What does convergence in distribution “in the Gromov–Hausdorff” sense mean? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEssentially one random metric on $mathbbS^2$?Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spacesEstimating the variance of error in empirical approximation to a distributionError for the convergence by distributionHausdorff convergence of submanifolds in Riemannian manifoldsGromov-Hausdorff limits of 2-dimensional Riemannian surfaces“Local” functional central limit theorem for the empirical distribution functionCovering numbers of uniformly bounded subsets of Gromov-Hausdorff spaceDoes rate of convergence in probability come from a metric?Generalizing Gromov Hausdorff distance using Vietoris topology

What does convergence in distribution “in the Gromov–Hausdorff” sense mean?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEssentially one random metric on $mathbbS^2$?Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for locally finite metric spacesEstimating the variance of error in empirical approximation to a distributionError for the convergence by distributionHausdorff convergence of submanifolds in Riemannian manifoldsGromov-Hausdorff limits of 2-dimensional Riemannian surfaces“Local” functional central limit theorem for the empirical distribution functionCovering numbers of uniformly bounded subsets of Gromov-Hausdorff spaceDoes rate of convergence in probability come from a metric?Generalizing Gromov Hausdorff distance using Vietoris topology










9












$begingroup$


I am trying to understand this survey article by Le Gall on Brownian geometry, especially the statement of Theorem 1.



The basic statement of the theorem is
$$(m_n,d_n) to (m_infty, d_infty)$$
"in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense" as $n to infty$, where the convergence is in distribution.



Here $(m_n,d_n)$ and $(m_infty,d_infty)$ are both random compact metric spaces. So how do we interpret this? We might hope for a statement along the lines of the following.



For every compact metric space $(X,d)$ and $R > 0$, we have
$$(*) , , , mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_n,d_n), (X,d) ] < R right] to mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_infty,d_infty), (X,d) ] < R right]$$
as $n to infty$.



But even when we talk about convergence in distribution for real random variables (instead of compact-metric-space-valued random variables), we have to be careful to restrict our attention to points where the cumulative distribution function is continuous. So I wonder if (*) is too strong?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    9












    $begingroup$


    I am trying to understand this survey article by Le Gall on Brownian geometry, especially the statement of Theorem 1.



    The basic statement of the theorem is
    $$(m_n,d_n) to (m_infty, d_infty)$$
    "in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense" as $n to infty$, where the convergence is in distribution.



    Here $(m_n,d_n)$ and $(m_infty,d_infty)$ are both random compact metric spaces. So how do we interpret this? We might hope for a statement along the lines of the following.



    For every compact metric space $(X,d)$ and $R > 0$, we have
    $$(*) , , , mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_n,d_n), (X,d) ] < R right] to mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_infty,d_infty), (X,d) ] < R right]$$
    as $n to infty$.



    But even when we talk about convergence in distribution for real random variables (instead of compact-metric-space-valued random variables), we have to be careful to restrict our attention to points where the cumulative distribution function is continuous. So I wonder if (*) is too strong?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      9












      9








      9


      1



      $begingroup$


      I am trying to understand this survey article by Le Gall on Brownian geometry, especially the statement of Theorem 1.



      The basic statement of the theorem is
      $$(m_n,d_n) to (m_infty, d_infty)$$
      "in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense" as $n to infty$, where the convergence is in distribution.



      Here $(m_n,d_n)$ and $(m_infty,d_infty)$ are both random compact metric spaces. So how do we interpret this? We might hope for a statement along the lines of the following.



      For every compact metric space $(X,d)$ and $R > 0$, we have
      $$(*) , , , mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_n,d_n), (X,d) ] < R right] to mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_infty,d_infty), (X,d) ] < R right]$$
      as $n to infty$.



      But even when we talk about convergence in distribution for real random variables (instead of compact-metric-space-valued random variables), we have to be careful to restrict our attention to points where the cumulative distribution function is continuous. So I wonder if (*) is too strong?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I am trying to understand this survey article by Le Gall on Brownian geometry, especially the statement of Theorem 1.



      The basic statement of the theorem is
      $$(m_n,d_n) to (m_infty, d_infty)$$
      "in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense" as $n to infty$, where the convergence is in distribution.



