What is wrong with this solution of the extinction problem?












0












$begingroup$


I am considering a standard extinction problem, that is:



A bacterial colony consists of individual bacteria. One of the following
happens with each bacterium each second:




  • The bacterium dies.

  • The bacterium remains without a change.

  • The bacterium splits in two bacteria.

  • The bacterium splits in three bacteria.


Each of the above happens with equal probability $frac{1}{4}$.
Estimate probability that the colony that initially consist of one
bacterium will never die.



There is a well documented approach for solving this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~gravner/MAT135B/materials/ch14.pdf,
http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Csernica.pdf.
This approach is working with probability that the colony has died by timestep $n$.



However there is a slightly variant of this approach that has to be wrong for a reason I will explain below.



That is, let $p=P(text{colony of 1 bacteria dies at any future timestep})$ (as opposed to "dies by timstep n"). Then we can write



begin{equation}
p = frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{4} p + frac{1}{4} p^2+ frac{1}{4} p^3
end{equation}



as colony of one bacteria can either instantly die, then remain unchanged, then can split into two bacteria and then they would both have to die independently, etc.



Then we could solve that for $p$, but we would, as per usual solution, get multiple positive roots $p_1 = sqrt{2} - 1$, $p_2 = 1$. The above doesn't explain which root to choose.



So clearly we actually we cannot write the above equation.
Why?






probability-theory markov-process







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I am considering a standard extinction problem, that is:



    A bacterial colony consists of individual bacteria. One of the following
    happens with each bacterium each second:




    • The bacterium dies.

    • The bacterium remains without a change.

    • The bacterium splits in two bacteria.

    • The bacterium splits in three bacteria.


    Each of the above happens with equal probability $frac{1}{4}$.
    Estimate probability that the colony that initially consist of one
    bacterium will never die.



    There is a well documented approach for solving this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~gravner/MAT135B/materials/ch14.pdf,
    http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Csernica.pdf.
    This approach is working with probability that the colony has died by timestep $n$.



    However there is a slightly variant of this approach that has to be wrong for a reason I will explain below.



    That is, let $p=P(text{colony of 1 bacteria dies at any future timestep})$ (as opposed to "dies by timstep n"). Then we can write



    begin{equation}
    p = frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{4} p + frac{1}{4} p^2+ frac{1}{4} p^3
    end{equation}



    as colony of one bacteria can either instantly die, then remain unchanged, then can split into two bacteria and then they would both have to die independently, etc.



    Then we could solve that for $p$, but we would, as per usual solution, get multiple positive roots $p_1 = sqrt{2} - 1$, $p_2 = 1$. The above doesn't explain which root to choose.



    So clearly we actually we cannot write the above equation.
    Why?






    probability-theory markov-process







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I am considering a standard extinction problem, that is:



      A bacterial colony consists of individual bacteria. One of the following
      happens with each bacterium each second:




      • The bacterium dies.

      • The bacterium remains without a change.

      • The bacterium splits in two bacteria.

      • The bacterium splits in three bacteria.


      Each of the above happens with equal probability $frac{1}{4}$.
      Estimate probability that the colony that initially consist of one
      bacterium will never die.



      There is a well documented approach for solving this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~gravner/MAT135B/materials/ch14.pdf,
      http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Csernica.pdf.
      This approach is working with probability that the colony has died by timestep $n$.



      However there is a slightly variant of this approach that has to be wrong for a reason I will explain below.



      That is, let $p=P(text{colony of 1 bacteria dies at any future timestep})$ (as opposed to "dies by timstep n"). Then we can write



      begin{equation}
      p = frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{4} p + frac{1}{4} p^2+ frac{1}{4} p^3
      end{equation}



      as colony of one bacteria can either instantly die, then remain unchanged, then can split into two bacteria and then they would both have to die independently, etc.



      Then we could solve that for $p$, but we would, as per usual solution, get multiple positive roots $p_1 = sqrt{2} - 1$, $p_2 = 1$. The above doesn't explain which root to choose.



      So clearly we actually we cannot write the above equation.
      Why?






      probability-theory markov-process







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I am considering a standard extinction problem, that is:



      A bacterial colony consists of individual bacteria. One of the following
      happens with each bacterium each second:




      • The bacterium dies.

      • The bacterium remains without a change.

      • The bacterium splits in two bacteria.

      • The bacterium splits in three bacteria.


      Each of the above happens with equal probability $frac{1}{4}$.
      Estimate probability that the colony that initially consist of one
      bacterium will never die.



      There is a well documented approach for solving this, e.g. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~gravner/MAT135B/materials/ch14.pdf,
      http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Csernica.pdf.
      This approach is working with probability that the colony has died by timestep $n$.



      However there is a slightly variant of this approach that has to be wrong for a reason I will explain below.



      That is, let $p=P(text{colony of 1 bacteria dies at any future timestep})$ (as opposed to "dies by timstep n"). Then we can write



      begin{equation}
      p = frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{4} p + frac{1}{4} p^2+ frac{1}{4} p^3
      end{equation}



      as colony of one bacteria can either instantly die, then remain unchanged, then can split into two bacteria and then they would both have to die independently, etc.



      Then we could solve that for $p$, but we would, as per usual solution, get multiple positive roots $p_1 = sqrt{2} - 1$, $p_2 = 1$. The above doesn't explain which root to choose.



