$pi(x) P_x ( tau_y < tau_x^+) = pi(y) P_y( tau_x < tau_y^+)$?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












$P$ is the transition probability of a finite, irreducible and reversible Markov chain (i.e. a walk on a finite network$G$). $pi$ is the stationary distribution.For $y in G$, $tau_y$ is hitting time of $y$, $tau_y^+$ is first hitting time after time $1$.



Is it true that $pi(x) P_x ( tau_y < tau_x^+) = pi(y) P_y( tau_x < tau_y^+)$?



This seems to be a necessary fact in an exercise I'm working on. (But perhaps it is false?)



I tried writing out:



$pi(x) P_x( tau_y < tau_x^+) = sum_w pi(x) P(x,w) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) = sum_w pi(w) P(w,x) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) $, since I thought that fact that $P_w(tau_y < tau_x)$ is harmonic in w away from $x,y$ could be useful, but this doesn't seem to be helpful.



A hint would be really appreciated!







share|cite|improve this question























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    $P$ is the transition probability of a finite, irreducible and reversible Markov chain (i.e. a walk on a finite network$G$). $pi$ is the stationary distribution.For $y in G$, $tau_y$ is hitting time of $y$, $tau_y^+$ is first hitting time after time $1$.



    Is it true that $pi(x) P_x ( tau_y < tau_x^+) = pi(y) P_y( tau_x < tau_y^+)$?



    This seems to be a necessary fact in an exercise I'm working on. (But perhaps it is false?)



    I tried writing out:



    $pi(x) P_x( tau_y < tau_x^+) = sum_w pi(x) P(x,w) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) = sum_w pi(w) P(w,x) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) $, since I thought that fact that $P_w(tau_y < tau_x)$ is harmonic in w away from $x,y$ could be useful, but this doesn't seem to be helpful.



    A hint would be really appreciated!







    share|cite|improve this question





















      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      $P$ is the transition probability of a finite, irreducible and reversible Markov chain (i.e. a walk on a finite network$G$). $pi$ is the stationary distribution.For $y in G$, $tau_y$ is hitting time of $y$, $tau_y^+$ is first hitting time after time $1$.



      Is it true that $pi(x) P_x ( tau_y < tau_x^+) = pi(y) P_y( tau_x < tau_y^+)$?



      This seems to be a necessary fact in an exercise I'm working on. (But perhaps it is false?)



      I tried writing out:



      $pi(x) P_x( tau_y < tau_x^+) = sum_w pi(x) P(x,w) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) = sum_w pi(w) P(w,x) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) $, since I thought that fact that $P_w(tau_y < tau_x)$ is harmonic in w away from $x,y$ could be useful, but this doesn't seem to be helpful.



      A hint would be really appreciated!







      share|cite|improve this question











      $P$ is the transition probability of a finite, irreducible and reversible Markov chain (i.e. a walk on a finite network$G$). $pi$ is the stationary distribution.For $y in G$, $tau_y$ is hitting time of $y$, $tau_y^+$ is first hitting time after time $1$.



      Is it true that $pi(x) P_x ( tau_y < tau_x^+) = pi(y) P_y( tau_x < tau_y^+)$?



      This seems to be a necessary fact in an exercise I'm working on. (But perhaps it is false?)



      I tried writing out:



      $pi(x) P_x( tau_y < tau_x^+) = sum_w pi(x) P(x,w) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) = sum_w pi(w) P(w,x) P_w( tau_y < tau_x) $, since I thought that fact that $P_w(tau_y < tau_x)$ is harmonic in w away from $x,y$ could be useful, but this doesn't seem to be helpful.



      A hint would be really appreciated!









      share|cite|improve this question










      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question









      asked Aug 7 at 15:09









      Lorenzo

      11.5k31537




      11.5k31537




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Note first that since the probability measures start at $x$ and $y$ on the left and right hand sides, respectively, we can replace $tau$ by $tau^+$.



