Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: 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 random-codebook covering and selected-codeword law

Statement

Let PXU=PXPU∣X be a joint law on finite nonempty alphabets, with marginal PU. Fix η>0 and a target joint-typicality tolerance ϵ>0. There are a source-typicality tolerance δ>0 and an integer n0 such that, for every n≥n0, every xn∈Tδ(n)(PX), and every R>I(X;U)+η, an iid codebook of Mn=⌈enR⌉ independent PU⊗n words contains a word in Tϵ(n)(PXU∣xn) with probability tending to one uniformly in xn. If the encoder selects the least index with a jointly typical word, then, conditional on a match, its selected word has law PU⊗n conditioned on Tϵ(n)(PXU∣xn); conditional on any particular joint type, this law is uniform on the associated conditional type class.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite joint pmf PXU, its factorization PXPU∣X, η>0, and the target tolerance ϵ>0.

[F1]

Finite strongly typical sets with support restriction: Tδ(n)(P) consists of support-restricted blocks whose empirical probabilities are within relative tolerance δ of P; the conditional set is defined by joint typicality with the fixed block.

[F2]

Finite type-class cardinality bounds: for an attainable type q on m letters, (n+1)−menH(q)≤∣Tq∣≤enH(q).

[F3]

Finite mutual information: I(X;U)=D(PXU∥PXPU), with natural logarithms and the finite support convention.

[F4]

Finite conditional entropy: H(U∣X) is the finite average of H(PU∣x) over positive-mass x.

[F5]

Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices: H(q)=−∑a:q(a)>0q(a)ln⁡q(a) with 0ln⁡0=0.

Proof

1.1F1chooseconstruct

Let ρ>0 be any desired relative accuracy for a constructed joint type. For each positive-mass x, let nx be its count in xn. Choose δ<1/2; then nx/n is within relative error δ of PX(x), so for all sufficiently large n every such nx is positive and grows linearly in n, uniformly over xn∈Tδ(n)(PX). For each row, take floors of nxPU∣X(u∣x) on its positive conditional support and distribute the fewer than ∣U∣ remaining counts among those entries; set zero-conditional-probability counts to zero. Every resulting count differs from its target by at most ∣U∣. As there are finitely many positive joint atoms, first choose δ small and then n large so that the joint type qXU(x,u)=(nx/n)qU∣X(u∣x) has relative error at most ρ on every positive atom of PXU. Zero joint atoms receive zero counts. Thus the associated conditional type class is nonempty and its joint type lies in Tρ(n)(PXU).

2.1F2F3F4F5step 1.1algebra

The conditional type class from step 1.1 has at least ∏x:PX(x)>0(nx+1)−∣U∣exp⁡(nxH(qU∣x)) words by [F2]. Every word in it has the same PU⊗n probability. Its marginal type qU is supported on supp⁡(PU), and this probability is exp⁡ ⁣(n∑u:PU(u)>0qU(u)ln⁡PU(u))=exp⁡[−n(H(qU)+D(qU∥PU))]. For any finite probability vector, each entropy summand −tln⁡t is continuous at zero because tln⁡t→0. The finite conditional-entropy sum expands as Hq(U∣X)=−∑x,u:q(x,u)>0q(x,u)ln⁡q(x,u)qX(x)=H(qXU)−H(qX). On supp⁡(PU), D(r∥PU)=∑u:PU(u)>0r(u)ln⁡r(u)−∑u:PU(u)>0r(u)ln⁡PU(u), so D(r∥PU) is continuous even when some r(u)=0. The displayed identity makes Hq(U∣X) continuous in qXU. Consequently Φ(q):=Hq(U∣X)−H(qU)−D(qU∥PU) is continuous at PXU on the simplex of laws supported by PXU, including its boundary. Expanding the finite KL sum [F3] and the entropy formulas [F4]–[F5] gives I(X;U)=H(U)−H(U∣X), so Φ(PXU)=H(U∣X)−H(U)=−I(X;U). Choose ρ<ϵ small enough that Φ(q)≥−I(X;U)−η/3 whenever q is within relative tolerance ρ of PXU. The type-class bound and the product probability then give pn(xn)≥(n+1)−∣X∣∣U∣exp⁡[−n(I(X;U)+η/3)] uniformly over xn∈Tδ(n)(PX).

3.1givenstep 2.1algebra

By independence of the codewords, the probability that none of Mn words lies in the conditional typical set is (1−pn(xn))Mn≤e−Mnpn(xn). Choose the tolerances so that the exponent in step 2.1 leaves a positive gap below R; then Mnpn(xn)→∞ uniformly, and the no-match probability tends to zero.

4.1F1constructalgebra∎

For a fixed xn, let A=Tϵ(n)(PXU∣xn). The event that index ℓ is the first successful index depends on codewords before ℓ failing and the ℓth codeword lying in A; those events are independent across codewords. Consequently, conditional on the first-success event at any ℓ, the selected word has law PU⊗n(⋅∣A), and averaging over ℓ gives the same conditional law given a match. On each joint type class inside A, the marginal type of Un is fixed, so all its words have the same product probability; the conditional law is therefore uniform on that class.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

12 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