Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-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.

Finite generator master equations and uniformization — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples check the column convention in a two-state gate, compute a finite birth-death Poisson prefix with a geometric tail certificate, and track escaped mass for a countable immigration-death chain projected to two states. A final pair of finite-state laws shows that equal deterministic mean trajectories need not specify equal probability vectors.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Two-state gating through uniformization

Example

For an off/on gate, let the rate from off to on be α≥0 and the rate from on to off be β≥0. With column probability vector (poff,pon)T and s=α+β, the generator is

Q=(−αβα−β).

Starting off, if s>0 the exact on probability is pon(t)=αs(1−e−st); if s=0 the gate remains off. The case α=0 gives no opening, while β=0 gives pon(t)=1−e−αt.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The states are off and on; the transition rates are α≥0 from off to on and β≥0 from on to off; the initial vector is eoff=(1,0)T.

[F1]

Finite column generator: the source state indexes the column, off-diagonal entries are nonnegative, and columns sum to zero.

[F2]

Finite master equation and uniformization formula: the unique master-equation solution equals the Poisson-weighted sum of Pkeoff for any admissible ν>0.

[F3]

The scalar Poisson count law and Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law: the Poisson weights sum to one and the mass at zero is e−st.

Verification

technique · compute the two-state uniformization matrix and sum its nontrivial powers
1.1givenF1algebra

The matrix Q in the Example has off-diagonal entries α,β≥0 and both columns sum to zero, so it satisfies [F1]; its exit rates are α and β.

1.2givenF1constructalgebrainduction

Suppose s>0 and choose ν=s. Then P=I+Q/s=(β/sβ/sα/sα/s). Both columns equal the probability vector v=(β/s,α/s)T. Therefore Peoff=v and Pv=v, which by induction gives Pkeoff=v for every k≥1.

2.1givenF2F3step 1.2algebra

By [F2], the on-coordinate at time t is ∑k≥1e−st(st)k(α/s)/k!. By [F3] the sum of the masses over k≥1 is 1−e−st, so pon(t)=αs(1−e−st). The off-coordinate is 1−pon(t) because the solution is a probability vector.

3.1givenF1F2step 2.1algebra∎

If s=0, nonnegativity of α,β implies α=β=0, so Q=0 and the master equation keeps eoff fixed. If s>0 and α=0, the formula gives pon=0; if β=0, it gives pon=1−e−αt. The endpoint cases agree with the stated rates.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Three-state birth-death chain with a certified Poisson tail

Example

On states 0,1,2, take birth rates 1 from 0 to 1 and from 1 to 2, and death rates 1 from 1 to 0 and 2 from 2 to 1. Starting from e0, the generator and a uniformization rate are

Q=(−1101−2201−2),ν=2.

At t=1/2, the Poisson parameter is νt=1. Truncating after K=4 gives

u4=1e(703/384277/3845/32),∥p(1/2)−u4∥1=1−6524e≤1100e.

The exact omitted-mass identity is mathematical, while the upper bound is the certified geometric tail used by the algorithm.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The three-state rates in the Example, initial vector e0=(1,0,0)T, time t=1/2, uniformization rate ν=2, and truncation index K=4.

[F1]

Finite column generator: Qij is the rate from source column j to destination row i, and a finite generator has nonnegative off-diagonal entries and zero column sums.

[F2]

Finite master equation and uniformization formula: p(t)=∑k≥0e−νt(νt)kPke0/k!.

[F3]

A geometric upper bound for a Poisson right tail: when μ<K+2, P(Pois⁡(μ)>K)≤GK(μ).

[F4]

The scalar Poisson count law and Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law: the Poisson weight at k for parameter 1 is e−1/k!, and the full set of weights sums to one.

Verification

technique · compute a finite matrix-power prefix and use the explicit geometric tail majorant
1.1givenF1algebra

The off-diagonal entries of Q are nonnegative and its columns sum to zero; its exit rates are 1,2,2. Thus [F1] holds, ν=2 dominates every exit rate, and P=I+Q/2=(1/21/201/20101/20).

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

Starting from e0, successive multiplication by this P gives Pe0=(1/2,1/2,0)T, P2e0=(1/2,1/4,1/4)T, P3e0=(3/8,1/2,1/8)T, and P4e0=(7/16,5/16,1/4)T. Each vector is obtained by multiplying the preceding vector by the displayed matrix.

3.1givenF2F4step 2.1algebra

By [F4], the first five Poisson weights at parameter 1 are e−1(1,1,1/2,1/6,1/24). Weighting the five vectors from e0 through P4e0 and adding coordinatewise gives u4=e−1(703/384,277/384,5/32)T and total retained mass 65/(24e). By normalization [F4], the exact omitted mass is 1−65/(24e)=P(Pois⁡(1)>4). This subtraction is an exact identity, not a floating-point tail-estimation rule.

4.1givenF3step 3.1algebra∎

Applying [F3] with μ=1 and K=4 gives P(Pois⁡(1)>4)≤e−1/(5!(1−1/6))=1/(100e). This upper bound is computed from a positive geometric majorant and does not use a floating-point subtraction.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Immigration-death chain projected onto two states

Example

Consider immigration at rate 1 and death at rate n from state n∈N0, starting at 0. For F={0,1}, the cemetery lift on {0,1,†} is

Q~F=(−1101−20010).

Writing the lifted law as (p0(t),p1(t),cF(t))T, the exact cemetery mass is

cF(t)=15(er+t−1r+−er−t−1r−),r±=−3±52.

