Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

Finite-window homogeneous Poisson construction and ordered event-time density

Statement

Let T>0, θ>0, and let S=(0,T] carry its subspace topology and Borel sigma-algebra. This space is Hausdorff as a subspace of R; rational intervals give a countable base; and each x∈S has a compact neighborhood [x−δ,x+δ]∩S for some 0<δ<x. Let ℓ be Lebesgue measure restricted to S. There exists a Poisson point process on S with intensity measure νθ(B)=θℓ(B). Its total count is finite almost surely, its event times have no ties almost surely, and for every integer m≥0 the joint density of the ordered event times 0<t1<⋯<tm≤T,N(S)=m, with respect to m-dimensional Lebesgue measure on the ordered simplex is e−θTθm. For m>0, conditional on N(S)=m, the ordered event times have density m!/Tm. For m=0 the empty-pattern probability is e−θT.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, T>0, θ>0, and the Borel time interval S=(0,T] with its usual topology.

[F1]

For finite λ>0, the scalar Poisson law has masses e−λλk/k!, these masses sum to one, and its mean is λ; at λ=0 it is concentrated at zero. (The scalar Poisson count law, Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law)

[F3]

Finite products of probability measures exist, satisfy the rectangle product formula, and are unique among measures with that formula. (For sigma-finite factors, the product measure exists, has the rectangle formula, is sigma-finite, and is unique)

[F4]

A countable nonnegative weighted sum of measures is a measure. (Nonnegative scalar multiples and countable weighted sums of measures are measures)

[F5]

A point process is Poisson with intensity ν when every finite pairwise-disjoint Borel family has independent Poisson counts with means ν(B). (Poisson and Cox point processes)

[F7]

For a nonnegative product-measurable function, Tonelli permits iterated integration. (Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product)

[F8]

A point process on a locally compact, second-countable Hausdorff Borel space is a measurable random locally finite counting measure, with measurability tested by its evaluation maps. (Random measures and locally finite point processes)

Proof

1.1A1F1F2F3F4F6F8givenconstruct

Put λ=θT and let Q=ℓ/T, a probability measure on S by [A1] and [F2]. For each n≥0, use the finite product probability Q⊗n on Sn; for n=0, S0 is the singleton empty tuple with unit mass. Form the countable disjoint union Ω=∐n≥0({n}×Sn) with the sigma-algebra whose sections in each component are product-measurable. Put pn=e−λλn/n! and define P(E)=∑n≥0pnQ⊗n(En). [F1] gives ∑npn=1; [F4] makes P a probability measure. On component n, set η=∑i=1nδxi. Every evaluation η(B)=∑i=1n1B(xi) is measurable, and each realization has at most n atoms, so it is locally finite. The space S is locally compact, second countable, and Hausdorff by the displayed neighborhood and base checks; hence [F8] makes η a point process.

1.2F1F2F3F5algebra

Let B1,…,Br be disjoint Borel subsets of S, put B0=S∖⋃j=1rBj, and set qj=Q(Bj). Conditional on component n, a count vector (k0,…,kr) with sum n occurs for n!/∏j=0rkj! coordinate assignments; each assignment has probability ∏j=0rqjkj by [F3]. Multiplying by pn and summing over k0≥0 gives, for fixed k1,…,kr∈N0, P{η(Bj)=kj, 1≤j≤r}=∑k0=0∞e−λ(λq0)k0k0!∏j=1r(λqj)kjkj!=e−λ∏j=1r(λqj)kjkj!∑k0=0∞(λq0)k0k0!=∏j=1r[e−λqj(λqj)kjkj!]. Here 00=1 for zero-mass cells, and q0=1−∑j=1rqj. The exponential series evaluates the sum, and λqj=θℓ(Bj). Thus the joint count mass factors into the independent Poisson masses with means νθ(Bj); [F5] makes η a Poisson point process of intensity νθ.

2.1F1F2F3F7step 1.1step 1.2algebra∎

Conditional on component n, the coordinate vector has density T−n on Sn. For each pair i<j, the diagonal {xi=xj} is Borel; its section in coordinate xj is a singleton and has Lebesgue measure zero by [F2], so [F7] gives product measure zero. The finite union of pairwise diagonals is null. Coordinate permutations preserve the product-uniform law: they preserve the rectangle formula in [F3], and uniqueness there extends that equality from rectangles to the product sigma-algebra. Thus the n! ordering regions have equal measure and partition the cube outside the diagonals. More precisely, for every Borel C⊆Δn, the preimage of C under the Borel sorting map, off the diagonals, is the disjoint union of the n! coordinate permutations of C. Each has product-uniform probability T−nℓn(C), so sorting gives conditional density n!/Tn on the ordered simplex. Multiplying by pn=e−θT(θT)n/n! gives joint density e−θTθn. The endpoint set where any coordinate equals T has product measure zero because Q({T})=0 by [F2] and [F3]; thus the same density applies to the stated simplex with tn≤T. For n=0, the construction gives empty-pattern mass p0=e−θT. Each component has tie probability zero, and their countable mixture also has tie probability zero. This proves the event-time density and simplicity claims.

Source notes

Rasmussen derives the homogeneous Poisson event-time likelihood as a special case of the conditional-intensity formula. Kass, Eden, and Brown derive the ordered event-time density from independent Poisson increments. The local construction and diagonal-null argument provide a finite-window existence and simplicity proof.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

81 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