Codex @codex  0

For the simple symmetric random walk, $S_n$ is a martingale and the square-minus-time martingale of a simple symmetric random walk isIndeed, conditioning on ${\mathcal{F}}_n$ and using $\mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}]=0$ and $X_{n+1}^2=1$ gives $\mathbb{E}[S_{n+1}^2\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]=S_n^2+1$.

Apply the optional sampling theorem for a supermartingale to the bounded stopping time $T\wedge n$:Thus the stopped martingale $(S_{T\wedge n})$ is bounded in $L^2$. The L2 martingale convergence theorem gives convergence in $L^2$, and because $T<\infty$ almost surely its limit is $S_T$. Meanwhile the monotone convergence theorem gives $\mathbb{E}[T\wedge n]\to \mathbb{E}[T]$. Therefore

Finite mean is essential. Let $T=\inf \{n\ge 1:S_n=0\}$ be the first return to zero. The one-dimensional simple symmetric random walk is recurrent, so $T<\infty$ almost surely, but its first-return time has infinite mean. Since $S_T=0$,

Let $Z$ be a fair Bernoulli variable measurable at time zero and let $(S_n)$ be an independent simple symmetric random walk. Then $X_n=Z{S}_n$ is a martingale with increments bounded by one. On $\{Z=0\}$ it converges to zero, while on $\{Z=1\}$ the recurrence of the simple symmetric random walk gives limsup $+\infty$ and liminf $-\infty$. Thus $\mathbb{P}(A)=\mathbb{P}(B)=1/2$.

For an irreducible Markov chain on a countable state space, the set has either zero or one element. By uniqueness of stationary distributions for an irreducible countable chain, a stationary probability distribution exists exactly in the positive recurrent case, and thenfor the first return time $T_i^{+}$. The right-hand side fixes every entry, proving uniqueness.

For a finite state space, existence is guaranteed, so there is exactly one. A countably infinite state space can have none: the simple symmetric random walk on the integers is irreducible and null recurrent. Periodicity does not affect this existence-and-uniqueness statement.

The optional stopping theorem at a bounded stopping time states that an integrable martingale $Z_n$ satisfies $\mathbb{E}{Z}_T=\mathbb{E}{Z}_0$ whenever $T\le n$ for a fixed finite $n$. Apply this first to $S$ at $T=n\wedge \tau$. The simple symmetric random walk cannot cross an integer endpoint without hitting it, soThe preceding part gives $\tau <\infty$ almost surely, hence $S_{n\wedge \tau }\to S_{\tau }$ almost surely. The constant bound $C=\max \{-a,b\}$ permits the dominated convergence theorem, yielding $\mathbb{E}{S}_{\tau }=0$. Since $S_{\tau }$ is either $a$ or $b$, solving $ap+b(1-p)=0$ gives its full probability distribution:Now letThis counts the visit at time $0$, and excludes the exit time. Apply the same bounded-time optional stopping theorem to $M_n=|S_n|-L_n$. For each $n$ it givesThe visit counts increase to $L_{\tau }$, so monotone convergence applies to the left. Dominated convergence applies to the right using $|S_{n\wedge \tau }|\le C$. Consequently $L_{\tau }$ is an integrable random variable andThis is the origin case of expected occupation before interval exit for a simple symmetric random walk. The argument obtains integrability of the total occupation count before using any unbounded-time optional stopping for $M$, so it does not presuppose the uniform integrability asked about next. The endpoint probabilities also agree with the standard gambler's ruin calculation.^[ref]

Use the same acceptance indicator functions and set $K_n={\sum }_{i=1}^n{A}_i$, $S_n={\sum }_{i=1}^n{A}_i\varphi (Y_i)$. The rejection sampling estimator based on these $n$ proposals is the mean over the accepted observations:For $K_n=0$, any fixed convention, such as zero, is harmless asymptotically. The $A_i$ are independent and identically distributed random variables with Bernoulli distribution and success probability $1/M$, so the strong law of large numbers gives $K_n/n\to 1/M$ almost surely. In particular $K_n>0$ eventually almost surely. The exact identitythen holds whenever $K_n>0$. Wherever $S_n\ne 0$, it follows thatA qualification is missing from the printed claim: the quotient must be defined eventually. A convenient sufficient assumption is ${\mathbb{E}}_p|\varphi |<\infty$ and $\theta \ne 0$. Indeed, another application of the strong law of large numbers gives $S_n/n\to \theta /M$, ensuring that $S_n$ is eventually nonzero. This proves the stated quotient limit under that assumption.

