Proof that a stochastic process isn't a Markov Process

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that a specific stochastic process satisfies the Chapman-Kolmogorov equations while not being a Markov Process. A counterexample is provided, demonstrating that the conditional probabilities do not satisfy the Markovian property, specifically showing that P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1 and X_{3(m-1)+1}=1) does not equal P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1). The participants discuss the independence of variables from different draws and the necessity of calculating probabilities explicitly for the same draw. Guidance is offered on how to approach proving the Chapman-Kolmogorov aspect of the problem. The thread concludes with the original poster successfully completing the proof with assistance.
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 P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{3(m-1)+1}=1) does not equal P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1)). In other words, since X_{3(m-1)+3}, X_{3(m-1)+2}, X_{3(m-1)+1} 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 X_{3(n-1)+i}, X_{3(m-1)+j}, 1\leq i, j\leq 3 are independent when m and n are different, as they correspond to different draws.

Since X_{3(n-1)+i}, X_{3(m-1)+j}, 1\leq i, j\leq 3 are independent when m and n are different, then 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 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 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. For example, 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}.

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 P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{3(m-1)+1}=1) doesn't equal P(X_{3(m-1)+3}=1|X_{3(m-1)+2}=1). For m = 1, P(X_{3}=1|X_{2}=1 \mbox{ and }X_{1}=1) = 0 and P(X_{3}=1|X_{2}=1)=1/2. 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 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). 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.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
513
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K