Markov Chain Conditional Expectation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on clarifying the equations related to Markov chains, particularly the equality of certain expressions. Participants emphasize the Markov property, which states that the probability of the current state depends only on the immediately preceding state, not on earlier states. There is a request for intuition on how this property applies to the equations in question. Additionally, a query is raised regarding the conditions under which the probability P(X_{n}=j|(X_{0}=j) holds true. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the underlying principles of Markov chains.
tunaaa
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hello, in relation to Markov chains, could you please clarify the following equations:

j5b987.jpg


In particular, could you please expand on why the first line is equal. Surely from
gif.gif
, along with the first equation, this implies that:

2nk01nr.gif


I just don't see why they are all equal. Please could you provide some intuition on this. Thanks
 

Attachments

  • j5b987.jpg
    j5b987.jpg
    2.3 KB · Views: 510
Physics news on Phys.org
tunaaa said:
Hello, in relation to Markov chains, could you please clarify the following equations:

j5b987.jpg


In particular, could you please expand on why the first line is equal. Surely from
gif.gif
, along with the first equation, this implies that:

2nk01nr.gif


I just don't see why they are all equal. Please could you provide some intuition on this. Thanks

The Markov property is where the probability of the present state n is conditional only on the probability of the immediately preceding state n-1. There's no dependence on prior states n-i for integer i; 1<i\leq n.
 

Attachments

  • j5b987.jpg
    j5b987.jpg
    2.3 KB · Views: 445
OK, sure - but how is that fact relevant to understanding the above equation? Thanks.
 
tunaaa said:
OK, sure - but how is that fact relevant to understanding the above equation? Thanks.

Given the Markov property, if P(X_{n}=j|(X_{0}=j), then under what two conditions could this be true?
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
28K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
860
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
17K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K