Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

Adaptive conditional failure budgets compose by a union bound

Statement

Consider a procedure with finitely many stages j=1,…,L and a finite probability space of execution histories. Let δj≥0 for every stage, and let Fj be the event that stage j is the first failing stage. If, after every successful history of positive probability that reaches stage j, the conditional probability of failure at stage j is at most δj, then P(some stage fails)≤∑j=1Lδj. No independence hypothesis is required. If r fresh trials are mutually independent and each succeeds with probability at least p∈[0,1], their miss probability is at most (1−p)r≤e−pr. For a common success probability p>0, the expected number of trials capped at r is [1−(1−p)r]/p, which tends to 1/p as r→∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite staged procedure and its conditional failure bounds.

[F1]

Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities: event probabilities are sums of weights in a finite probability space.

[F2]

Normalization, nonnegativity, monotonicity, complements, and differences in a finite probability space: probabilities are nonnegative, and probabilities of disjoint events add.

[F3]

Pairwise and mutual independence of finite-valued random variables: events determined by distinct members of a mutually independent family factor.

[F4]

1+x≤exp⁡(x) for every real x, hence (1−p)m≤exp⁡(−mp): for 0≤p≤1 and natural r, (1−p)r≤e−pr.

Proof

1.1givenF1construct

The stage-failure events are part of the given execution model. The events F1,…,FL are pairwise disjoint: one execution cannot have two different first failing stages. Their union is exactly the event that some stage fails, because every failing finite history has a least index at which failure first occurs.

1.2givenF3F4algebra

For r mutually independent trials with failure events Ej, [F3] gives P(⋂j=1rEj)=∏j=1rP(Ej)≤(1−p)r. Apply [F4] to obtain the stated exponential bound, including p=0 and p=1.

2.1step 1.1F1F2algebra

For fixed j, partition Fj by the finite successful histories h that reach stage j. For each such history, the hypothesis gives P(Fj∣h)≤δj; histories of probability zero contribute zero. Summing the conditional probabilities weighted by P(h) gives P(Fj)≤δjP(stage j is reached successfully)≤δj. By [F2] and step 1.1, P(⋃jFj)=∑jP(Fj)≤∑jδj.

3.1givenF1step 1.2algebra∎

Let Tr be the number of trials used by the capped repeat-until-success procedure, with Tr=r if all r trials fail. For 1≤j≤r, {Tr≥j} is the event that the first j−1 trials fail, so P(Tr≥j)=(1−p)j−1. For a finite nonnegative integer-valued variable, E[Tr]=∑j=1rP(Tr≥j) by summing its finite outcome weights; hence for p>0 the finite geometric sum is [1−(1−p)r]/p. By step 1.2, (1−p)r→0 as r→∞, so this capped expectation tends to 1/p.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

27 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