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.
Typical-set probability and cardinality bounds
Statement
For a finite-alphabet IID source and , let be its typical set and . Then In particular .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite-alphabet IID source, its entropy and surprisal variance , and .
Information density and typical sets for a finite source: consists of positive-probability sequences satisfying .
Proof
Given: The source and in the Statement.
If , [F1] gives . Summing these probabilities over and using total mass one yields , proving the upper bound.
The other side of [F1] gives for each typical sequence. Hence ; rearranging and using proves the lower bound.
The complement of the typical set is contained in , so [F2] bounds by . This tends to zero, including when .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
9 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.
Sources
- Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed., Chapter 3, §3.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- MIT OpenCourseWare 6.441 Information Theory, Spring 2010, Lecture 3: AEP and typical sets (standard reference, not scraped)