|
|
|
|
|
by concreteblock
1899 days ago
|
|
You’re right. I made a mistake - I thought you were trying to contradict the theorem I stated. I’ve just realized you were saying something orthogonal. As for the proof of my theorem,
By taking logarithms, the process becomes an additive random walk with negative drift (log 1.6 + log 0.5 < 0). This is well known to converge to negative infinity almost surely. After exponentiating to undo the logarithm, this is exactly the statement I made. It does not matter how many test subjects there are ( as long as there’s finitely many) because, informally speaking , you can just wait for each of them to become irrevocably bankrupt in turn. |
|
- for a fixed sample size we can find a time large enough that the probability of the sample mean being above $1 is as low as we want
- for a fixed time we can find a sample size large enough that the probability of the sample mean being below $1 is as low as we want
- when both the sample size and the horizon grow without limit which effect dominates will depend on how we make it happen
Adding "almost surely" to "everyone goes bankrupt and will never recover" or "there is a finite time after which no-one ever passes above $0.0000000000000001" is a subtle change but it's enough to allow for someone to go to infinity with infinitesimal probability.
This is why the distribution mean can grow exponentially, it wouldn't be possible if the everyone and no-one in those quotes were strictly true.