          Now observe that if the Markov chain is reversible, then a positive weight function $w: mathcalX to mathbbR^+$ satisfying the detailed balance conditions, i.e.
          beginalign*
          w(x) p(x,y) = w(y) p(y,x)
          endalign*
          exists. Since $mathcalX$ is finite, $sum_x in mathcalX w(x) doteq A < infty$, and since any scalar multiple of a weight function is also a weight function, we must have that $pi = w/A$ is a stationary distribution (sum both sides of the detailed balance equation over $x$). Since the chain is irreducible, and a stationary distribution exists, we must have $pi(x) > 0$ for all $x in mathcalX$ (Exercise!). Hence the chain is recurrent (which implies that stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples).



          One way to get the result is to view the Markov Chain as an electrical network with conductance function $C(x) = w(x)$, and then invoke the result
          beginalign*
          P_x(tau^+_y < tau^+_x) = 1/(C(x)R_texteff),
          endalign*
          where $R_texteff$ is the effective resistance between $x$ and $y$. Then it follows immediately from dividing this by the analogous equation for $y$ that
          beginalign*
          fracP_x(tau^+_y < tau_x^+)P_y(tau^+_x < tau_y^+) = fracC(y)C(x) = fracpi(y)pi(x),
          endalign*
          as desired.



          To obtain the result without using electrical network theory, let $x$ be a recurrent state (all states are recurrent by the above discussion) and define the measure
          beginalign*
          mu_x(y) doteq E_xsum_n=0^tau_x^+ - 1 textbf1_X_n = y,
          endalign*
          i.e. the expected number of visits to $y$, starting at $x$, before hitting $x$. This defines a stationary measure, and is thus a scalar multiple of $pi$ (stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples for irreducible, recurrent chains). Note that by definition, $mu_x(x) = 1$. Hence,
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = fracmu_x(y)mu_x(x) = mu_x(y).
          endalign*
          To compute this expectation, denote $N_x(y) doteq sum_n=0^tau_x^+ -1textbf1_X_n = y$, so it suffices to show that
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+).
          endalign*
          Indeed,
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+ + N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ > tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) mid tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) P_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+),
          endalign*
          where the second equality follows from the fact that the number of times we visit $y$ before $x$ is $0$ on the set where we hit $x$ before $y$. Now note that conditioned on $tau_y^+ < tau_x^+$, $N_x(y) in 1,2,3,dots$ is distributed as a geometric random variable with success parameter $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$ (think of breaking time up into chunks separated by visits to either $x$ or $y$. Then hitting $x$ to end the process is like flipping a coin with bias $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$). Hence the expectation is $frac1P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$, which yields
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+),
          endalign*
          as desired. Notice that we didn't use the hypothesis of reversibility in the second argument, in contrast to the first, where it was used to define the conductance function for the electrical network (which made the proof much quicker).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
            – Lorenzo
            Aug 7 at 16:12










          • The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
            – Daniel Xiang
            Aug 7 at 16:16










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875066%2fpix-p-x-tau-y-tau-x-piy-p-y-tau-x-tau-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Note first that since the probability measures start at $x$ and $y$ on the left and right hand sides, respectively, we can replace $tau$ by $tau^+$.



          Now observe that if the Markov chain is reversible, then a positive weight function $w: mathcalX to mathbbR^+$ satisfying the detailed balance conditions, i.e.
          beginalign*
          w(x) p(x,y) = w(y) p(y,x)
          endalign*
          exists. Since $mathcalX$ is finite, $sum_x in mathcalX w(x) doteq A < infty$, and since any scalar multiple of a weight function is also a weight function, we must have that $pi = w/A$ is a stationary distribution (sum both sides of the detailed balance equation over $x$). Since the chain is irreducible, and a stationary distribution exists, we must have $pi(x) > 0$ for all $x in mathcalX$ (Exercise!). Hence the chain is recurrent (which implies that stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples).



          One way to get the result is to view the Markov Chain as an electrical network with conductance function $C(x) = w(x)$, and then invoke the result
          beginalign*
          P_x(tau^+_y < tau^+_x) = 1/(C(x)R_texteff),
          endalign*
          where $R_texteff$ is the effective resistance between $x$ and $y$. Then it follows immediately from dividing this by the analogous equation for $y$ that
          beginalign*
          fracP_x(tau^+_y < tau_x^+)P_y(tau^+_x < tau_y^+) = fracC(y)C(x) = fracpi(y)pi(x),
          endalign*
          as desired.



