Stationary probabilities.(Markov chain).

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chain
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
We are given two states 1,2 in an irreducible and positive recurrent Markov chain, and their stationary probabilities \pi_1 and \pi_2 respectively, try to characterise in general the probability (distribution) of the number of visits in state 2 after two consecutive visits in state 1.

Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Write out the ways this can happen, then turn it into a formula:

1,1,2
2,1,1,2
2,2,1,1,2
1,2,1,1,2
...
 
Yes I thought in this direction but not sure how to get to the formula.
I mean for 1,1,2 the probability is: P_{1,1}\frac{\pi_1}{\pi_1+\pi_2}P_{1,2}
2,1,1,2 \frac{\pi_2}{\pi_1+\pi_2}P_{1,1}P_{2,1}P_{1,2}
1,2,1,1,2 \frac{\pi_1}{\pi_1+\pi_2}P^2_{1,2}P_{1,1}P_{2,1}

So my hunch is that if we first get to 1 or 2, we should multiply by pi1/(pi1+pi2) or pi2/(pi1+pi2), and we should always multiply by P1,1, but other than this I don't see a general equation for all cases.
 
I don't have an immediate answer, but you might find the approach in this paper to be helpful:

http://smu.edu/statistics/TechReports/TR211.pdf

The authors derive the unconditional distribution of the number of successes (e.g., state 2) in n+1 trials. It seems to me that you need to derive a similar distribution, conditional on having obtained (exactly? or at least?) two consecutive failures (1,1).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top