Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-sol)audited 2026-09-30
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.

Bounded Dirichlet problem for hitting probabilities

Statement

Assume AC (The Axiom of Choice). Let X be a Markov chain with transition kernel K on an at most countable state space E and transition matrix p(x,y)=K(x,{y}). If E=∅, the assertion is vacuous. For A⊆E, suppose Px(TA<∞)=1 for every x∈E. For bounded real boundary data f:A→R, define the payoff before any random-time evaluation by FA={f(XTA),TA<∞,0,TA=∞,u(x):=ExFA. Then u is the unique bounded v:E→R satisfying v=f on A,v=Pv on Ac, where for bounded real q, Pq(x):=∑y∈Ep(x,y)q(y) is absolutely convergent. In particular, the almost-sure hitting hypothesis holds when E is finite, p is irreducible, and A is nonempty. For f≡1 on A, u(x)=Px(TA<∞).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; a Markov chain on an at most countable discrete state space with transition matrix p; a set A⊆E; bounded real data f on A; and Px(TA<∞)=1 for every deterministic start x.

[A1]

AC is the axiom that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; the canonical chain-law and conditional-expectation Markov interfaces below assume it. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

The transition probabilities satisfy p(x,y)=K(x,{y}) and every kernel row is a probability measure; in particular its singleton weights sum to one. (Transition matrices and n-step probabilities)

[F2]

TA=inf⁡{n≥0:Xn∈A}, with {TA≤n}=⋃j=0n{Xj∈A}; hence TA is a stopping time and Xn∧TA is defined for finite n. (Hitting, return, and visit times)

[F3]

Under the deterministic start, Px=Pδx, Ex is its expectation, and X0=x almost surely. (Initial distribution of a Markov chain)

[F4]

For bounded measurable q, E[q(Xn+1)∣Fn]=Kq(Xn)a.s.,Kq(x):=∫Eq(y)K(x,dy). (Bounded-function form of the Markov property)

[F5]

For bounded product-measurable path functionals H, h(x):=ExH(X0,X1,…) is measurable and E[H(Xn,Xn+1,…)∣Fn]=h(Xn)a.s. (Markov property for bounded future path functionals)

[F6]

On bounded real functions, Pq(x)=∑yp(x,y)q(y); the series is absolutely convergent since ∑yp(x,y)=1. (Discrete generator of a countable-state transition matrix)

[F7]

A nonnegative function with finite range is simple; its simple integral is the finite sum of its values times the measures of its disjoint level sets, and this equals its nonnegative Lebesgue integral. (Nonnegative simple measurable functions, The integral of a nonnegative simple function, The nonnegative integral agrees with the simple integral on simple functions)

[F8]

For an integrable real q, its integral is ∫q dμ=∫q+ dμ−∫q− dμ. (Integrable real and complex functions, and their integrals)

[F9]

Dominated convergence passes limits through integrals when the functions converge almost everywhere and are bounded by one integrable majorant. (Dominated convergence)

[F10]

Conditional expectation preserves order and constants and satisfies E(E[Y∣G])=EY for integrable real Y. (Basic algebra and order properties of conditional expectation)

[F11]

If E is finite, p is irreducible, and A is nonempty, there are m≥1 and ε∈(0,1) such that Px(TA>km)≤(1−ε)k for every x and k≥0. (Geometric tail for hitting in a finite irreducible chain)

Source scope

LPW Proposition 9.1 and its proof [S1] give context for the boundary-payoff construction and the first-step decomposition. Its uniqueness argument uses a global maximum, and its displayed assumptions do not supply the almost-sure boundary-hit and bounded-data hypotheses used here; that argument is not invoked for the countable bounded result. Roch Theorem 24.4 [S2] proves the first-step equations for bounded nonnegative exit data on a proper domain. The bounded real-data equations and the uniqueness statement below are derived locally under the stated almost-sure hitting assumption.

Proof

Proof technique: establish the bounded row-integral identity by finite support truncations, derive the boundary and harmonic equations from bounded Markov identities, and identify every bounded solution by a stopped martingale and dominated convergence.