          To obtain the result without using electrical network theory, let $x$ be a recurrent state (all states are recurrent by the above discussion) and define the measure
          beginalign*
          mu_x(y) doteq E_xsum_n=0^tau_x^+ - 1 textbf1_X_n = y,
          endalign*
          i.e. the expected number of visits to $y$, starting at $x$, before hitting $x$. This defines a stationary measure, and is thus a scalar multiple of $pi$ (stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples for irreducible, recurrent chains). Note that by definition, $mu_x(x) = 1$. Hence,
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = fracmu_x(y)mu_x(x) = mu_x(y).
          endalign*
          To compute this expectation, denote $N_x(y) doteq sum_n=0^tau_x^+ -1textbf1_X_n = y$, so it suffices to show that
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+).
          endalign*
          Indeed,
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+ + N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ > tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) mid tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) P_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+),
          endalign*
          where the second equality follows from the fact that the number of times we visit $y$ before $x$ is $0$ on the set where we hit $x$ before $y$. Now note that conditioned on $tau_y^+ < tau_x^+$, $N_x(y) in 1,2,3,dots$ is distributed as a geometric random variable with success parameter $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$ (think of breaking time up into chunks separated by visits to either $x$ or $y$. Then hitting $x$ to end the process is like flipping a coin with bias $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$). Hence the expectation is $frac1P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$, which yields
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+),
          endalign*
          as desired. Notice that we didn't use the hypothesis of reversibility in the second argument, in contrast to the first, where it was used to define the conductance function for the electrical network (which made the proof much quicker).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
            – Lorenzo
            Aug 7 at 16:12










          • The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
            – Daniel Xiang
            Aug 7 at 16:16














          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Note first that since the probability measures start at $x$ and $y$ on the left and right hand sides, respectively, we can replace $tau$ by $tau^+$.



          Now observe that if the Markov chain is reversible, then a positive weight function $w: mathcalX to mathbbR^+$ satisfying the detailed balance conditions, i.e.
          beginalign*
          w(x) p(x,y) = w(y) p(y,x)
          endalign*
          exists. Since $mathcalX$ is finite, $sum_x in mathcalX w(x) doteq A < infty$, and since any scalar multiple of a weight function is also a weight function, we must have that $pi = w/A$ is a stationary distribution (sum both sides of the detailed balance equation over $x$). Since the chain is irreducible, and a stationary distribution exists, we must have $pi(x) > 0$ for all $x in mathcalX$ (Exercise!). Hence the chain is recurrent (which implies that stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples).



          One way to get the result is to view the Markov Chain as an electrical network with conductance function $C(x) = w(x)$, and then invoke the result
          beginalign*
          P_x(tau^+_y < tau^+_x) = 1/(C(x)R_texteff),
          endalign*
          where $R_texteff$ is the effective resistance between $x$ and $y$. Then it follows immediately from dividing this by the analogous equation for $y$ that
          beginalign*
          fracP_x(tau^+_y < tau_x^+)P_y(tau^+_x < tau_y^+) = fracC(y)C(x) = fracpi(y)pi(x),
          endalign*
          as desired.



          To obtain the result without using electrical network theory, let $x$ be a recurrent state (all states are recurrent by the above discussion) and define the measure
          beginalign*
          mu_x(y) doteq E_xsum_n=0^tau_x^+ - 1 textbf1_X_n = y,
          endalign*
          i.e. the expected number of visits to $y$, starting at $x$, before hitting $x$. This defines a stationary measure, and is thus a scalar multiple of $pi$ (stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples for irreducible, recurrent chains). Note that by definition, $mu_x(x) = 1$. Hence,
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = fracmu_x(y)mu_x(x) = mu_x(y).
          endalign*
          To compute this expectation, denote $N_x(y) doteq sum_n=0^tau_x^+ -1textbf1_X_n = y$, so it suffices to show that
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+).
          endalign*
          Indeed,
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+ + N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ > tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) mid tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) P_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+),
          endalign*
          where the second equality follows from the fact that the number of times we visit $y$ before $x$ is $0$ on the set where we hit $x$ before $y$. Now note that conditioned on $tau_y^+ < tau_x^+$, $N_x(y) in 1,2,3,dots$ is distributed as a geometric random variable with success parameter $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$ (think of breaking time up into chunks separated by visits to either $x$ or $y$. Then hitting $x$ to end the process is like flipping a coin with bias $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$). Hence the expectation is $frac1P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$, which yields
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+),
          endalign*
          as desired. Notice that we didn't use the hypothesis of reversibility in the second argument, in contrast to the first, where it was used to define the conductance function for the electrical network (which made the proof much quicker).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
            – Lorenzo
            Aug 7 at 16:12










