MHB Understanding the General Equation of Random Walks with Modified Variations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poirot1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Random
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the general equation of random walks, specifically addressing modified random walks, absorbing barriers, and simple symmetric walks. Participants emphasize the need for specificity in questions to facilitate better responses, suggesting that vague inquiries often go unanswered. The importance of understanding transition matrices and distributions after a certain number of steps is highlighted. Overall, clarity in the question posed is crucial for engaging the community effectively. The conversation underscores the complexities of random walk equations and the necessity for detailed inquiries.
Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
What is the general equation of a random walk with :

a) modified random walk

b) absorbing barriers

c) simple symmetric
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Poirot said:
What is the general equation of a random walk with :

a) modified random walk

b) absorbing barriers

c) simple symmetric

It is probably too late, but please be more specific. What are you interested in; the transition matrix of a discrete random walk? The distribution after n steps? ...

One reason posts do not get a response is the the question is too vague, or general.

CB
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top