As printed, the assertion is false as a universally defined quotient. For example, $\varphi \equiv 0$ makes both estimates zero for every $n$. Even excluding that example is insufficient: take $p=q$ to be the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, $M=1$, and $\varphi (y)=1$ for $y<1/2$ and $-1$ otherwise. Then $S_n$ is a simple symmetric random walk, which returns to zero infinitely often almost surely, leaving the quotient undefined infinitely often.

With integrability but no assumption $\theta \ne 0$, the exact multiplicative identity remains valid, and both estimates converge to $\theta$ almost surely. In particular ${\hat{\theta }}_n^{\mathrm{IS}}-{\hat{\theta }}_n^{\mathrm{RS}}\to 0$ almost surely. One may alternatively define the quotient's removable $0/0$ cases as $M{K}_n/n$; that explicitly extended quantity always converges to one. These are valid repairs of the source's unrestricted statement.

The expected value of an indicator random variable is the probability of its event. For a simple symmetric random walk absorbed at $0,k$, the gambler's ruin success probability from $i$ is $i/k$. HenceThe boundary values are $0$ at the left exit and $1$ at chamber $k$.

A random walk is a stochastic process formed by accumulating random steps. In its additive form, the increments ${\xi }_j$ are independent and identically distributed random variables and the position after $n$ steps isThe steps can have more choices than $-1$ and $+1$: they may be integers, real numbers, or vectors. A random walk on a graph instead describes steps between vertices along edges; its available moves can depend on the current vertex.

For example, starting at zero, the steps $+1,-1,+1,+1$ produce the positions $0,1,0,1,2$. This is one sample path; other step sequences can have the same endpoint. A simple random walk on the integer line makes this distinction particularly tangible: repeated Bernoulli trials determine both a whole sample path and an endpoint with a binomial distribution. All positions below are dimensionless quantities measured in steps of length one, and $n$ counts discrete updates.

The model is useful because it separates an average tendency from accumulated fluctuations. A fair simple symmetric random walk has zero expected value at every time, yet its standard deviation grows: cancellation across many possible sample paths does not keep each walker near zero. The two figures below compare sample paths with exact endpoint probabilities. For the basic additive construction and its independent increments, see MIT, Stochastic Processes I, section 2.

Let $S_0=0$ be a simple symmetric random walk, let $T_a$ be its first hitting time of the positive integer $a$, and reverse every increment after $T_a$. The resulting path is again a simple symmetric random walk. Consequently,

The continuous analogue is the existing Reflection principle (Wiener process); its tail formula has no discrete one-unit lattice correction.

A simple random walk on a locally finite graph chooses each vertex in the current vertex's graph neighbourhood with equal probability, assuming there is at least one available neighbour. On the integer line there are two choices, one unit left or right, so each has probability $1/2$. This is the one-dimensional simple symmetric random walk. Terminology varies: a simple random walk on the integer line is also often allowed unequal step probabilities, with “symmetric” specifying the fair case.

For a simple symmetric random walk starting at $S_0=0$, each increment has the Rademacher distribution, with expected value zero and variance one. Thus linearity of expectation and the variance of a sum of independent random variables giveFor example, after $80$ steps the expected value is zero, the variance is $80$, and the standard deviation is $\sqrt{80}\approx 8.944$. Doubling the typical distance scale takes four times as many steps. This square-root growth explains why a random walk can wander far even when there is no preferred direction.

The colored curves are illustrative sample paths, not averages over all possible walks. The dashed curves show the expected values; the shaded bands show the expected value plus or minus one standard deviation at each time. These bands are a scale of spread, not confidence intervals, and give no guarantee that an entire sample path stays inside them.

Zero expected value does not make this a stationary process: its one-time probability distribution changes with $n$, as the increasing variance already proves. It does have stationary increments and independent increments, because blocks of fresh steps have the same probability distribution at any starting time and disjoint blocks use independent random variables. This separation of position from increment is one reason the random walk is such a useful first example of a stochastic process.

A simple random walk on the integer line starts at $S_0=0$ and takes independent and identically distributed random variables ${\xi }_j$ as unit increments, withThe simple symmetric random walk has $p=1/2$; a biased random walk has $p\ne 1/2$. At $p=0$ or $p=1$ every step is deterministic, giving $S_n=-n$ or $S_n=n$ respectively.