          • The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
            – Daniel Xiang
            Aug 7 at 16:16












          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Note first that since the probability measures start at $x$ and $y$ on the left and right hand sides, respectively, we can replace $tau$ by $tau^+$.



          Now observe that if the Markov chain is reversible, then a positive weight function $w: mathcalX to mathbbR^+$ satisfying the detailed balance conditions, i.e.
          beginalign*
          w(x) p(x,y) = w(y) p(y,x)
          endalign*
          exists. Since $mathcalX$ is finite, $sum_x in mathcalX w(x) doteq A < infty$, and since any scalar multiple of a weight function is also a weight function, we must have that $pi = w/A$ is a stationary distribution (sum both sides of the detailed balance equation over $x$). Since the chain is irreducible, and a stationary distribution exists, we must have $pi(x) > 0$ for all $x in mathcalX$ (Exercise!). Hence the chain is recurrent (which implies that stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples).



          One way to get the result is to view the Markov Chain as an electrical network with conductance function $C(x) = w(x)$, and then invoke the result
          beginalign*
          P_x(tau^+_y < tau^+_x) = 1/(C(x)R_texteff),
          endalign*
          where $R_texteff$ is the effective resistance between $x$ and $y$. Then it follows immediately from dividing this by the analogous equation for $y$ that
          beginalign*
          fracP_x(tau^+_y < tau_x^+)P_y(tau^+_x < tau_y^+) = fracC(y)C(x) = fracpi(y)pi(x),
          endalign*
          as desired.



          To obtain the result without using electrical network theory, let $x$ be a recurrent state (all states are recurrent by the above discussion) and define the measure
          beginalign*
          mu_x(y) doteq E_xsum_n=0^tau_x^+ - 1 textbf1_X_n = y,
          endalign*
          i.e. the expected number of visits to $y$, starting at $x$, before hitting $x$. This defines a stationary measure, and is thus a scalar multiple of $pi$ (stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples for irreducible, recurrent chains). Note that by definition, $mu_x(x) = 1$. Hence,
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = fracmu_x(y)mu_x(x) = mu_x(y).
          endalign*
          To compute this expectation, denote $N_x(y) doteq sum_n=0^tau_x^+ -1textbf1_X_n = y$, so it suffices to show that
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+).
          endalign*
          Indeed,
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+ + N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ > tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) mid tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) P_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+),
          endalign*
          where the second equality follows from the fact that the number of times we visit $y$ before $x$ is $0$ on the set where we hit $x$ before $y$. Now note that conditioned on $tau_y^+ < tau_x^+$, $N_x(y) in 1,2,3,dots$ is distributed as a geometric random variable with success parameter $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$ (think of breaking time up into chunks separated by visits to either $x$ or $y$. Then hitting $x$ to end the process is like flipping a coin with bias $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$). Hence the expectation is $frac1P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$, which yields
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+),
          endalign*
          as desired. Notice that we didn't use the hypothesis of reversibility in the second argument, in contrast to the first, where it was used to define the conductance function for the electrical network (which made the proof much quicker).






          share|cite|improve this answer













          Note first that since the probability measures start at $x$ and $y$ on the left and right hand sides, respectively, we can replace $tau$ by $tau^+$.



