Next: About this document ...
Lecture 30: Convergence to Standard Normal
A great many statistical tests are based on the standard normal distribution,
and go along the following lines. A statistic is decided upon, such as the
number of runs. Its theoretical mean and variance are computed under the null
hypothesis. The statistic is normalized by subtracting the theoretical mean
and dividing by the theoretical standard deviation. It is then proved that as
some parameters diverge to infinity, the distribution functions of the
statistics converge to the standard normal distribution, and for certain ranges
of parameters, the distributions are well approximated by the standard normal.
How are such theorems proven? Let us look at the most famous case, the
DeMoivre-Laplace limit theorem for symmetric binomial distributions. This
theorem is the forerunner of the Central Limit Theorem.
Before doing so, we will make some general observations. Suppose that
Fn(t) is the distribution function of a random variable Xn with mean
and standard deviation 1. We are trying to see if Fn(t) converges to

as
. This already poses technical difficulties as the
integral above is an inproper integral, and as such, is a limit of a limit.
So our first step is to try to show that for all a < b

Our second simpification will be to try to look only at those a and b where
the Fn are continuous. Monotinicity properties of distribution functions
will take care of the other values.
Now we see that if the Xn are discrete random variables, there is some hope
of proving such results, since the lefthand side is a limit of sums of positive
terms which are less than 1, and so is the righthand side. Thus the terms on
the left hand side do have the form
.Now on to a specific example. Suppose that Xn has the binomial
distributions with

We have
and
.Put

and

From considerations of symmetry it will be sufficient to show

where b > 0.
We now adopt the convention that if
is not an integer then
interpret it as the greatest integer in
.
We have

We can write

Recall that Stirling's Formula says that

Therefore we should write

where

Note that Stirling's Formula guarentees that
as
, and it is easy to check that A(n) is increasing in n
by computing A(n+1)/A(n) and seeing that it is larger than 1. For example,
. So now we can write

So far, so good. We see the
, and that we can ignore A(n).
If we let
we see that we have the makings of a
Riemann
sum for dividing up the interval [0,b] into
parts, each of
width
. The problem remains to identify the integrand, which must
come from the expression

Now from Taylor's Theorem we know that for |x| < 1/2 we have

where
independent of x. We will apply this with
where
and n large enough to get
|x| < 1/2. We can then write
1+x = exeCxx2
and get

and

where C'(k,n) is bounded in n and k so long as
.This shows us that for the range of k we have,

as
, uniformly in k. Therefore we can ignore this term
just as we did A(n) and write

giving us

where
as
, so that

Next: About this document ...
Eric S Key
2/17/1999