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

Stationary Markov-chain total-variation convergence implies strong mixing

Statement

Assume AC. Let (X,X) have a supplied countable algebra C generating X, and let (Xk)k≥0 be a stationary time-homogeneous Markov chain with invariant probability π. If ∥Pn(x,⋅)−π∥TV⟶0for π-almost every x, then its stationary output process is strongly mixing: αX(n)⟶0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, the countable generating algebra C, a stationary homogeneous P-chain with invariant law π, and the stated π-almost-everywhere total-variation convergence.

[A1]

AC is the choice principle for the conditional classes used by the Markov-chain interfaces. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

The strong-mixing coefficient is the supremum of ∣P(A∩B)−P(A)P(B)∣ over past and separated future events. (Strong, uniform, and maximal-correlation mixing coefficients)

[F2]

The bounded-future-path Markov property gives a measurable function of the present state for a bounded future-path functional. (Markov property for bounded future path functionals)

[F3]

For bounded measurable h, E[h(Xj+n)∣Fj]=Pnh(Xj). (Chapman-Kolmogorov equations)

[F4]

Total variation is ∥μ−ν∥TV=sup⁡A∣μ(A)−ν(A)∣. (Total variation distance for probability laws)

[F5]

A known measurable factor can be taken out of conditional expectation. (Taking out what is known)

[F6]

Increasing measurable sets have increasing measures converging to the measure of their union, and symmetric differences satisfy measure subadditivity. (Continuity from below for measures, Measure of a set difference when the smaller set has finite measure)

[F7]

Dominated convergence applies to measurable functions bounded by an integrable majorant. (Dominated convergence)

[F8]

Kernel integration makes x↦Pnh(x) measurable for bounded measurable h, in particular x↦Pn(x,C) for measurable C. (Measure kernel and probability kernel, Iterated transition kernels, Measurability of integration against a kernel)

Proof

1.1A1F2F3given

Fix n≥1, j≥0, A∈Fj, and B∈σ(Xj+n,Xj+n+1,…). By [F2], the indicator of this future-path event has conditional expectation h(Xj+n) for a measurable 0≤h≤1. Applying [F3] and the tower property gives E[1B∣Fj]=Pnh(Xj). Stationarity gives P(B)=π(h).

1.2F4construct

For probability measures μ,ν and measurable 0≤h≤1, the dyadic simple approximation hm=2−m∑r=12m1{h≥r2−m} differs from h by at most 2−m. Each indicator integral difference is bounded by [F4], so the integrals of hm differ by at most ∥μ−ν∥TV. Letting m→∞ gives ∣μ(h)−ν(h)∣≤∥μ−ν∥TV.

1.3F4F6F8given

For fixed n and x, μn,x:=Pn(x,⋅)+π is a finite measure. Let D be the sets approximable in μn,x-symmetric-difference measure by members of C. It contains C and is closed under complements because C is an algebra. For Ai∈D and ε>0, [F6] gives N≥1 with μn,x((⋃iAi)∖(⋃i=1NAi))<ε/2. Choose Ci∈C with μn,x(Ai△Ci)<ε/(2N) for i≤N. The finite union C=⋃i=1NCi belongs to C and μn,x((⋃iAi)△C)<ε by finite subadditivity. Thus D is a sigma-algebra containing the generator C, so D=X. Approximating each measurable A in this way shows dn(x):=sup⁡C∈C∣Pn(x,C)−π(C)∣=∥Pn(x,⋅)−π∥TV: the discrepancy for A differs from that for an approximating C by at most Pn(x,A△C)+π(A△C). Since C is countable and each evaluation is measurable by [F8], dn is measurable; also 0≤dn≤1.

2.1F1F2F5F7step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3given∎

Using [F5] and step 1.1, ∣P(A∩B)−P(A)P(B)∣≤E∣Pnh(Xj)−π(h)∣≤∫dn(x) π(dx). The last inequality follows from step 1.2 applied pointwise to Pn(x,⋅) and π, and then from step 1.3. By hypothesis dn(x)→0 for π-almost every x; since dn≤1, [F7] makes the integral tend to zero. This bound is independent of j,A,B, so taking the supremum in [F1] proves αX(n)→0.

Source notes

The proof uses the supplied countable algebra to make the total-variation supremum a measurable function of the starting state. The bound on the strong-mixing coefficient then follows by dominated convergence.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

56 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