Talk:Absorbing Markov chain

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Citation for Formal Definition

Melcombe, can you explain why you think that the formal definition needs a citation so that my next edit to this article can address your issue? Thanks :) Bender2k14 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The need for giving sources is a general Wikipedia requirement. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics for a maths-relevant version. At this point in the article there have been no stated sources at all, so you can't be relying on a previous indication that readers should refer throughout to some given set of sources. There is nothing even to back up a claim that the topic is "notable" which is a prime requirement for acceptability of an article on a topic in Wikipedia. A source for a definition would at least provide evidence that someone has used the term before. And don't forget that Wikipedia wants more than one source where possible. Melcombe (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cited two books (though not at the location of your cn-template) that both define absorbing Markov chains. The reason I didn't site the definition specifically is that neither defines it exactly the same where I defined it here. You are a mathematician; you understand that there are many slightly different and equivalent definitions for things. Do you think it is ok to cite one of these books even though its definition is not exactly the same? Bender2k14 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away. I don't think an exact match is necessary provided there is a clear similarity ...it seems more important to have soureces that can ber examined for verification. I will add both the references givehn for the initial citation. But it would be good to also have something for the "canonical form". Melcombe (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affect on formulas if have initial state distribution?

There is no explenation what happens if you have an intital state distribution. for example: How do you calculate the number of expected steps or the variance of the steps. On the expected value you can probably just do the weighted average, but how is the variance affected? (person 1) 2001:6B0:1:1DF0:50B0:4578:4A60:A743 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by P in string generation example

The first entry in P is 0.5, but surely that's the probability of moving from state j to state j, in this case from an empty string to an empty string, which must be p=0?

Actually - I've got it now.

'empty' followed by 'T' goes to 'empty'
'H' followed by 'T' goes to 'empty'
'HT' followed by a 'T' goes to 'empty'

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbuontempo (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]