What Do Limiting Probabilities Signify in a Bose-Einstein Urn Model?

tronter
Messages
183
Reaction score
1
Suppose that M molecules are distributed among two urns; and at each time point one of the molecules it chosen at random, removed from its urn, and placed in the other one. So this is a time-reversible Markov process right?

So P_{i,i+1} = \frac{M-i}{M}. What do the limiting probabilities mean in words?

Like \pi_0 = \left[ 1 + \sum_{j=1}^{M} \frac{(M-j+1) \cdots (M-1)M}{j(j-1) \cdots 1} \right ]^{-1}

= \left [\sum_{j=0}^{M} \binom{M}{j} \right]^{-1} = \left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^{M}


and \pi_i = \binom{M}{i} \left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^{M}, \ i = 0,1, \ldots, M.

What do these really signify?

Source: Introduction to Probability Models by Sheldon Ross

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Limiting probability of a state-transition probability is a probability value that the state-transition probability converges to, as the number of steps approaches infinity.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
 
I am not sure though, but the significance appears as-
The stated scheme in the long run is equivalent to distribute M distinguishable particles
in two urns where each particle has probability 1/2 to go into an urn. Pai(i) is the probability that one specified urn will contain i particles. That is, in the stated scheme, whatever be the initial distribution of particles in the urns, in a long run they will be distributed as in case of a Binomial distribution.
 
Usually a transition probability is expressed as p(i,j) where i and j are the two states. p(i,j) = Prob{X(n+1) = i given X(n) = j}.
 
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

Back
Top