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

A pair-correlation density integrates to Ripley K

Statement

Assume AC and Countable Choice as carried by the point-process and Palm suppliers. Let η be a stationary locally square-integrable point process on Rd with intensity ρ>0, and suppose its pair-correlation density g exists in the sense of Pair-correlation density and Ripley K-function. Then, for every r≥0,

K(r)=∫B[0,r]g(u) du.

For a simple process, the same K-function also satisfies K(r)=ρ−1E0[μ(B[0,r]∖{0})].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, Countable Choice, the stationary locally square-integrable point process, its full Palm law, and the assumed density g.

[A1]

AC is inherited through the transitive point-process dependencies; no additional selection is made. (The Axiom of Choice)

[A2]

Countable Choice is inherited through the point-process and Palm dependencies. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

[F1]

K(r)=ρ−1∫(μ−δ0)(B[0,r])P0(dμ), and a pair-correlation density satisfies αred(2)(D)=ρ2∫Dg(u)du. (Pair-correlation density and Ripley K-function)

[F2]

αred(2)(D)=ρ∫(μ−δ0)(D)P0(dμ), deleting one distinguished occurrence. (The reduced second factorial moment measure is the Palm expectation after one-occurrence deletion)

[F3]

The full Palm law satisfies the refined Campbell identity for every nonnegative product-measurable integrand and is supported on configurations with at least one occurrence at zero. (Existence and uniqueness of the full Palm law and the refined Campbell identity)

[F4]

A configuration is simple when every location has multiplicity at most one. Here a simple process means a process whose configurations are simple on a probability-one measurable event. (Random measures and locally finite point processes)

Proof

Given: AC, Countable Choice, the definitions in [F1], the reduced Palm identity, and the density hypothesis.

1.1F1F2algebra

Apply [F2] with D=B[0,r] and divide by ρ2>0. By the K definition [F1], K(r)=ρ−2αred(2)(B[0,r]).

1.2F1F3F4algebra

Suppose η is simple. The event A2={μ:μ({0})≥2} is measurable by the evaluation sigma-algebra. In the refined Campbell identity [F3], take h(x,μ)=1Q(x)1A2(μ) with Q=[0,1)d. On the probability-one event of simple realizations, every counted occurrence x has (θxη)({0})=η({x})=1, so the left side is zero. The right side is ρ∣Q∣P0(A2)=ρP0(A2), hence P0(A2)=0. Combining this with the at-least-one origin property in [F3] gives μ({0})=1 P0-almost surely. Therefore (μ−δ0)(B[0,r])=μ(B[0,r]∖{0}) P0-almost surely, and the definition [F1] gives the stated simple-process formula.

2.1step 1.1F1algebra

The density clause in [F1] applied to the same closed ball gives αred(2)(B[0,r])=ρ2∫B[0,r]g(u)du. Substitution in step 1.1 proves the asserted integral formula.

3.1A1A2step 1.1step 1.2F1∎

At the endpoint r=0, the closed-ball convention gives B[0,0]={0}, so K(0)=ρ−1E0[μ({0})−1]; this is 0 for a simple process, while any other co-located occurrences contribute in the multiplicity-bearing case. The proof uses no density-existence claim beyond the stated hypothesis. AC and Countable Choice [A1]–[A2] are inherited supplier assumptions, not additional derivation steps.

Sources

Last and Penrose, Proposition 8.8, Definition 8.9, and Theorem 9.1; Baddeley, Examples 2.14 and 2.17. The absolute-continuity hypothesis is retained explicitly.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

43 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