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 populations and design probability — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Estimators and Randomized Procedures
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite populations and design probability
- Finite Probability Spaces and Random Variables
- Finite-Sample Point Estimation
- Fixed-design regression, estimability, and Gauss–Markov
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Loss, Risk and Decision Theory
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Scientific model contracts and applicability
- Sequences and Limits
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Suprema and Infima
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
2 · Summary
These worked finite designs calculate inclusion probabilities and indicator covariance for SRSWOR, show how a certainty unit and census behave under Horvitz–Thompson weighting, and exhibit two different totals with one identical observed record when a unit is never sampled. Each probability is over its declared design law, with the population values held fixed.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
SRSWOR inclusion probabilities, pairwise nonpositive indicator covariance, and the sample mean
Example
Let , , , and let be fixed real values. Let consist of all -element subsets of , with each such sample assigned probability , where . This is simple random sampling without replacement (SRSWOR). For distinct , The Horvitz–Thompson mean reduces to the ordinary sample mean .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , , a fixed finite population , and the uniform design on all -element subsets of .
Finite populations and sampling designs: For a sampling design, , , and the values are held fixed under the design law.
The Horvitz–Thompson total and mean are design-unbiased under positive inclusion probabilities: If every , the total and mean estimators with weights are design-unbiased.
Variance, standard deviation, and covariance on a finite probability space: On one finite probability space, .
Expectation is linear for every finite family of random variables, without any independence hypothesis: Expectation is linear for finite families of random variables on one finite probability space.
Indicators turn event probabilities, intersections, and finite counts into expectations and products: Indicator expectations equal event probabilities, and products of indicators equal indicators of event intersections.
The indicator random variable of an event: An event indicator is on the event and outside it.
Expectation of a real random variable on a finite probability space: Expectation is the finite weighted sum over sample outcomes.
Verification
Let be the number of -subsets containing a fixed unit. A permutation of taking one unit to another gives a bijection of the sample family, so every unit occurs in exactly samples. Counting pairs with in two ways gives , hence and .
Let be the number of samples containing a fixed ordered pair of distinct units. Permutations of give the same for every such pair. Counting triples with and gives , so and . This also gives when .
Put . By [F5] and [F6], and . Expanding the covariance in [F3] with linearity [F4] therefore gives .
Since , the estimator in [F2] has . Its expectation is by [F2].
A certainty unit and a census under Horvitz–Thompson estimation
Example
Let with fixed values . First use the design that chooses or with probability each. Unit is a certainty unit: , while . The Horvitz–Thompson total is or , according to the sample. In the census design, which always selects , every and the Horvitz–Thompson total and mean equal the population total and mean exactly.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite population with fixed real values , , ; either the two-sample design described above or the census design.
Finite populations and sampling designs: Inclusion probabilities are design probabilities, and the total and mean hold the values fixed.
The Horvitz–Thompson total and mean are design-unbiased under positive inclusion probabilities: With all first-order inclusion probabilities positive, the inverse-inclusion weighted total and its population-size-scaled mean are unbiased.
Expectation of a real random variable on a finite probability space: Expectations are finite weighted sums over the design support.
Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators: An estimator is unbiased when its expectation equals its estimand at every parameter value.
Verification
Under the two-sample design, unit is in both support samples, unit only in the first, and unit only in the second. Therefore and . The weighted total is for sample and for sample , so unit contributes its observed value without expansion.
The design expectation of the displayed total is by [F3]. Since each , [F2] also identifies its divided-by- form as the unbiased estimator of .
In the census design, the only supported sample is with probability , so every . Thus the total estimator is on the sole outcome, and its mean version is .
An unobserved unit prevents universal unbiased estimation
Example
Let and let the design always sample . Compare the fixed populations and . The second unit has ; both populations produce the same observed record , while their totals are and . This is the two-unit instance of A zero inclusion probability prevents total identification and universal unbiased estimation.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The fixed two-unit population set , the degenerate design supported only on , and the two value functions shown above.
Finite populations and sampling designs: A design law specifies the sample support, inclusion probabilities, observed record, and total while holding population values fixed.
A zero inclusion probability prevents total identification and universal unbiased estimation: A zero first-order inclusion probability gives equal observed laws for some populations with different totals and rules out an estimator unbiased for all finite populations.
Statistics and estimators: An estimator is a statistic, hence a function of the observed record with the specified real target.
Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators: An estimator is unbiased when its expectation equals its estimand at every parameter value.
Verification
The only supported sample is , so . Under both and , the record is , but and .
Any observed-record estimator has one value at , so its design expectation is under both populations. It cannot equal both totals and . This explicit calculation verifies the instance asserted by [F2], using the unbiasedness definition [F4].