1967
DOI: 10.1007/bf00533942
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contributions to Doeblin's theory of Markov processes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0
1

Year Published

1973
1973
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, let q | H denote the transition probability q restricted to (H, H∩Z). Then, there is a nontrivial σ -finite measure μ for which μ(·) = H q(z, ·) dμ(z) holds and, up to constant multiples, μ is the unique measure with this property [29]. If μ is even a probability measure, then H is positive Harris and μ is ergodic with μ(H) = 1.…”
Section: (224)mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Moreover, let q | H denote the transition probability q restricted to (H, H∩Z). Then, there is a nontrivial σ -finite measure μ for which μ(·) = H q(z, ·) dμ(z) holds and, up to constant multiples, μ is the unique measure with this property [29]. If μ is even a probability measure, then H is positive Harris and μ is ergodic with μ(H) = 1.…”
Section: (224)mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A set SscriptE is said to be small for X if there exist mdouble-struckN*, δ > 0 and a probability measure Φ supported by S such that, for all xS,BscriptE, normalΠm(x,B)δnormalΦ(B), where Π m denotes the m ‐th iterate of the transition kernel Π. Condition shall be referred to as the minorization condition scriptℳ(m,S,δ,normalΦ). As shown in Jain and Jamison (), many accessible small sets exist for ψ‐irreducible chains: any set BscriptE such that ψ( B ) > 0 contains such a set. Rather than replacing the original chain X by the multi‐variate chain {(Xnm,,Xm(n+1)1)}ndouble-struckN, we also assume that m = 1.…”
Section: Background and Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It remains to show that - Suppose the process (h; n 2 0 ) is ~5-recurrent on W (strongly recurrent) but not necessarily stationary. Then, by Theorem 5.3 in [18], the pair process ((s,, &); n 2 0 ) is wecurrent on pd-' x W. If we assume that the invariant set C x Q is not decomposable into a cycle (see, e.g., [19]), then the process ((s,, L), n 2 0 ) w i l l converge weakly to its stationary solution ((S,, k); n 2 0 ) in the sense that, for all B E B ([pd-' x v), the Bore1 sets on the path space of the pair process, and with v denoting any initial distribution on pd-' X W, where P, and Pn denote the probabilities obtained with initial distributions v and n, respectively (see Proposition 7.12 in [lo]). Hence, by Theorem 2.1, the process ((x,, &, ) ; n 2 0 ) = ((sn l x,, I, tn); n 2 0 ) will converge weakly to ( (sneL, Cn); n 2 0) 1.…”
Section: Sarn~le Stabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%