A frequency distribution Fn(x) converges to a limiting frequency
distribution of the type
, and n [ 1 - F (x)] converges
to a W-function of the type W1 (a,x) if and only if, for all
values of k > 0,
| |
(46) |
Proof: Suppose first that Eq. (46) is true.
It will be demonstrated that
is of the
type W1 (a,x). By Eq. (46), F(x) < 1 for all
finite x. Assume the contrary. Then, F(x0) = 1 for some
finite x = x0. But then,

which contradicts Eq. (46). It follows that for n sufficiently large, the value of x satisfying
![]()
will be positive. Let an be the smallest value of x (see Theorem 12) satisfying the inequalities
| |
(47) |
In Eq. (46), let x be replaced by an x and
. Then,
| |
(48) |
Similarly, replace x by an x and let
. Then,
| |
(49) |
The left-hand members of Eq. (48) and
(49) are monotonic functions of
, and the
right-hand terms are continuous functions of
. Then, by
Theorem 10, the convergence in both
Eqs. (48) and (49) is uniform. Hence
[Rudin (1953), pp. 119-120],
![]() |
(50) |
![]() |
(51) |
Now, by definition of an (see Eq. (47)),
![]()
and so
| |
(52) |
In the limit as
, because of Eqs. (50) and
(51), it follows that (52) becomes
![]()
Then, by Theorem 7,
![]()
The above development was based on the supposition that x > 0, and hence is true for all x > 0. But then,

since
![]()
This proves the sufficiency of Eq. (46).
Now, suppose that Fn(x) converges to a limiting frequency
distribution of the type
. By Theorem 7, this
is the same as supposing that n [1-F(x)] converges to a W-function
of the type W1 (a,x). Hence, there exists a sequence of constants
an > 0, bn,
, such that
![]() |
(53) |
For all constants
and x > 0,
| |
(54) |
In the subsequent proof, the following convention will be used. Let B be any positive real number. [B] will be taken to represent the largest integer which is less than or equal to B. Furthermore, (B) will be defined as (B) = B-[B]. Using this notation, we can express Eq. (54) as
| |
(55) |
Now, since
for x > 0, it
follows that
. Hence, since
,
![]()
Eq. (55) becomes
| |
(56) |
Set
in Eq. (56). This yields
| |
(57) |
Since z is a positive real number, the relationship expressed in Eq. (57) is still true if z is replaced with x to give
| |
(58) |
The sequence
,
is a subsequence of
the positive integers. Hence, by Eq. (53),
| |
(59) |
If Eqs. (58) and 59) are
simultaneously true, which they are, Theorem 2
requires that as
,
![]()
Hence, as
,
| |
(60) |
A subsequence of
will be chosen in the following way.
Let n be any fixed integer and define the sequence
by the
relationships
![\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}
{r@{~}c@{~}l}
n_1 & = & [n\beta], \\ n_2 & = &...
...\beta], \\ & \cdots & \\ n_s & = & [n_{s-1} \beta].\end{array}\end{displaymath}](img530.gif)
Now, by Theorem 2,
and
can be defined as
![]()
without affecting the validity of Eq. (59). Suppose that this change of definition is made. Then,
![]() |
(61) |
It follows that
![]()
Then, by Theorem 2, the constants a'ns = ans and b'ns = 0 still give the convergence in Eq. (59). This relationship becomes (deleting the primes)
| |
(62) |
By Eq. (61),
as
.Hence, for any value of y sufficiently large, there exists an s
value such that for any positive x,
![]()
Then, by the monotonic properties of F(x),
![]()
and for k > 0,
![]()
From these two inequalities, it results that
| |
(63) |
By definition of ns,
![]()
where
. As a consequence,
| |
(64) |
![]()
or in the limit as
,
![]()
But, since
was arbitrary,
, it follows that
can be chosen as close to 1.0 as is wished. Hence,
![]()
The change from
to
is permissible since
![]()
and for any fixed x,
as
with
.