Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

Operational capacity formula for a finite DMC

Statement

For every finite DMC W with no input-cost constraint, Cav(W)=Cmax⁡(W)=C(W)=max⁡PXI(PX;W), with rates and mutual information measured in nats per channel use.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite DMC W with finite nonempty input and output alphabets.

[F1]

Average-error and maximal-error DMC capacities: Cav and Cmax⁡ are the suprema of rates achievable with vanishing average and maximal error, respectively.

[F3]

Reliable average-error DMC rates do not exceed capacity: any vanishing-average-error code sequence has limsup rate at most C(W).

[F4]

Random coding achieves every rate below finite DMC capacity: every 0≤R<C(W) is achievable with vanishing average error.

[F5]

Expurgation converts small average error to small maximal error: each code can be replaced by a subcode with rate loss at most ln⁡2/n and maximal error at most twice its average error.

[F6]

Finite mutual information and Finite KL divergence is nonnegative with equality exactly at equal laws: mutual information is a finite KL divergence and is nonnegative, so C(W)≥0.

[F7]

Finite discrete memoryless channels and Fixed-length codes for a finite DMC and Average and maximal error of a fixed-length code: the nonempty input alphabet supplies one input word, and decoding every output to the sole message gives a one-message code with rate zero and zero error.

Proof

1.1F1F3givenalgebra

A maximal-error reliable sequence is also average-error reliable because εav≤εmax⁡. Thus [F3] gives Cmax⁡(W)≤Cav(W)≤C(W).

1.2F1F2F4F6F7algebra

By [F4], every 0≤R<C(W) is average-error achievable, so Cav(W)≥C(W) after taking the supremum when C(W)>0. If C(W)=0, [F7] gives Cav(W)≥0. The case split is exhaustive by [F6]; in either case Cav(W)=C(W).

2.1F1F4F5F6F7step 1.1algebra∎

If C(W)>0, fix any 0≤R<C(W). By [F4] there is an average-error reliable sequence at rate at least R. Apply [F5] to each code: the maximal errors tend to zero and the log message count loses at most ln⁡2 at blocklength n, so the resulting rate is still at least R in the limit. Thus Cmax⁡(W)≥R for every such R, and hence Cmax⁡(W)≥C(W). If C(W)=0, [F7] gives Cmax⁡(W)≥0=C(W). The cases are exhaustive by [F6], and step 1.1 gives equality.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

30 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