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.
Every transition matrix on a nonempty finite state space has a stationary distribution
Statement
Let be a nonempty finite set and let be a transition matrix on (Transition matrices and n-step probabilities). Then has an invariant probability distribution (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel), that is, some probability vector on satisfies . No irreducibility, aperiodicity or recurrence hypothesis is needed, and the argument uses no choice principle and no Markov-chain path law.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A nonempty finite set and a transition matrix on , with for some .
The entries satisfy and for every , and the matrix powers are the -step probabilities of the iterated kernel; the finite sums over are ordinary finite sums. (Transition matrices and n-step probabilities)
On a countable state space with transition matrix , a probability vector is invariant exactly when for every ; a finite set is countable. (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel)
Every bounded sequence of reals has a convergent subsequence: there is a strictly increasing and a real with . (Bolzano-Weierstrass: every bounded real sequence has a convergent subsequence)
Proof
Given: A nonempty finite set with and a transition matrix on .
Proof technique: Cesàro-average a single point mass in the compact finite simplex and pass to a convergent subsequence, using the exact telescoping identity for the drift.
Fix the state and let be its point mass. For every define the row vector where is the -th matrix power. Its entries are finite nonnegative sums of products of the entries of , hence for every ; and using [F1] twice, , since a point mass is a probability vector and rows of every sum to one. So every lies in .
For every the exact telescoping identity holds coordinatewise as an identity of finite real sums, its entries being differences of numbers in , so no infinite sum is rearranged.
There is a strictly increasing sequence and a vector such that for every . Enumerate and argue by induction on the number of coordinates already handled: the -th coordinate sequence along the subsequence produced so far is bounded in , so [F3] supplies a further strictly increasing subsequence on which it converges; after finitely many successive subsequence choices, every coordinate converges. Finite induction on these existential choices requires no choice axiom.
Consequently coordinatewise as : each entry of has absolute value at most , since every entry of and of lies in .
The limit is a probability vector: for every because a limit of nonnegative numbers is nonnegative; and because a finite sum of convergent sequences converges to the sum of the limits, applied to the constant sums from step 2.1 and step 1.1.
Passing to the subsequence of step 2.1, coordinatewise and hence coordinatewise, because each entry of the finite matrix product is a finite sum of finitely many convergent sequences. By step 2.2 the left side of tends to along , so , that is, .
By step 3.1, is a probability vector and by step 3.2 it satisfies ; [F2] then identifies it as an invariant probability distribution for . The state space was required nonempty so that exists; the empty matrix has no probability vector, so is excluded by the hypothesis. If , then and is invariant, consistent with the construction. The argument uses only finite enumerations, finite sums and the subsequence theorem; no irreducibility, aperiodicity, recurrence, product-space path law or choice principle is used, and the conclusion is a one-way existence assertion rather than an equivalence.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
13 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, §5.5, existence of stationary distributions by Cesàro averaging (standard reference, not scraped)
- Aldous–Chewi, Probability Theory, Lectures 13–15 (standard reference, not scraped)