      Here $(m_n,d_n)$ and $(m_infty,d_infty)$ are both random compact metric spaces. So how do we interpret this? We might hope for a statement along the lines of the following.



      For every compact metric space $(X,d)$ and $R > 0$, we have
      $$(*) , , , mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_n,d_n), (X,d) ] < R right] to mathbbP left[ d_GH[ (m_infty,d_infty), (X,d) ] < R right]$$
      as $n to infty$.



      But even when we talk about convergence in distribution for real random variables (instead of compact-metric-space-valued random variables), we have to be careful to restrict our attention to points where the cumulative distribution function is continuous. So I wonder if (*) is too strong?







      pr.probability mg.metric-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      Matthew KahleMatthew Kahle

      4,5722950




      4,5722950




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11












          $begingroup$

          Following the notation of the paper, let $mathbbK$ be the metric space of all compact metric spaces, equipped with the Gromov-Hausdorff metric $mathrmd_GH$. Then we can express convergence in distribution in the usual way: for every bounded continuous $F : mathbbK to mathbbR$, we have $mathbbE[F((m_n, d_n))] to mathbbE[F((m_infty, d_infty))]$. The portmanteau theorem gives you several other equivalent statements.



          In other words, this is just the usual notion of convergence in distribution for random variables taking their values in a metric space $S$, where that metric space happens to be $S = (mathbbK, mathrmd_GH)$, the metric space of all compact metric spaces.



          In particular, if $(X,d)$ is a fixed compact metric space, the function $mathrmd_GH(cdot, (X,d)) : mathbbK to mathbbR$ is a continuous function. So if we let $Y_n = mathrmd_GH((m_n, d_n), (X, d))$, then the scalar-valued random variables $Y_n$ converge in distribution to $Y$. So your formula (*) holds, but as you say, only for values of $R$ at which the function $R mapsto mathbbP[mathrmd_GH((m_infty, d_infty), (X,d)) < R]$ is continuous.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326678%2fwhat-does-convergence-in-distribution-in-the-gromov-hausdorff-sense-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11












            $begingroup$

            Following the notation of the paper, let $mathbbK$ be the metric space of all compact metric spaces, equipped with the Gromov-Hausdorff metric $mathrmd_GH$. Then we can express convergence in distribution in the usual way: for every bounded continuous $F : mathbbK to mathbbR$, we have $mathbbE[F((m_n, d_n))] to mathbbE[F((m_infty, d_infty))]$. The portmanteau theorem gives you several other equivalent statements.



            In other words, this is just the usual notion of convergence in distribution for random variables taking their values in a metric space $S$, where that metric space happens to be $S = (mathbbK, mathrmd_GH)$, the metric space of all compact metric spaces.



            In particular, if $(X,d)$ is a fixed compact metric space, the function $mathrmd_GH(cdot, (X,d)) : mathbbK to mathbbR$ is a continuous function. So if we let $Y_n = mathrmd_GH((m_n, d_n), (X, d))$, then the scalar-valued random variables $Y_n$ converge in distribution to $Y$. So your formula (*) holds, but as you say, only for values of $R$ at which the function $R mapsto mathbbP[mathrmd_GH((m_infty, d_infty), (X,d)) < R]$ is continuous.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              11












              $begingroup$

              Following the notation of the paper, let $mathbbK$ be the metric space of all compact metric spaces, equipped with the Gromov-Hausdorff metric $mathrmd_GH$. Then we can express convergence in distribution in the usual way: for every bounded continuous $F : mathbbK to mathbbR$, we have $mathbbE[F((m_n, d_n))] to mathbbE[F((m_infty, d_infty))]$. The portmanteau theorem gives you several other equivalent statements.



              In other words, this is just the usual notion of convergence in distribution for random variables taking their values in a metric space $S$, where that metric space happens to be $S = (mathbbK, mathrmd_GH)$, the metric space of all compact metric spaces.