1.1F1F6F7F8F9given

Fix x∈E and a bounded real q:E→R, with ∣q∣≤M. Take an increasing sequence of finite sets Ej↑E (eventually Ej=E if E is finite) and put qj=q1Ej. The positive and negative parts of qj are finite-range nonnegative simple functions. By [F1], [F7] and [F8], Kqj(x)=∫Eqj dK(x,⋅)=∑y∈Ejp(x,y)q(y). The constant M is integrable for the probability measure K(x,⋅), so [F9] gives Kqj(x)→Kq(x). Also ∑yp(x,y)∣q(y)∣≤M∑yp(x,y)=M by [F1], so the finite sums converge to the absolutely convergent row sum Pq(x) from [F6]. Therefore Kq(x)=Pq(x). This identity holds for every bounded real q and each row; no positivity of the individual entries beyond being transition weights is required.

2.1F2F3F4F5F10step 1.1given

Choose M<∞ with ∣f(a)∣≤M on A, extend f by zero off A, and define H(ω) to be f(ωTA(ω)) when the first-hit time of A is finite, and zero otherwise. Each event that the first hit is at time n is cylinder-measurable; H is the pointwise limit of its finite sums over these disjoint events, so it is product-measurable and ∣H∣≤M. By [F5], h(x):=ExH(X0,X1,…) is measurable; [F10] gives ∣h(x)∣≤M. The payoff in the Statement equals H(X0,X1,…) pathwise, including its zero value on nonhit paths, so h=u. If x∈A, [F2] and [F3] give TA=0 and h(x)=f(x). If x∉A, deleting the first coordinate does not change H, including when the path never hits A. Thus [F5] at time 1 and [F10] give h(x)=ExH(X1,X2,…)=Exh(X1). Apply [F4] at time 0 to the bounded function h, use [F3] and [F10] to take expectations, and then use step 1.1 to obtain u(x)=h(x)=Kh(x)=Ph(x)=Pu(x). This proves existence and both equations.

2.2F2F3F4F9F10step 1.1given

Let v:E→R be any bounded solution of the stated boundary and harmonic equations, fix x∈E, set T=TA, and define Yn=v(Xn∧T). By [F2] this is adapted, and it is bounded by ∥v∥∞. On {T≤n}, Yn+1=Yn; on {T>n}, Xn∈Ac and Yn+1=v(Xn+1). The one-step identity [F4], the row identity in step 1.1, and v=Pv on Ac imply Ex[Yn+1∣Fn]=Yna.s. Consequently Yn is a bounded martingale and [F3], [F10] give ExYn=v(x) for every n. The hypothesis makes T<∞ Px-almost surely, so eventually Yn=v(XT)=f(XT)=FA almost surely. Since ∣Yn∣≤∥v∥∞ is an integrable majorant, [F9] yields v(x)=lim⁡nExYn=ExFA=u(x). As x was arbitrary, every bounded solution equals u; this proves uniqueness.

3.1F3F11step 2.1step 2.2given

If E is finite, p is irreducible and A≠∅, [F11] gives Px(TA=∞)≤Px(TA>km)≤(1−ε)k⟶0, so the almost-sure hitting hypothesis holds for every start. The preceding steps give the finite irreducible instance. When f≡1 on A, the pathwise payoff is 1{TA<∞}, hence its expectation is the hitting probability; under the theorem's hypothesis it equals 1.

4.1A1F1F2F3F4F5F6F10F11step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1given∎

If E=∅, there is no state or deterministic-start law and all assertions are vacuous. If E≠∅ and A=∅, then TA=∞ everywhere, contradicting the hypothesis; thus every nonvacuous instance has A≠∅. If A=E, then TA=0, the boundary equation determines u and every solution directly. For a one-state chain these are the only admissible cases. If f=0, then H=u=0 and the uniqueness proof still applies. Deterministic rows are covered by the row identity and the same martingale calculation; a finite irreducible deterministic chain reaches every nonempty A by the finite-tail argument. The endpoint TA=0 is handled in step 2.1, while a first hit at time 1 is included in the shifted-path and stopped-process identities in steps 2.1 and 2.2. AC [A1] is used through the canonical chain laws and conditional-expectation Markov identities [F4], [F5] and [F10]; choosing one enumeration of a countable E adds no family-wise choice. The equations and uniqueness claim are not an iff statement.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

50 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