Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $P$ be a stochastic kernel on a measurable space $(\mathsf X,\mathfrak B(\mathsf X))$. The kernel $P$ is called $\varphi$-irreducible if for a positive measure $\varphi$ and for all measurable sets $A$ it holds that: $$ \tag{1}\varphi(A)>0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \sum\limits_{n\geq 1}P^n(x,A) >0 \quad \forall x\in \mathsf X. $$

One of the statements of Proposition 4.2.2 (p. 90 here) is that if $P$ is $\varphi$-irreducible, then it holds that $P$ is $\psi$-irreducible where the measure $\psi$ is given by $$ \psi(A) = \int\limits_\mathsf X \sum_{n\geq 0}2^{-(n+1)}P^n(x,A)\varphi(\mathrm dx). $$ The definition of $\psi$ is not that important for my question, though.

In the first part of the proof, also page 90, the following is stated

To see (i), observe that when $\psi(A)>0$, then [...] $$ \tag{2} \left\{y:\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}P^n(y,A)>0\right\} = \mathsf X. $$

This fact is further elaborated and used to show the $\psi$-irreducibility of $P$. It seems to me, however, that the cited part explicitly implies irreducibility as it is equivalent to $(1)$. I guess, I am missing something - otherwise it is a cyclic argument. Also, I don't know how to show $(2)$.

share|cite|improve this question
How is Markov chain splitting technique useful for inferring ergodicity of a Markov Chain?Assume that I am working with general state space (uncountable say $R^{N}$ but time is discrete. I want to show that the Markov Process is ergodic. I guess that it suffices to show that it is Harris recurrent. To show Harris recurrence I guess that it suffices to show there exists an atom (obtained via splitting the chain after using minorization criteria) the return time (or hitting time) to which has finite mean. – user24367 Jun 18 '13 at 13:45
@user17523: I think, it is better if you ask a separate question. I'm not an expert in the book by Meyn and Tweedie, and I didn't read much of their chapters on ergodicity. I remember splitting technique, but I haven't reached the part where it's used. – Ilya Jun 19 '13 at 7:47
Hi, I already posted it as separate question, but also posted here since I saw a similar topic being discussed here. – user24367 Jun 19 '13 at 18:32

I agree with you that $(2)$ is equivalent to $\psi$-irreducibility and that it is not clear how the authors derive $(2)$ from the given assumptions.

In the proof, the key point is that $\varphi(\bar{A}(k))>0$ for $k$ sufficiently large where

$$\bar{A}(k) := \left\{y; \sum_{n=1}^k P^n(y,A) >k^{-1} \right\}.$$

Here is possibility to prove this (without using $(2)$):


$$K_{\frac{1}{2}}(y,A) := \sum_{n \geq 1} P^n(y,A) 2^{-(n+1)}.$$

It follows from the very definition of $\psi$ that

$$\begin{align*} \psi(A) &= \int_{\bar{A}(k)} K_{\frac{1}{2}}(y,A) \, \varphi(dy) + \int_{X \backslash \bar{A}(k)} K_{\frac{1}{2}}(y,A) \, \varphi(dy). \end{align*}$$

By the definition of $\bar{A}(k)$, we have

$$\begin{align*} \int_{X \backslash \bar{A}(k)} K_{\frac{1}{2}}(y,A) \, \varphi(dy) &= \int_{X \backslash \bar{A}(k)}\sum_{n=1}^k P^n(y,A) 2^{-(n+1)} \, \varphi(dy) + \int_{X \backslash \bar{A}(k)}\sum_{n=k+1}^{\infty} P^n(y,A) 2^{-(n+1)} \, \varphi(dy) \\ &\leq \int_{X \backslash \bar{A}(k)}\sum_{n=1}^k P^n(y,A) \, \varphi(dy) + \sum_{n=k+1}^{\infty} 2^{-(n+1)} \\ &\leq k^{-1} + \sum_{n=k+1}^{\infty} 2^{-(n+1)} \end{align*}$$

where we have used that $\varphi(A) \leq 1$ for any measurable set $A$. Combining both computations, we get

$$ \int_{\bar{A}(k)} K(y,A) \, \varphi(dy) \geq \psi(A) - k^{-1} - \sum_{n=k+1}^{\infty} 2^{-(n+1)}.$$

Since, by assumption, $\psi(A)>0$, this shows that

$$ \int_{\bar{A}(k)} K(y,A) \, \varphi(dy) >0$$

for $k$ sufficiently large. This implies $\varphi(\bar{A}(k))>0$. (Just suppose that $\varphi(\bar{A}(k))=0$, then the left-hand side in the previous equation would equal $0$.) The remaining part of the proof given in the (linked) book goes through.

share|cite|improve this answer

I think the "$= \mathsf{X}$" portion is just a typo. If you drop it, everything works fine. I can see that $\bar{A}(k) \uparrow \bar{A}$, but I can't show $\bar{A} = \mathsf{X}$.

To show the "if $\psi(A) > 0$, then $\varphi(\bar{A}(k)) > 0$ for some $k$", use proof by contradiction. If $\varphi(\bar{A}(k)) = 0$ for all $k$ then $\varphi(\bar{A}) = 0$ where $\bar{A} = \{y : \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}P^n(y,A)2^{-(n+1)} > 0\}$. If $\phi(\bar{A}) = 0$, then $\psi(A) = 0$ using its definition, and this contradicts our assumption that $\psi(A) > 0$. Basically when you integrate over $\mathsf{X}$, the positive bits of $\varphi$ and $K_{a_{\frac{1}{2}}}$ are never going to match up anywhere.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.