Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Minimum-intensity coupling of two birth-death chains

Statement

Assume Countable Choice and Dependent Choice. On EX=EY={0,1,2}, let both chains have birth increment +1 and death increment −1. Set a+X(x)=2−x,a−X(x)=x,a+Y(y)=2−y,a−Y(y)=2y. Starting from (1,1) and using unlimited candidate budget, the minimum-intensity coupling has at the first paired event three possibilities, each at rate 1: shared birth to (2,2), shared death to (0,0), or Y-only death to (1,0). Thus its uncensored first paired-event time is Exp⁡(3) and each possibility has probability 1/3; a finite-horizon call records it only when it occurs before the horizon. The coordinate path marginals remain the exact X and Y reaction laws.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)), Dependent Choice (The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain), the two finite-state birth-death systems, initial pair (1,1), and the minimum-intensity coupling with unlimited candidate budget.

[F1]

The propensity definition requires active poststates to lie in the finite state set, and rates determine the reaction generator. (Finite-channel reaction propensity systems and their generator)

[F2]

The coupling constructs shared events at the minimum channel rate and residual events at the positive rate differences. (Minimum-intensity coupling of reaction networks)

[F3]

Under Countable Choice and Dependent Choice and with unlimited candidate budget, both coupled coordinate processes have the exact path laws of their respective Gillespie chains. (The minimum-intensity reaction coupling preserves both marginals)

[F4]

Under Countable Choice and Dependent Choice, for a fixed state, pairwise-disjoint accepted mark sets with product-measurable time-mark regions and total measure r/M under a rate-M candidate stream give first-event survival e−rt and channel-specific event probabilities proportional to the set measures. The algorithm's event portions here are fixed intervals, so these regions are product-measurable. (Dominating thinning has the prescribed reaction law)

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1givenalgebra

For both systems, a positive birth rate occurs only at x<2 and moves to x+1∈E; a positive death rate occurs only at x>0 and moves to x−1∈E. All rates are nonnegative and finite, so [F1] gives valid finite-state systems.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

At (1,1) the birth rates are 1,1, hence [F2] gives shared birth rate 1. The death rates are 1,2, hence shared death rate 1 and Y-only death rate 1; the X-only death rate is 0. There are no other event types, so the total paired-event rate is 3.

3.1F2F4step 2.1algebra

The algorithm's birth envelope is M+=max⁡{max⁡xa+X(x),max⁡ya+Y(y)}=2, and its death envelope is M−=max⁡{max⁡xa−X(x),max⁡ya−Y(y)}=4, so the total candidate rate is M=M++M−=6. At the fixed pair (1,1) the three disjoint event-mark portions have total length 3/6; [F4] gives first-event survival e−6(3/6)t=e−3t and assigns each equal-length portion probability 1/3 conditional on an event. Their state updates are respectively (2,2), (0,0), and (1,0).

4.1F1F3step 1.1step 3.1given∎

The marginal theorem [F3] applies because the budget is unlimited and the finite rates supply the bounds M+=2 and M−=4. It identifies each coordinate path with its own Gillespie reaction law, completing the example.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

38 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