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.
Matrix Chapman–Kolmogorov equations
Statement
For and in countable ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A countable state space , a probability kernel on , , and .
Iterated kernels start with and satisfy . Iterated transition kernels
Kernel composition is defined by . Composition of probability kernels
Kernel composition is associative at each source point and measurable set. Kernel composition is well defined and associative
A measure on a countable discrete space is determined by its singleton weights and is their weighted sum. Every measure on a countable discrete space is its weighted sum of Dirac measures
An increasing sequence of nonnegative measurable functions passes to the limit under the integral. Monotone convergence for the integral
The transition probabilities are . Transition matrices and n-step probabilities
Proof
For all , . For , the composition formula in [F2] and in [F1] give . If the identity holds at , then [F1] and associativity [F3] give
Induction proves the kernel identity. [F1, F2, F3, given, induction]
Apply step 1.1 to the singleton . By [F2] and [F6], . The integrand is measurable and between zero and one because is a probability kernel, so the integral is defined.
If is finite, list it without repetition as ; if it is countably infinite, fix a bijection . Let in the finite case and in the infinite case, and set . These finite-support functions increase pointwise to and are constant once in the finite case. By [F4], the singleton weights of are ; [F5] therefore gives . Combining with step 2.1 proves the formula, with the nonnegative series interpreted by its finite partial sums.
If , the row leaves only the term ; if , leaves only . When , both sides are . Thus the zero-time endpoints, including the one-state and deterministic cases, agree. If , there are no and the assertion is vacuous. The proof uses kernel algebra and nonnegative sums only; no AC or conditional-probability version enters.
Depends on
Used by
- Higher-dimensional simple symmetric walks are transient Corollary
- Two-dimensional simple symmetric walk is recurrent Corollary
- Different classes can have different recurrence types Counterexample
- Aperiodic irreducible chain Definition
- Communicating classes in a four-state chain Example
- Laziness makes an irreducible chain aperiodic Example
- Period two on a bipartite graph Example
- Communication is an equivalence relation Lemma
- Green-kernel resolvent identity Lemma
- Period is constant on communicating classes Lemma
- Recurrence and transience are class properties Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
22 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 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Levin, Peres and Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, second edition (standard reference, not scraped)