Proof that a stochastic process isn't a Markov Process

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a specific stochastic process satisfies the Chapman-Kolmogorov equations while simultaneously demonstrating that it is not a Markov Process. Participants explore the properties of the process and provide insights into the necessary conditions for both assertions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the process is not Markov because the conditional probabilities involving the same draw from a box do not satisfy the Markovian property.
  • Another participant proposes that a counterexample can demonstrate the non-Markov nature by showing differing conditional probabilities for specific cases.
  • There is a discussion on the independence of variables from different draws, which affects the calculations of conditional probabilities.
  • Participants discuss the form of the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation and how to approach proving that the process satisfies it.
  • A participant expresses gratitude for the assistance received and indicates they have completed their proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the non-Markov nature of the process based on the provided counterexamples, but the discussion on proving the Chapman-Kolmogorov aspect remains open with varying approaches suggested.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the independence of draws and the specific calculations of conditional probabilities, which may not be fully resolved or detailed.

gesteves
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I've been trying to solve this problem for a week now, but haven't been able to. Basically I need to prove that a certain process satisfies Chapman-Kolmogorov equations, yet it isn't a Markov Process (it doesn't satisfy the Markovian Property).

I attached the problem as a .doc below.

Please, I really need a little help here.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
hi gesteves!

I read your question, and I think it is readily seen to be not markov (because it is easily seen that [tex]P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{3(m-1)+1}=1)[/tex] does not equal [tex]P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1)[/tex]). In other words, since [tex]X_{3(m-1)+3}, X_{3(m-1)+2}, X_{3(m-1)+1}[/tex] are giving information about the *same draw* from the mth box, most probably these variables are not independent and the proof should take into account of this.

Also note that [tex]X_{3(n-1)+i}, X_{3(m-1)+j}, 1\leq i, j\leq 3[/tex] are independent when m and n are different, as they correspond to different draws.

Since [tex]X_{3(n-1)+i}, X_{3(m-1)+j}, 1\leq i, j\leq 3[/tex] are independent when m and n are different, then [tex]P(X_{3(n-1)+i}=l|X_{3(m-1)+j}=k) = P(X_{3(n-1)+i}=l) = \frac{1}{2}, 0\leq l,k\leq 1[/tex] for different m and n.

As to the case when m and n are the same, it is necessary to calculate the probability explicity. But amazingly you will find that [tex]P(X_{3(m-1)+i}=l|X_{3(m-1)+j}=k)=\frac{1}{2}, 1\leq i,j\leq 3, 0\leq l,k \leq 1[/tex]. For example, [tex]P(X_{3(1-1)+2}=1|X_{3(m-1)+1}=1)=P(\mbox{1 or 2 in the first draw}|\mbox{1 or 4 in the first draw}) = \frac{1}{2}[/tex].

Since all conditional probabilities are essentially 1/2, I think the assertion thus holds.
 
Last edited:
Hi Wong,

Thanks for your quick reply! If I understood correctly, all I need to prove that it isn't a Markov Process is a counterexample that shows that [tex]P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{3(m-1)+1}=1)[/tex] doesn't equal [tex]P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1)[/tex]. For m = 1, [tex]P(X_{3}=1|X_{2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{1}=1) = 0[/tex] and [tex]P(X_{3}=1|X_{2}=1)=1/2[/tex]. Therefore it isn't a Markov Process.

But how can I prove that it satisfies Chapman-Kolmogorov? I'll try to prove it on my own, but I could use some pointers.

Thanks in advance.
 
Yes, gesteves, you got the non-markov part.

As for the Chapman-Kolmogorov part, you may first think of the form of the equation. If I am not mistaken, the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation says that [tex]P(X_{m+n+l}=i|X_{l}=j) = \sum_{k}P(X_{m+n+l}=i|X_{m+l}=k)P(X_{m+l}=k|X_{l}=j)[/tex]. In my first post, I already gave you the various conditional probabilities for the equation. You may just "plug in" and see whether the LHS agrees with the RHS.
 
I finally finished it. Thanks for all your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K