          Now observe that if the Markov chain is reversible, then a positive weight function $w: mathcalX to mathbbR^+$ satisfying the detailed balance conditions, i.e.
          beginalign*
          w(x) p(x,y) = w(y) p(y,x)
          endalign*
          exists. Since $mathcalX$ is finite, $sum_x in mathcalX w(x) doteq A < infty$, and since any scalar multiple of a weight function is also a weight function, we must have that $pi = w/A$ is a stationary distribution (sum both sides of the detailed balance equation over $x$). Since the chain is irreducible, and a stationary distribution exists, we must have $pi(x) > 0$ for all $x in mathcalX$ (Exercise!). Hence the chain is recurrent (which implies that stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples).



          One way to get the result is to view the Markov Chain as an electrical network with conductance function $C(x) = w(x)$, and then invoke the result
          beginalign*
          P_x(tau^+_y < tau^+_x) = 1/(C(x)R_texteff),
          endalign*
          where $R_texteff$ is the effective resistance between $x$ and $y$. Then it follows immediately from dividing this by the analogous equation for $y$ that
          beginalign*
          fracP_x(tau^+_y < tau_x^+)P_y(tau^+_x < tau_y^+) = fracC(y)C(x) = fracpi(y)pi(x),
          endalign*
          as desired.



          To obtain the result without using electrical network theory, let $x$ be a recurrent state (all states are recurrent by the above discussion) and define the measure
          beginalign*
          mu_x(y) doteq E_xsum_n=0^tau_x^+ - 1 textbf1_X_n = y,
          endalign*
          i.e. the expected number of visits to $y$, starting at $x$, before hitting $x$. This defines a stationary measure, and is thus a scalar multiple of $pi$ (stationary measures are unique up to constant multiples for irreducible, recurrent chains). Note that by definition, $mu_x(x) = 1$. Hence,
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = fracmu_x(y)mu_x(x) = mu_x(y).
          endalign*
          To compute this expectation, denote $N_x(y) doteq sum_n=0^tau_x^+ -1textbf1_X_n = y$, so it suffices to show that
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+).
          endalign*
          Indeed,
          beginalign*
          E_x(N_x(y)) &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+ + N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ > tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) textbf1_tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) \
          &= E_x(N_x(y) mid tau_y^+ < tau_x^+) P_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+),
          endalign*
          where the second equality follows from the fact that the number of times we visit $y$ before $x$ is $0$ on the set where we hit $x$ before $y$. Now note that conditioned on $tau_y^+ < tau_x^+$, $N_x(y) in 1,2,3,dots$ is distributed as a geometric random variable with success parameter $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$ (think of breaking time up into chunks separated by visits to either $x$ or $y$. Then hitting $x$ to end the process is like flipping a coin with bias $P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$). Hence the expectation is $frac1P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+)$, which yields
          beginalign*
          fracpi(y)pi(x) = E_x(N_x(y)) = fracP_x(tau_y^+ < tau_x^+)P_y(tau_x^+ < tau_y^+),
          endalign*
          as desired. Notice that we didn't use the hypothesis of reversibility in the second argument, in contrast to the first, where it was used to define the conductance function for the electrical network (which made the proof much quicker).







          share|cite|improve this answer













          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer











          answered Aug 7 at 15:42









          Daniel Xiang

          1,823414




          1,823414











          • Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
            – Lorenzo
            Aug 7 at 16:12










          • The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
            – Daniel Xiang
            Aug 7 at 16:16
















          • Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
            – Lorenzo
            Aug 7 at 16:12










          • The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
            – Daniel Xiang
            Aug 7 at 16:16















          Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
          – Lorenzo
          Aug 7 at 16:12




          Thank you! Do you think you could add a bit on how to see that $mu_x(y)$ is a stationary measure? (This seems intuitive, but I'm not sure how to actually write down a proof...)
          – Lorenzo
          Aug 7 at 16:12












          The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
          – Daniel Xiang
          Aug 7 at 16:16




          The proof is nontrivial but can be found in Durrett's Probability Theory and Examples (Theorem 6.5.2, the book is online and free).
          – Daniel Xiang
          Aug 7 at 16:16












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875066%2fpix-p-x-tau-y-tau-x-piy-p-y-tau-x-tau-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?