2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2103.12200
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Divergence Borel-Cantelli Lemma revisited

Abstract: Let (Ω, A, µ) be a probability space. The classical Borel-Cantelli Lemma states that for any sequence of µ-measurable sets E i (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . ), if the sum of their measures converges then the corresponding lim sup set E ∞ is of measure zero. In general the converse statement is false. However, it is well known that the divergence counterpart is true under various additional 'independence' hypotheses. In this paper we revisit these hypotheses and establish both sufficient and necessary conditions for E ∞ … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
18
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(v) The conclusion of Theorem 1 is close to Rudnick's upper bound (2) in cases where E N ≈ N 2 and thus C N ≈ N 2 (only improving the error N ε to errors of logarithmic order). Rudnick's result also meets with that of Theorem 1 when E N ≈ N 3 and C N ≈ N. However, in the intermediate range when E N is around N δ for some δ ∈ (2, 3), the estimate ( 2) is significantly weaker than (5), except in the "random" case where all possible differences a m − a n have a similar number of representations so that E N ≈ N 4 /C N . Examples of such sequences include the Piatetski-Shapiro integers as well as the sequence of (log x) A smooth numbers n ≤ x where we expect C N ≈ N β A for some β A in the open interval (1, 2); see [3] for more information.…”
Section: Introduction and Statement Of Resultssupporting
confidence: 57%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…(v) The conclusion of Theorem 1 is close to Rudnick's upper bound (2) in cases where E N ≈ N 2 and thus C N ≈ N 2 (only improving the error N ε to errors of logarithmic order). Rudnick's result also meets with that of Theorem 1 when E N ≈ N 3 and C N ≈ N. However, in the intermediate range when E N is around N δ for some δ ∈ (2, 3), the estimate ( 2) is significantly weaker than (5), except in the "random" case where all possible differences a m − a n have a similar number of representations so that E N ≈ N 4 /C N . Examples of such sequences include the Piatetski-Shapiro integers as well as the sequence of (log x) A smooth numbers n ≤ x where we expect C N ≈ N β A for some β A in the open interval (1, 2); see [3] for more information.…”
Section: Introduction and Statement Of Resultssupporting
confidence: 57%
“…It is known that in metric Diophantine approximation one does not need full stochastic independence, but that it is sufficient to establish "quasi-independence on average" (cf. [4,5,6] as well as Lemma 4 below). The key for this is to control the measure of the overlaps S m ∩ S n for m = n. In Rudnick's paper [34] this is done by a direct application of L 2 methods, which essentially gives the overlap estimate…”
Section: Proof Of Theorem 1 Part 2: Upper Boundmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A foundational result in Diophantine approximation is Dirichlet's approximation theorem, which asserts that for every real number α there are infinitely many coprime solutions (p, q) to the inequality (1) α − p q < 1 q 2 . It is well-known that this result is optimal up to constant factors for numbers α whose partial quotients in the continued fraction representation are bounded (so-called badly approximable numbers).…”
Section: Introduction and Statement Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%