Let interchange the two complete graphs, sending to and fixing . This involution preserves the transition matrix of the simple random walk. A mirror coupling under an involution starts at , keeps until the hitting time of , and then makes the two walks move identically. Each coordinate has the correct transition probabilities, and they coalesce precisely at . The coupling inequality for total variation gives
There is a genuine error in the printed expected hitting time bound, as well as an unspecified initial law. For , write and for . From every clique vertex there is a positive chance of reaching within two steps, uniformly over the finite state space for each fixed , so has finite expected value. First-step analysis, using the degree of a vertex at and at the other clique vertices, gives
Solving these linear equations yields
In particular even the attachment vertex exceeds the printed bound by one. The valid uniform replacement is , the hitting time of the bridge vertex between two cliques formula.
We must also handle arbitrary starting states, including , before applying the mirror argument. Identify related vertices and consider the lumped Markov chain on . Its transition matrix has for , , for and , and , with all other entries zero. Here the row for only ranges over .
For and , direct two-step calculation gives
All these entries are at least . Thus for every , where is the uniform distribution on a finite set and . This is a Doeblin condition. At each two-step block couple the two quotient endpoints to the same sample from with probability , using the residual probability distributions otherwise. The first successful block has expected value at most , so the alignment time has . Lift each endpoint coupling of probability distributions to the original walks by their conditional two-step path laws; this preserves every marginal path law. The success test uses fresh block randomness and so permits restarting the walks with their original transition matrix at the aligned endpoints.
At alignment the original walks are equal or related. Use identical transitions in the first case and the mirror coupling under an involution in the second. The resulting coalescing coupling has coalescence time satisfying for every pair of initial states. Therefore Markov inequality and the pairwise mixing diameter imply
For the hint's particular starting states, the quotient one-step laws from two different clique indices have a common component of mass at least : for two ordinary indices it is ; for one attachment index it is . A maximal coupling therefore aligns those indices with probability , as suggested. The two-step argument above additionally covers .
The nonlazy walk is an aperiodic Markov chain for , because the connected graph contains a triangle. For it is a periodic Markov chain on a bipartite graph; each bipartition class has stationary mass , and the walk stays on a single class at each time. Hence and the mixing time is infinite. The asymptotic conclusion is valid for .