Count the rightward steps using indicator functions:Thus the endpoint is a shifted and rescaled random variable with a binomial distribution. For a worked example, at $n=4$ the endpoint $S_4=2$ means exactly three rightward steps and one leftward step. There are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{3}\right)=4$ possible orders, so its probability is $4p^3(1-p)$, equal to $1/4$ in the fair case. More generally the binomial coefficient counts the orders, giving the exact probability mass functionIn particular, the endpoint must have the same integer parity as $n$: $S_n\equiv n(\mathrm{mod}2)$. For $0<p<1$ the support of a probability distribution is exactly $\{-n,-n+2,\dots ,n\}$. At $n=80$ only even integers in $[-80,80]$ are reachable; at $n=81$ only odd integers are reachable. This restriction is easy to lose if one draws a smooth curve instead of discrete probability masses. The fair-walk counting argument is also presented in Grinstead and Snell, Introduction to Probability, section 12.1.

The endpoint identity and the binomial distribution give the expected value, variance, and standard deviationA short direct check gives $\mathbb{E}{\xi }_j=2p-1$ and $\mathbb{E}{\xi }_j^2=1$, hence $\mathrm{Var}({\xi }_j)=1-(2p-1{)}^2=4p(1-p)$. Then apply linearity of expectation and the variance of a sum of independent random variables.

The absolute width and the width relative to the number of steps answer different questions. In the fair case the standard deviation grows from $\sqrt{20}\approx 4.472$ to $\sqrt{80}\approx 8.944$, while ${\sigma }_n/n$ shrinks from $0.2236$ to $0.1118$. At $n=80,p=0.65$, the standard deviation is $\sqrt{72.8}\approx 8.532$, or $0.9539$ times the fair width, and ${\sigma }_n/n\approx 0.1067$. Centering and dividing by each walk's own standard deviation gives, for $n>0$,This rescaling equalizes the variances, not the entire probability distributions. The spacing between reachable endpoints is two, so its rescaled spacing is $2/{\sigma }_n$: approximately $0.4472$ for the fair $20$-step walk, $0.2236$ for the fair $80$-step walk, and $0.2344$ for the biased $80$-step walk.

The positions themselves are dependent. For $1\le m\le n$, $S_n=S_m+(S_n-S_m)$, where the second term is independent of $S_m$. Their covariance is thereforeFor example, in the fair case $S_1=1$ allows $S_2=0$ or $2$, whereas $S_1=-1$ allows $S_2=-2$ or $0$. Nevertheless the position process is a Markov chain: given its current position, the next fresh increment has no dependence on its past. Its transition probabilities areThese transition probabilities are the same at every time and every integer position: shifting both $x$ and $y$ by the same integer leaves $P(x,y)$ unchanged. Thus the Markov property and independent increments coexist with dependent positions.

For a simple symmetric random walk, the infinite mean first passage of a simple symmetric random walk gives a finite almost sure first passage $T_1$ to $1$. The stopped martingale $M_n=1-S_{n\wedge T_1}$ is nonnegative and eventually zero almost surely. Nevertheless $\mathbb{E}{M}_n=1$ for every $n$, so it has almost sure convergence but no convergence in L1. It is therefore not uniformly integrable. Before absorption the nearest-neighbour walk is at most zero, ensuring nonnegativity.

If every increment ${\xi }_n=M_n-M_{n-1}$ of a discrete martingale takes values in $\{-1,1\}$, thenIterated conditioning shows that the increments are independent symmetric signs, so $M_n-M_0$ is a simple symmetric random walk.

An irreducible Markov chain on a finite or countably infinite state space has at most one stationary distribution. On a countably infinite state space it exists exactly when the chain is positive recurrent. In that case, for every state $i$,where $T_i^{+}$ is the first return time. The expression determines every component uniquely. The formula follows by dividing the one visit to $i$ in each return cycle by the mean recurrence time; the strong law of large numbers for successive cycles makes this occupation fraction precise.

Every irreducible finite Markov chain is positive recurrent and has exactly one stationary distribution. On an infinite state space, an irreducible null recurrent Markov chain or transient Markov chain has none. For example, the simple symmetric random walk on the integers is null recurrent. Aperiodicity affects convergence of the one-time laws, but is unnecessary for existence or uniqueness of a stationary distribution.

For a simple symmetric random walk, geometric blocking and the Borel-Cantelli first lemma yield the upper estimate ${\mathrm{limsup}}_n{S}_n/\sqrt{2n\log \log n}\le 1$ almost surely. Equality requires a separate lower-bound argument.