      So clearly we actually we cannot write the above equation.
      Why?






      probability-theory markov-process




      probability-theory markov-process






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 26 at 9:26









      Christian Blatter

      175k8115327




      175k8115327










      asked Jan 25 at 21:27









      zen-devzen-dev

      424




      424






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          The classical theory of branching processes says that the extinction probability is the smallest nonnegative fixed point of the generating function of the offspring distribution, which in your case is $f(x)=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}x+frac{1}{4}x^2+frac{1}{4}x^3$. So, exactly as you have stated, the extinction probability satisfies $p=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}p+frac{1}{4}p^2+frac{1}{4}p^3$. This equation will always have the solution $p=1$, but as you have found, there is also a smaller fixed point in this case: $p=sqrt{2}-1$. Therefore $p=sqrt{2}-1$ is the extinction probability in this case. However, I don't know of an elementary argument that tells you that the smaller root is correct without going through the generating function proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
            $endgroup$
            – zen-dev
            Jan 26 at 0:39










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
            $endgroup$
            – kccu
            Jan 26 at 2:41











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3087640%2fwhat-is-wrong-with-this-solution-of-the-extinction-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          The classical theory of branching processes says that the extinction probability is the smallest nonnegative fixed point of the generating function of the offspring distribution, which in your case is $f(x)=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}x+frac{1}{4}x^2+frac{1}{4}x^3$. So, exactly as you have stated, the extinction probability satisfies $p=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}p+frac{1}{4}p^2+frac{1}{4}p^3$. This equation will always have the solution $p=1$, but as you have found, there is also a smaller fixed point in this case: $p=sqrt{2}-1$. Therefore $p=sqrt{2}-1$ is the extinction probability in this case. However, I don't know of an elementary argument that tells you that the smaller root is correct without going through the generating function proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
            $endgroup$
            – zen-dev
            Jan 26 at 0:39










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
            $endgroup$
            – kccu
            Jan 26 at 2:41
















          1












          $begingroup$

          The classical theory of branching processes says that the extinction probability is the smallest nonnegative fixed point of the generating function of the offspring distribution, which in your case is $f(x)=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}x+frac{1}{4}x^2+frac{1}{4}x^3$. So, exactly as you have stated, the extinction probability satisfies $p=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}p+frac{1}{4}p^2+frac{1}{4}p^3$. This equation will always have the solution $p=1$, but as you have found, there is also a smaller fixed point in this case: $p=sqrt{2}-1$. Therefore $p=sqrt{2}-1$ is the extinction probability in this case. However, I don't know of an elementary argument that tells you that the smaller root is correct without going through the generating function proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
            $endgroup$
            – zen-dev
            Jan 26 at 0:39










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
            $endgroup$
            – kccu
            Jan 26 at 2:41














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          The classical theory of branching processes says that the extinction probability is the smallest nonnegative fixed point of the generating function of the offspring distribution, which in your case is $f(x)=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}x+frac{1}{4}x^2+frac{1}{4}x^3$. So, exactly as you have stated, the extinction probability satisfies $p=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}p+frac{1}{4}p^2+frac{1}{4}p^3$. This equation will always have the solution $p=1$, but as you have found, there is also a smaller fixed point in this case: $p=sqrt{2}-1$. Therefore $p=sqrt{2}-1$ is the extinction probability in this case. However, I don't know of an elementary argument that tells you that the smaller root is correct without going through the generating function proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The classical theory of branching processes says that the extinction probability is the smallest nonnegative fixed point of the generating function of the offspring distribution, which in your case is $f(x)=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}x+frac{1}{4}x^2+frac{1}{4}x^3$. So, exactly as you have stated, the extinction probability satisfies $p=frac{1}{4}+frac{1}{4}p+frac{1}{4}p^2+frac{1}{4}p^3$. This equation will always have the solution $p=1$, but as you have found, there is also a smaller fixed point in this case: $p=sqrt{2}-1$. Therefore $p=sqrt{2}-1$ is the extinction probability in this case. However, I don't know of an elementary argument that tells you that the smaller root is correct without going through the generating function proof.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 25 at 21:36









          kccukccu

          10.6k11229




          10.6k11229












          • $begingroup$
            This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
            $endgroup$
            – zen-dev
            Jan 26 at 0:39










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
            $endgroup$
            – kccu
            Jan 26 at 2:41


















          • $begingroup$
            This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
            $endgroup$
            – zen-dev
            Jan 26 at 0:39










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
            $endgroup$
            – kccu
            Jan 26 at 2:41
















          $begingroup$
          This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
          $endgroup$
          – zen-dev
          Jan 26 at 0:39




          $begingroup$
          This unfortunately answers different question. It is well known how to solve extinction problem in general, the question is what is wrong with the solution outlined above.
          $endgroup$
          – zen-dev
          Jan 26 at 0:39












          $begingroup$
          Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
          $endgroup$
          – kccu
          Jan 26 at 2:41




          $begingroup$
          Nothing is wrong with it, but without more work it doesn't tell you which value of $p$ is correct.
          $endgroup$
          – kccu
          Jan 26 at 2:41


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3087640%2fwhat-is-wrong-with-this-solution-of-the-extinction-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro...
          Read more

          The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth From The Cutting Room Floor < The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth Jump to: navigation, search This is a sub-page of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth . Afterbirth is the first expansion pack for Rebirth and features a variety of improvements. Contents 1 Unused Graphics 1.1 Old Man Keeper 1.2 Skinless Hush 1.3 Miscellaneous Unused Hush Sprites 1.4 Generosity achievement 1.5 Afterbirth+ Room Editor 1.6 Bearded Ultra Greed 1.7 Early Ultra Greed 1.8 Unused Brownie Expression 1.9 Frail's Spinning Head 1.10 Mom's Dead Hand Alt 2 Unused Audio 2.1 Unused Dead Womb Layer 2.2 Unused Hush Battle Outro 2.3 The Stain Grunt Unused Graphics Old Man Keeper Image file: gfxuimain me...
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1 ...
          Read more