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.
Aperiodic return times are eventually positive
Statement
Let be an irreducible aperiodic transition matrix on a nonempty countable state space (Aperiodic irreducible chain). Then every state has an integer such that Consequently, for every there is an integer such that
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An irreducible aperiodic countable transition matrix and states .
The positive return set is ; when , is the greatest positive integer dividing every element of , and when . (Period of a state)
For an irreducible matrix the periods are independent of , the period of the chain is that common value, and the chain is aperiodic exactly when this period is . (Aperiodic irreducible chain)
for all . (Matrix Chapman–Kolmogorov equations)
Accessibility means exactly when for some , with ; the matrix is irreducible when every pair communicates. (Accessibility, communication, and irreducibility)
For integers , not both zero, is the greatest common divisor of and , it is a common divisor of both, and . (Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor , with the convention )
Proof
Fix ; first, , so . If , then by row stochasticity, so . If has at least two elements, fix ; by [F4] and irreducibility there are with and , and since the zero-step entries , vanish, so . By [F3], , so . In either case is a positive integer, and [F2] gives .
A finite with as its greatest common divisor exists. Start with any and let . While : since is the greatest positive integer dividing every element of by step 1.1 and [F1], cannot divide every element of , so choose with and replace by ; then add to . By [F5] the new value is a positive common divisor of and , hence a divisor of , and it is not because ; a positive divisor of different from is strictly smaller than . The positive integers strictly decrease at each update while remaining divisors of , so the process stops after finitely many updates, and it stops only when . The resulting finite set has iterative gcd : every element of is divisible by no positive integer other than that also divides all other elements.
Let ; then and . Let be the set of nonnegative integer combinations of the elements of . Every positive element of lies in : this follows from [F1] and [F3] for sums of two return times, by induction for finite combinations, while the empty combination is and is excluded. Let be the set of residues modulo of the elements of . Since , the element has residue , so is the subgroup of generated by the residues of the elements of . If were a proper subgroup, then would be the set of multiples of modulo for some divisor of with , so would divide every ; as , the integer would then divide every element of , contradicting step 2.1. Hence , and for every residue there is with .
Put and fix . Let be the residue of modulo . Then is a nonnegative multiple of , so belongs to and . By step 3.1, . Since was arbitrary this proves the first assertion.
Fix . By irreducibility [F4] there is with . Put , where is the threshold of step 4.1 for the state . If , then , so , and [F3] gives . If this recovers the first assertion; if then .
Boundary cases. If the statement is vacuous. The aperiodicity hypothesis is equivalent to by [F2] and is used in step 2.1 to produce a smaller divisor; without it the conclusion can fail (a deterministic two-cycle has only for even ). The argument uses , ensured by irreducibility in step 1.1, and positive return times only, so the time-zero entry plays no role. All steps are finite assertions about nonnegative entries and integer combinations; no choice principle, limit or renewal theorem is used, the display for is the identity entry, and both assertions are one-way implications.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
18 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
- Durrett, Probability: Theory and Examples, fifth edition, §5.6, Lemma 5.6.5 and its proof (standard reference, not scraped)
- Aldous–Chewi, Probability Theory, Lectures 13–15 (standard reference, not scraped)