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.
Poisson and Cox point processes — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Conditional Expectation
- 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
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- 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
- Poisson and Cox point processes
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
2 · Summary
On a finite window, a deterministic Poisson intensity and a two-point random directing intensity have the same mean measure and expected count but different count variances: and . The example computes the conditional mixture explicitly and supplies its probability kernel.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
Poisson and Cox counts with the same mean on a finite window
Statement
Let be a compact Borel window in a locally compact, second-countable Hausdorff space , and let be a finite Borel measure (Finite, sigma-finite, and semifinite measures) supported on with . A Poisson point process of intensity and the Cox process directed by , where , both have mean count one in . Their count variances differ: the Poisson variance is , whereas the Cox variance is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A compact Borel window and a finite Borel probability measure supported on .
For each finite intensity measure , a Poisson point process of intensity exists and has independent counts on disjoint sets, each count being . In particular its total count is . (Finite-intensity Poisson-process existence and mixed-binomial law, Poisson and Cox point processes)
A supplied measurable probability kernel that is the regular conditional law of a point process given its directing random measure makes that process Cox when its conditional laws are Poisson. (Measure kernel and probability kernel, Conditional law given a random element, Poisson and Cox point processes)
Proof
Let be the zero-process law and let be the finite-intensity Poisson law of intensity , both supplied by [F1]. On the disjoint union of a branch and a branch, assign probability to each branch, set or according to the branch, set , and use the branch process as . For a locally finite measure , define when and otherwise. Since is an evaluation, this is a measurable probability kernel; on the support of , it is the conditional law of and is Poisson with intensity . Thus [F3] verifies the Cox property.
Let have the finite-intensity Poisson law of intensity from [F1]. Since , for every Borel , , equal to the deterministic intensity measure of .
By [F1]-[F2], , so and . Conditional on , is ; hence and . Therefore .
The deterministic and directing mean measures agree by step 2.1, while steps 2.2 show equal expected window counts and different count variances. The difference comes from the random intensity : conditional Poisson variation contributes , and variation in contributes .