              In particular, if $(X,d)$ is a fixed compact metric space, the function $mathrmd_GH(cdot, (X,d)) : mathbbK to mathbbR$ is a continuous function. So if we let $Y_n = mathrmd_GH((m_n, d_n), (X, d))$, then the scalar-valued random variables $Y_n$ converge in distribution to $Y$. So your formula (*) holds, but as you say, only for values of $R$ at which the function $R mapsto mathbbP[mathrmd_GH((m_infty, d_infty), (X,d)) < R]$ is continuous.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                11












                11








                11





                $begingroup$

                Following the notation of the paper, let $mathbbK$ be the metric space of all compact metric spaces, equipped with the Gromov-Hausdorff metric $mathrmd_GH$. Then we can express convergence in distribution in the usual way: for every bounded continuous $F : mathbbK to mathbbR$, we have $mathbbE[F((m_n, d_n))] to mathbbE[F((m_infty, d_infty))]$. The portmanteau theorem gives you several other equivalent statements.



                In other words, this is just the usual notion of convergence in distribution for random variables taking their values in a metric space $S$, where that metric space happens to be $S = (mathbbK, mathrmd_GH)$, the metric space of all compact metric spaces.



                In particular, if $(X,d)$ is a fixed compact metric space, the function $mathrmd_GH(cdot, (X,d)) : mathbbK to mathbbR$ is a continuous function. So if we let $Y_n = mathrmd_GH((m_n, d_n), (X, d))$, then the scalar-valued random variables $Y_n$ converge in distribution to $Y$. So your formula (*) holds, but as you say, only for values of $R$ at which the function $R mapsto mathbbP[mathrmd_GH((m_infty, d_infty), (X,d)) < R]$ is continuous.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                Following the notation of the paper, let $mathbbK$ be the metric space of all compact metric spaces, equipped with the Gromov-Hausdorff metric $mathrmd_GH$. Then we can express convergence in distribution in the usual way: for every bounded continuous $F : mathbbK to mathbbR$, we have $mathbbE[F((m_n, d_n))] to mathbbE[F((m_infty, d_infty))]$. The portmanteau theorem gives you several other equivalent statements.



                In other words, this is just the usual notion of convergence in distribution for random variables taking their values in a metric space $S$, where that metric space happens to be $S = (mathbbK, mathrmd_GH)$, the metric space of all compact metric spaces.



                In particular, if $(X,d)$ is a fixed compact metric space, the function $mathrmd_GH(cdot, (X,d)) : mathbbK to mathbbR$ is a continuous function. So if we let $Y_n = mathrmd_GH((m_n, d_n), (X, d))$, then the scalar-valued random variables $Y_n$ converge in distribution to $Y$. So your formula (*) holds, but as you say, only for values of $R$ at which the function $R mapsto mathbbP[mathrmd_GH((m_infty, d_infty), (X,d)) < R]$ is continuous.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago

























                answered 2 days ago









                Nate EldredgeNate Eldredge

                20.2k371117




                20.2k371117



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326678%2fwhat-does-convergence-in-distribution-in-the-gromov-hausdorff-sense-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Export of reprojected layer from GEE fails Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Iterate over features and years to export images for each feature-yearEarth engine reproject: why does reprojecting a pixel at 30m scale gives me pixels with an area of ~550?Exporting slope raster for entire country in GEEGEE Landsat SR year composite // mask cloud / shadow out w/ other method than quality pixel"export region contains no valid (un-masked) pixels - Google Earth EgineGoogle Earth Engine, how to distinguish between rivers/streams and ponds/lakes in a water maskPython script tool fails when processing rainfall data from Google Earth EngineGoogle Earth Engine Error: Number of pixels requested from Image.load exceeds the maximum allowedCloudfree images in small area from Sentinel-2Using Image exportToDrive in Google Earth Engine?

                    Creating closest line along the point''s azimuth using PostgreSQL Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Drawing line between points at specific distance in PostGIS?How to efficiently find the closest point over the dateline?How to find the nearest point by using PostGIS function?PostGIS nearest point with LATERAL JOIN in PostgreSQL 9.3+Creating a table and inserting selected streets using plpgsql functionsCreating a table that stores Distances and other columnSaving select query results (year wise) from PostgreSQL/PostGIS to text filesWhat is the information behind this geometry?How to give start and end vertex ids dynamically in pgr_dijkstra?Point to Polygon nearest distance DS_distance is not using geography index & knn <-> or <#> does not give result in orderLine to point conversion with start point and end point detection?

                    Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given