Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2014/ib/paper-4/9h/b/ii/solution

Starting from forces . The first nonzero value is consequently . Remaining nonzero at the next step forces , because . Hence, on an event of positive probability,
The two values are unequal by assumption. They expose memory of the hidden sign: immediately after leaving zero the sign is negative, whereas after two consecutive nonzero observations it is positive. Whenever the relevant observed histories coexist with positive probability, the Markov property for fails, since its next-step law is not determined by its present value alone. In particular, the absolute-value projection does not preserve the Markov property for all initial laws; the strong lumpability condition would require .
There is a small qualification to a blanket conclusion about an unspecified initial law. The printed assumptions do not ensure that either conditioning event is possible, and a degenerate initial law may never reach the hidden states that cause the failure. For example, in the order , take
All printed constraints hold, yet always and is a Markov chain. Thus the correct general conclusion is the transformed process is not necessarily Markov; the two computed probabilities give the intended failure when their histories are available.

New to topics? Read the docs here!