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.

Uniform ergodicity bounds the uniform-mixing coefficient

Statement

Assume AC. Let (Xk)k≥0 be a stationary time-homogeneous Markov chain with invariant probability π. If for constants C<∞ and r∈(0,1) sup⁡x∈X∥Pn(x,⋅)−π∥TV≤Crn(n≥1), then the uniform-mixing coefficient satisfies ϕX(n)≤Crn(n≥1).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, a stationary homogeneous Markov chain with kernel P and invariant probability π, and the displayed uniform rate.

[A1]

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

[F1]

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

[F2]

For every bounded product-measurable future-path functional H, the conditional expectation of its value on (Xn,Xn+1,…) is a measurable function of Xn. (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)

Proof

1.1A1F2F3F5given

Fix n≥1, j≥0, A∈Fj with P(A)>0, and B∈σ(Xj+n,Xj+n+1,…). By [F2], there is measurable h:X→[0,1] with E[1B∣Fj+n]=h(Xj+n). By [F3] and [F5], P(B∣A)=E[Pnh(Xj)∣A]. Stationarity gives P(B)=π(h).

1.2F4constructgiven

For probability measures μ,ν and measurable 0≤h≤1, the dyadic simple functions hm=2−m∑j=12m1{h≥j2−m} differ from h by at most 2−m. Their integrals differ by at most ∥μ−ν∥TV, since each summand is an indicator and [F4] bounds its measure difference. Letting m→∞ gives ∣μ(h)−ν(h)∣≤∥μ−ν∥TV. Applying this with μ=Pn(x,⋅) and ν=π proves ∣Pnh(x)−π(h)∣≤Crn for every x.

2.1F1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Averaging the pointwise bound of step 1.2 conditionally on A in step 1.1 gives ∣P(B∣A)−P(B)∣≤Crn. Taking the supremum in [F1] proves the result.

Source notes

Uniform total-variation convergence controls every conditional future event uniformly over the current state. No moment assumption on the observable is used in this mixing-coefficient bound.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

35 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