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 stationary point process of finite intensity has mean measure rho times Lebesgue measure
Statement
Assume AC and Countable Choice, as carried by the random-point-process supplier. Let be a stationary locally finite point process on with , where . Its mean measure is
for every Borel .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, Countable Choice, a stationary point process , and .
AC is carried by the transitive point-process supplier dependencies. (The Axiom of Choice)
Countable Choice is carried by the transitive point-process supplier dependencies and is used for the Borel Lebesgue measure calculus. (The Axiom of Countable Choice ())
For a measurable random locally finite Borel measure, is a measure; all evaluations are measurable. (Mean measures and measurable nonnegative integrals of random measures)
Stationarity means the law is invariant under , and for . (Stationarity, finite intensity, and spatial ergodicity)
Every locally finite translation-invariant Borel measure on satisfies . (A locally finite translation-invariant Borel measure on is a multiple of Lebesgue measure)
Proof
Given: AC, Countable Choice, a stationary point process with , and its mean measure .
By [F1], is a Borel measure, and .
Let be bounded Borel. Choose an integer with . This cube is a finite disjoint union of translates , . Stationarity [F2] gives for every such . Monotonicity and finite additivity therefore give . Hence is locally finite.
For any Borel and translation , the definition of recentering gives where the third equality is stationarity [F2]. Thus is translation invariant.
Apply [F3] to the locally finite translation-invariant measure . Since by step 1.1, it follows that for every Borel . This is the claimed mean-measure formula.
Sources
Last and Penrose, Chapter 8, §8.1 and Proposition 8.2; Baddeley, Lecture 2, §2.4. The proof checks the mean-measure hypotheses locally.
Depends on
- Stationarity, finite intensity, and spatial ergodicity
- A locally finite translation-invariant Borel measure on $\mathbb R^d$ is a multiple of Lebesgue measure
- Mean measures and measurable nonnegative integrals of random measures
- Measures on sigma-algebras
- The Axiom of Choice
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
Used by
- Pair-correlation density and Ripley K-function Definition
- A translated lattice exposes recentering, atomic pair measures, and one-occurrence deletion Example
- Existence and uniqueness of the full Palm law and the refined Campbell identity Theorem
- Ripley K for a homogeneous Poisson process is Euclidean ball volume Theorem
- Spatial ergodic limit for counts in dilates of a convex window Theorem
- The reduced second factorial moment measure is the Palm expectation after one-occurrence deletion Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
21 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
- Günter Last and Mathew Penrose, Lectures on the Poisson Process (2017 author-hosted version) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Adrian Baddeley, Spatial Point Processes and their Applications (standard reference, not scraped)