) < \infty, m(lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn)=0m(\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n) = 0 (the first Borel–Cantelli lemma).

No independence is needed.

lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn=β‹‚Nβ‰₯1⋃kβ‰₯NEkβŠ†β‹ƒkβ‰₯NEk\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n = \bigcap_{N \ge 1}\bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k \subseteq \bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k
m(lim sup⁑En)β‰€βˆ‘k=N∞m(Ek)β€…β€Šβ†’Nβ†’βˆžβ€…β€Š0m(\limsup E_n) \le \sum_{k=N}^{\infty} m(E_k) \;\xrightarrow[N \to \infty]{}\; 0
Summable mode, n=40n = 40: cumulative length β‰ˆ1.6202\approx 1.6202, closer to Ο€26β‰ˆ1.6449\frac{\pi^2}{6} \approx 1.6449 β€” the tail βˆ‘k>401k2<140=0.025\sum_{k > 40} \frac{1}{k^2} < \frac{1}{40} = 0.025 bounds the limsup measure.
Show proof
  1. Write lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn=β‹‚Nβ‰₯1AN\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n = \bigcap_{N \ge 1} A_N where AN=⋃kβ‰₯NEkA_N = \bigcup_{k \ge N} E_k is a decreasing sequence (larger NN means fewer terms in the union). By definition, lim sup⁑EnβŠ†AN\limsup E_n \subseteq A_N for every NN.

  2. By monotonicity and countable subadditivity, m(lim sup⁑En)≀m(AN)β‰€βˆ‘kβ‰₯Nm(Ek)m(\limsup E_n) \le m(A_N) \le \sum_{k \ge N} m(E_k). The second inequality is just that the measure of a countable union never exceeds the sum of the measures β€” no disjointness, no independence needed.

  3. By the hypothesis βˆ‘kβ‰₯1m(Ek)<∞\sum_{k \ge 1} m(E_k) < \infty, the tail sums βˆ‘kβ‰₯Nm(Ek)\sum_{k \ge N} m(E_k) tend to 0 as Nβ†’βˆžN \to \infty (tails of a convergent series).

    Hence 0≀m(lim sup⁑En)β‰€βˆ‘kβ‰₯Nm(Ek)β†’00 \le m(\limsup E_n) \le \sum_{k \ge N} m(E_k) \to 0, so m(lim sup⁑En)=0m(\limsup E_n) = 0.

    The proof is complete β€” this is the first Borel–Cantelli lemma, and problem 1's example is the special case m(Ek)=1/k2m(E_k) = 1/k^2.

Toss a die forever and let En=E_n = "the nn-th toss is a 6".

The EnE_n are independent with P(En)=16P(E_n) = \frac16 and βˆ‘P(En)=∞\sum P(E_n) = \infty.

Prove rigorously that ∏k=NM(1βˆ’16)=(56)Mβˆ’N+1β†’0\prod_{k=N}^{M}(1 - \frac16) = (\frac56)^{M-N+1} \to 0 (Mβ†’βˆžM \to \infty), and use it to show completely that P(lim sup⁑nβ†’βˆžEn)=1P(\limsup_{n \to \infty} E_n) = 1 β€” the second Borel–Cantelli lemma under independence.

P ⁣(β‹‚k=NMEkc)=∏k=NM(1βˆ’16)=(56)Mβˆ’N+1β†’0P\!\left(\bigcap_{k=N}^{M} E_k^c\right) = \prod_{k=N}^{M}\left(1 - \tfrac16\right) = \left(\tfrac56\right)^{M-N+1} \to 0
P(lim sup⁑En)=1βˆ’P ⁣(⋃Nβ‰₯1β‹‚kβ‰₯NEkc)=1P(\limsup E_n) = 1 - P\!\left(\bigcup_{N \ge 1}\bigcap_{k \ge N} E_k^c\right) = 1
Nonsummable mode, n=31n = 31: the first 31 sets are exactly dyadic levels 0–4, total length 5.005.00 β€” diverging, and every point is covered at every level, so lim sup⁑=[0,1]\limsup = [0, 1].
Show proof
  1. First, the product rigorously. By independence, P(β‹‚k=NMEkc)=∏k=NMP(Ekc)=∏k=NM(1βˆ’16)=(56)Mβˆ’N+1P\left(\bigcap_{k=N}^{M} E_k^c\right) = \prod_{k=N}^{M} P(E_k^c) = \prod_{k=N}^{M} (1 - \frac16) = (\frac56)^{M-N+1}.

    Taking logs, log⁑((56)Mβˆ’N+1)=(Mβˆ’N+1) log⁑(56)\log\left((\frac56)^{M-N+1}\right) = (M-N+1)\,\log(\frac56), and since log⁑(56)<0\log(\frac56) < 0 this tends to βˆ’βˆž-\infty as Mβ†’βˆžM \to \infty.

    Hence (56)Mβˆ’N+1β†’0(\frac56)^{M-N+1} \to 0 β€” the probability of "no 6 from toss NN through MM" vanishes.

  2. Now continuity of measure from above: PP is a probability measure, so P≀1<∞P \le 1 < \infty β€” the finite-measure hypothesis holds. The sets β‹‚k=NMEkc\bigcap_{k=N}^{M} E_k^c decrease in MM, so P(β‹‚kβ‰₯NEkc)=lim⁑Mβ†’βˆžP(β‹‚k=NMEkc)=lim⁑Mβ†’βˆž(56)Mβˆ’N+1=0P\left(\bigcap_{k \ge N} E_k^c\right) = \lim_{M \to \infty} P\left(\bigcap_{k=N}^{M} E_k^c\right) = \lim_{M \to \infty} (\frac56)^{M-N+1} = 0 β€” for every NN, "no 6 ever again from toss NN on" is a probability-0 event.

  3. Since (lim sup⁑En)c=⋃Nβ‰₯1β‹‚kβ‰₯NEkc(\limsup E_n)^c = \bigcup_{N \ge 1} \bigcap_{k \ge N} E_k^c (de Morgan), subadditivity gives P((lim sup⁑En)c)β‰€βˆ‘Nβ‰₯1P(β‹‚kβ‰₯NEkc)=βˆ‘Nβ‰₯10=0P((\limsup E_n)^c) \le \sum_{N \ge 1} P\left(\bigcap_{k \ge N} E_k^c\right) = \sum_{N \ge 1} 0 = 0.

    Hence P(lim sup⁑En)=1P(\limsup E_n) = 1: a 6 occurs infinitely often, almost surely.

    The same argument works in general β€” if the events are independent and βˆ‘pn=∞\sum p_n = \infty, first separate the degenerate case: if pk=1p_k = 1 for some kk, then EkE_k occurs almost surely and the conclusion is trivial; otherwise assume pk<1p_k < 1 for all kk, so log⁑(1βˆ’pk)\log(1 - p_k) is defined, and log⁑(1βˆ’pk)β‰€βˆ’pk\log(1 - p_k) \le -p_k gives βˆ‘k=NMlog⁑(1βˆ’pk)β‰€βˆ’βˆ‘k=NMpkβ†’βˆ’βˆž\sum_{k=N}^{M} \log(1-p_k) \le -\sum_{k=N}^{M} p_k \to -\infty, so the product tends to 0. That is the second Borel–Cantelli lemma.

11. Integration