How Can You Prove a Process is Markovian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter znbhckcs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Process
znbhckcs
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi
In Van Kampen's "Stochastic Processes in Physics" it says (page 79) that any given 2 non negative functions: p1(y,t), p11(y1,t1 | y2,t2) that satisfy:
1. The Chapman-Kolmogorov equation: p11(y3,t3 | t1,t1) = integrate(p11(y3,t3 |y2,t2) p11(y2,t2| y1,t1).
2. p1(y2,t2)= Integrate(p11(y2,t2 |y1,t1) p1(y1,t1)dy1
define uniquely a Markov process. But unfortunately it doesn't provide a proof.

My question is, how can you prove it? I have been trying to find a way to get to the next probablity function p12(y1,t1 | y2,t2 , y3,t3) in order to show the Markov property exists, and I just can't find a way to do it.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Compare the distribution functions : they're multiplicative in the equations you've quoted . Thus, the independence of probabilities over time means that the processes are
'forgetful' or Markov.
For a complete proof, verify that the equations define a markov process in the discrete case. One can then pass over to step functions & to measurable functions.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top