It equals the probability of having exited F by time t and therefore is the exact embedded killed-vector ℓ1 error. A path can exit and return: 0→1→2→1 has positive probability for every t>0, so the full marginal at state 1 can exceed the killed projection there.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: State space E=N0, immigration rate 1, death rate n at state n, initial state 0, and finite projection F={0,1}.

[F1]

Finite-channel reaction propensity systems and their generator: a finite-channel reaction system has a countable state set, integer increments, finite propensities, and generator QV(x)=∑jaj(x)(V(x+νj)−V(x)) when that finite sum is defined.

[F2]

A proper Lyapunov bound prevents reaction-network explosion: under Countable Choice and Dependent Choice, a proper V≥1 with QV≤cV for finite c≥0 implies that the constructed reaction process is nonexplosive.

[F3]

Given countable nonexplosive pure-jump chain with finite rates: the countable chain used by the projection is already given and nonexplosive; the definition does not prove this from rates alone.

[F4]

Killed finite-state projection and cemetery lift: the killed projection stays at † after the first exit, and its finite lift adds the aggregate exit rate into the cemetery row.

[F5]

Finite master equation and uniformization formula: a finite column generator evolves the initial column law by the unique solution of p′=Qp.

[F6]

Finite-state killed projection has an exact lost-mass certificate: the cemetery mass equals the first-exit probability and the embedded killed-vector ℓ1 error.

Verification

technique · verify nonexplosion under the reaction-network Lyapunov hypotheses, then solve the finite cemetery lift
1.1givenF1algebra

The system has two channels, increments +1 and −1, and propensities a+(n)=1 and a−(n)=n; the death channel is inactive at n=0, so every positive-propensity poststate remains in N0 and the total rate 1+n is finite. Thus [F1] applies.

1.2givenF1F2F3A1algebra

Let V(n)=1+n. Its sublevel set {n:V(n)≤m} is finite for each integer m≥1, so V is proper. For n≥1, QV(n)=1(V(n+1)−V(n))+n(V(n−1)−V(n))=1−n≤1+n=V(n); at n=0 the same value QV(0)=1 satisfies this bound. Hence [F2] with c=1 and [A1] proves the immigration-death chain is nonexplosive, as required by [F3].

1.3F1F4givenalgebra

On F={0,1}, state 0 jumps to 1 at rate 1; state 1 jumps to 0 at rate 1 and exits to 2∉F at rate 1. These off-diagonal rates are nonnegative, and the cemetery construction [F4] gives the displayed Q~F with zero column sums. Multiplying by the lifted probability vector gives p0′=−p0+p1, p1′=p0−2p1, and cF′=p1, with initial vector (1,0,0)T.

2.1F5step 1.3algebra

From p1′=p0−2p1 we have p0=p1′+2p1; differentiating and using p0′=−p0+p1 yields p1′′+3p1′+p1=0, with p1(0)=0 and p1′(0)=1. The characteristic roots are r±=(−3±5)/2 and r+−r−=5, so the unique solution is p1(t)=(er+t−er−t)/5.

3.1step 2.1F6algebra

Since cF′=p1 and cF(0)=0, integrating the expression in step 2.1 gives the displayed formula for cF(t). By [F6], this coordinate is P(τF≤t) and equals the embedded killed-vector ℓ1 error.

4.1F1F3F4givenconstruct∎

Fix t>0 and choose ordered times 0<s1<s2<s3<t. The joint density for jumps 0→1 at s1, 1→2 at s2, and 2→1 at s3, followed by no further jump through t, is e−s1⋅1⋅e−2(s2−s1)⋅1⋅e−3(s3−s2)⋅2⋅e−2(t−s3), which is strictly positive; integrating this positive density over the nonempty ordered-time simplex gives positive probability. Such paths contribute to the full marginal at state 1 but have already been killed at their first exit from F.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Equal mean trajectories do not determine a master-equation state

Example

On states {0,1,2}, compare QA=0 with

QB=(0100−20010),

both with initial vector e1=(0,1,0)T. For QA the law stays e1. For QB it is

pB(t)=(1−e−2t2,e−2t,1−e−2t2)T.

Both mean trajectories equal 1, so both obey the same deterministic mean equation m′(t)=0, m(0)=1. For every t>0 the probability vectors differ. Thus an equation for the mean alone does not solve or determine the full master-equation state.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite state set {0,1,2}, initial vector e1, and generators QA,QB displayed in the Example.

[F1]

Finite column generator: a finite column generator has nonnegative off-diagonal entries and every source column sums to zero.

[F2]

Finite master equation and uniformization formula: the full probability vector is the unique solution of p′=Qp from its initial vector.

Verification

technique · solve both finite master equations and compare their first moments
1.1givenF1F2algebra

QA=0 is a finite column generator, and the constant vector pA(t)=e1 solves pA′=QApA with the stated initial value. By [F2] it is the unique law, and its mean is 0⋅0+1⋅1+2⋅0=1.

1.2givenF1F2algebra

The off-diagonal entries of QB are nonnegative and its columns sum to zero, so [F1] applies. Writing pB=(p0,p1,p2)T, its master equation is p0′=p1, p1′=−2p1, p2′=p1 with initial values (0,1,0). Solving gives p1=e−2t and p0=p2=(1−e−2t)/2; direct differentiation verifies these formulas and their initial data, and [F2] makes this the unique law.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2algebra∎

The mean under pB(t) is 0⋅p0+1⋅p1+2⋅p2=e−2t+1−e−2t=1, the same as the mean under pA(t), while pB has positive mass at 0 for t>0 and pA has none. Thus the same mean trajectory corresponds to two different full distributions.

Sources