How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A stationary sticky chain with finite variance and no root-n CLT
Statement refuted
Finite variance of a centered observable alone guarantees a root- central limit theorem for every stationary Markov chain.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A two-state measurable space, a transition kernel, an initial law, and a real observable.
AC is used by the library's Markov-chain law/stationarity convention. (The Axiom of Choice)
A stationary distribution is an invariant probability for the transition kernel. (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel)
An invariant initial law makes the Markov chain strictly stationary. (Invariant initial law makes a Markov chain stationary)
Variance is the centered second moment. (Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space)
Convergence in distribution requires convergence of distribution functions at every continuity point of the limiting law. (Convergence in distribution for real random variables)
-irreducibility requires every -positive set to be reachable from every state; Harris recurrence strengthens this to almost-sure hitting from every state. (Phi-irreducibility for a general-state Markov kernel, Harris recurrence relative to an irreducibility measure)
Counterexample
Let , , and let . The identity kernel leaves invariant, so the chain initialized with is stationary by [F2]. Set and . Then and .
The transition is deterministic, hence for every and . Thus takes values with equal probabilities. For each fixed , once its distribution function at is , while any has distribution function strictly greater than at when and equal to when . Since is a continuity point of every such normal law, [F4] rules out convergence to any normal distribution.
Choose and . Then , but for every because the chain stays at . By [F5] the chain is not -irreducible and is not Harris recurrent relative to . This counterexample shows only that finite variance without an ergodicity assumption does not guarantee a root- CLT.
Depends on
- The Axiom of Choice
- Harris recurrence relative to an irreducibility measure
- Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel
- Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space
- Phi-irreducibility for a general-state Markov kernel
- Time-homogeneous Markov chain with transition kernel
- Convergence in distribution for real random variables
- Invariant initial law makes a Markov chain stationary
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
27 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.