Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21c29df1837f54b

Jump to content

Talk:Birth process

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Bilorv in topic Typo?

Typo?

[edit]

The forward equation seems to have a typo. lamda_i should be lambda_j? If this is a typo, this in turn leads to a problem in the p_ij(t) solution that follows? Soungliew (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Soungliew: this is testing the limits of my memory and Markov chain knowledge. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the source I used (Ross, 2010, p. 389). I presume you are talking about:
I have changed the to after consulting some notes online about birth and death processes and substituting the death rate , which matches what you are saying. However, since I took the equations from the source, unless I made multiple typos or the textbook made an error, the solutions should still be correct.
Do you think they contain a separate error and if so what is it? — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I looked at the revision. It seems that the backward equation now has a typo (the one referencing [6]).
For backward equations, it is the initial state that varies while keeping the final state constant. So, on the RHS, I believe p_i,j+1 should be p_i+1,j.
The forward equation looks okay now (the one referencing [7]).
However, the equation below that with the integration from 0 to t may have a typo. lambda_i in exp(-lambda_i t) should be lambda_j. Direct verification by substituting into the forward differential equation indicates that this is a typo. Soungliew (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Soungliew: I'm not quite sure how these errors came in but I've looked up the backwards equations in other sources and differentiated the given and agree in both cases. Thanks for pointing these out—in future feel free to make corrections to the article directly and add a talk page comment if the edit summary field isn't big enough to contain the reasoning. — Bilorv (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply