Will a random walk hit every point infinitely often?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of a random walk with steps that have a mean of zero and can take values greater than ε with positive probability. It is suggested that such a process will be unbounded and will cross any bound infinitely often in one dimension. The conversation highlights that while it is impossible to hit every point in the real numbers due to their uncountability, crossing every bound infinitely often is achievable. The well-known result for step sizes of 1 is mentioned, which can be scaled to ε, confirming that additional small and larger steps do not affect the outcome. This result is referred to by several names, including the level-crossing phenomenon and recurrence.
hyurnat4
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Well, not quite a random walk. The steps aren't necessarily ±1, but they have mean 0 and will take values >ε with positive probability. It seems intuitive that such a process will be unbounded and will cross this bound infinitely many times (in 1D). Does anyone know of a result that says this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the set of allowed step sizes, and what is its distribution? If you consider all real numbers, it is impossible to hit every point as there are uncountable points and countable steps.
 
  • Like
Likes hyurnat4
mfb said:
What is the set of allowed step sizes, and what is its distribution? If you consider all real numbers, it is impossible to hit every point as there are uncountable points and countable steps.

Sorry, it was a bad title. I meant 'cross every bound' infinitely often.
 
For a step size of 1 it is a well-known result, even if just a small positive fraction of all steps is 1 and the rest is zero. This is trivial to scale to ε. All you have to do is to show that additional small steps instead of zero and additional larger steps instead of ε don't change that result.
 
  • Like
Likes hyurnat4
mfb said:
For a step size of 1 it is a well-known result, even if just a small positive fraction of all steps is 1 and the rest is zero. This is trivial to scale to ε. All you have to do is to show that additional small steps instead of zero and additional larger steps instead of ε don't change that result.

Ah thank you. Does the result have a name?
 
According to wikipedia:
This result has many names: the level-crossing phenomenon, recurrence or the gambler's ruin.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top