Toss a fair coin times, and the fraction of heads misses one half by or more with probability . With tosses the same miss has probability below one in a billion. Why do averages of many independent observations settle near the mean, and in exactly what sense? This lesson proves the weak law of large numbers from Chebyshev’s inequality, explains convergence in probability with a fixed tolerance, and shows what the law does not promise at any finite sample size.
Key terms
Error tolerance
Definition Let have common mean , and let be the mean of the first of them. An error tolerance is a fixed number , in the units of the observations, that marks the distance from at which a miss begins. The sample mean misses by at least the tolerance on the event and is within tolerance on its complement . In the law of large numbers is chosen first and stays fixed while grows.
In plain words Decide how close counts as close before asking how the probability of a miss changes with the sample size. A tolerance that shrinks as grows asks a different question, and its answer can be different.
Example For delays that are or minutes with probability each, minutes, and the tolerance minutes makes the miss event . For a shrinking tolerance, take fair or trials with odd. The number of successes is a whole number and is odd, so , and
on every outcome. With the tolerance the miss probability is for every odd , while with any fixed tolerance it tends to , as the weak law below shows.
Convergence in probability
Definition A sequence of random variables converges in probability to a constant if for every
Each probability in the sequence is computed at a single , so the definition is a statement about a sequence of numbers. It makes no claim about the values along one observed run.
In plain words Name any closeness you like. For all large enough , missing by that much becomes as unlikely as you wish. A miss can still have positive probability at every finite , and nothing in the definition says that a particular run of observed values moves steadily toward .
Example For fair or trials and , exact binomial calculations give the miss probabilities in the table, and they head toward .
Weak law of large numbers
Definition Let be IID discrete random variables with finite mean and finite variance . Then for every and every
and therefore converges in probability to . The proof uses and , then Chebyshev’s inequality with distance . With and fixed, the right side tends to as , and a probability between and that bound tends to as well. Independence enters only through the variance formula, which needs the covariances to vanish. The conclusion also holds for IID variables with a finite mean and infinite variance, but that case needs a different proof.
In plain words An average of many independent draws from one distribution is unlikely to be far from the mean. For any fixed tolerance, the chance of a miss can be made as small as you like by taking large enough, because the variance of the average shrinks like while the tolerance stays put. Nothing pushes later outcomes to repair earlier ones. An early surplus becomes a smaller and smaller share of a growing total.
Example For IID delays of or minutes, and square minutes. With minutes,
which is at and at . The square minutes cancel. Independence matters. If one delay is copied into every position, each still has mean and variance , but is or for every . Then for every , and the averages do not converge to .
Relative frequency
Definition Let an experiment be repeated independently, let be an event with , and let be the indicator of on trial . The are IID with mean and variance . If counts the trials among the first on which occurs, the relative frequency of is . The weak law gives, for every ,
where the last step uses . So converges in probability to . A relative frequency in finitely many trials is a random variable, while is a fixed model probability.
In plain words A relative frequency is an average of s and s, so the law for averages covers frequencies with no new theorem. This gives a precise meaning to the idea that a probability describes a long-run frequency. One finite frequency estimates and comes with sampling error.
Example Trials succeed independently with probability , and . Each indicator has variance , the frequency has variance , and
The complement gives , with strict inequalities. The frequencies and belong to the bounded event, and they occur at and with positive probability. The exact binomial probability of the miss is about , far below the bound .
Sufficient sample size
Definition Let be IID with mean and finite variance , and fix a tolerance and a target probability with . Chebyshev’s bound is at most exactly when
and every such guarantees . The smallest whole number that satisfies the condition is the right side rounded up. Such an is sufficient, but it need not be the smallest sample size with miss probability at most , because the exact probability can drop below at a much smaller . Halving with fixed multiplies the right side by .
In plain words This calculation tells you how many observations are enough to guarantee, from the variance alone, that a miss of size or more has probability at most . It is a safe planning number, and often much larger than needed when the full distribution is known.
Example For the delays with minutes and , the condition is . Exact binomial calculations show that the miss probability is already at most at every from to , and Chebyshev’s bound covers every larger . At the exact probability is below one in a million. It does not decrease at every step, since it is about at and about at . Halving the tolerance to minutes raises the sufficient size to .
Finite-sample uncertainty
Definition For IID observations with mean and finite variance , the sample mean at a fixed sample size is still a random variable, with variance . When this variance is positive, so with positive probability. The weak law bounds the probability of a miss of a given size without ruling the miss out. It is a statement about the probabilities at each , so it does not say that the observed averages along one run move closer to at every step, and it does not make later outcomes compensate for earlier ones.
In plain words Large samples make big misses unlikely. A miss that one observation can make stays possible at every , because all observations can miss by that much in the same direction. A single run can wander away from the mean and come back, long streaks happen under independence, and an observed frequency, however balanced it looks, does not reveal the underlying probability exactly.
Example For fair or trials, the observed sequence has running averages , and . The third observation moved the average away from , and the law does not forbid that. Given ten successes in the first ten trials, each later trial still succeeds with probability , so after more trials the expected frequency is
The early surplus of successes over half the trials is not paid back on average, but it becomes a smaller share of the total, which pulls the expected frequency toward .
Check yourself
- Fair or trials are independent. How many trials does Chebyshev’s bound need to guarantee that the relative frequency misses by or more with probability at most ?
Show the answer
Each indicator has variance , so the bound is
It is at most exactly when , so trials are sufficient by this argument.
- With fair trials, is every possible relative frequency within of ? Separately, does an observed frequency of exactly in trials prove that the success probability is ?
Show the answer
No to both. The guarantee is that a miss of or more has probability at most , not probability . A run of successes, with frequency , has probability , which is tiny but positive. For the second part, successes in independent trials have probability when the success probability is , and when it is . The observation fits both models, so it does not settle which one generated it.
- Each inspection independently finds a flaw with probability . For inspections and the tolerance , bound the probability that the flaw frequency misses by at least the tolerance. What lower bound follows for , and why are the inequalities strict? How many inspections make the Chebyshev bound at most ?
Show the answer
Each indicator has variance , so
The complement gives . The inequalities are strict because the bounded event includes the frequencies and , which occur at and with positive probability. A bound of at most needs inspections. The exact binomial miss probability at is about , so the Chebyshev bound is conservative here.