# Linear or quadratic combinations of i.i.d. random variables [closed]

Let $(X_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be i.i.d. real random variables with zero mean. By the law of large numbers $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nX_i \to 0 \quad\text{(almost surely, in probabability...) as }\,n\to\infty \;.$$ Now let $(a_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a deterministic real sequence. Under suitable hypothesis (which ones?) is it still true that $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n a_i X_i \to 0 \quad\text{(at least in probabability) as }\,n\to\infty \;?$$ Furthermore, if $(X_{i,j})_{i,j\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a double indexed sequence of i.i.d. real random variables with zero mean, are there hypothesis such that $$\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_i a_j X_{i,j} \to 0 \quad\text{(at least in probabability) as }\,n\to\infty \;?$$

Edited after Igor Rivin's comment.

-

## closed as off-topic by Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, Stefan Kohl, Ryan Budney, Andrey Rekalo, Boris BukhApr 30 '14 at 19:16

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "MathOverflow is for mathematicians to ask each other questions about their research. See Math.StackExchange to ask general questions in mathematics." – Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, Stefan Kohl, Ryan Budney, Andrey Rekalo, Boris Bukh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The double indexing does not really appear to be relevant, what is relevant is that you have $n^2$ variables, but you are normalizing by $1/n,$ so the variances of your variables better go to zero. How they should go to zero can be found in G/K, or in Feller, v. 2. – Igor Rivin Apr 28 '14 at 14:47
Oh sorry! The normalization is wrong, I should put $1/n^2$ – user118866 Apr 30 '14 at 16:10