Motivation

Label correcting methods are the workhorse family of shortest-path algorithms — Dijkstra's method, Bellman–Ford, SLF/LLL variants and A* all fit the template analyzed in §2.3.1 of Bertsekas, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. I (3rd ed., 2005), where shortest paths appear as the purely deterministic face of dynamic programming. The correctness proof (Prop. 2.3.1) is short on paper but genuinely nondeterministic — any node may be removed from the candidate list, children processed in any order — so a formal proof certifies a whole family of concrete algorithms at once.

Setting

A finite directed graph with arc set $\mathcal{A}$, real arc lengths $a_{ij}$, origin $s$ and destination $t \ne s$ (BertsekasSPGraph). Walks are nonempty node lists whose consecutive pairs are arcs (BertsekasIsWalkFrom), with length the sum of arc lengths (BertsekasWalkLength); the shortest distance is the infimum of walk lengths in the extended reals, $+\infty$ if no walk exists (BertsekasShortestDistance). The standing assumption of §2.3: every cycle has nonnegative length (negative arcs allowed).

The algorithm state (BertsekasLCState) carries labels $d_j \in \overline{\mathbb{R}}$, the scalar UPPER, and the candidate list OPEN. Initially $d_s = 0$, all other labels $\infty$, UPPER $= \infty$, OPEN $= \{s\}$. One iteration (BertsekasLCStep, nondeterministic): remove any $i$ from OPEN; for each child $j$ of $i$ in any order, if $d_i + a_{ij} < \min\{d_j, \text{UPPER}\}$ set $d_j := d_i + a_{ij}$, and put $j$ in OPEN if $j \ne t$, or update UPPER if $j = t$. The algorithm terminates when OPEN is empty.

Target

for every execution, under the nonnegative arc length assumption of §2.3 ($a_{ij} \ge 0$ for every arc) — BertsekasDP.label_correcting_correctness_of_nonneg_arcs (goal). Milestones: termination — no infinite execution exists, which needs only the weaker nonnegative-cycle assumption (label_correcting_terminates) — and the workhorse invariant that every finite label is the length of an actual walk from $s$, which needs neither (label_correcting_invariant).

The nonnegative-arc hypothesis is essential and not a formalization artifact: the algorithm prunes with the test $d_i + a_{ij} < \min\{d_j, \mathrm{UPPER}\}$, and with a negative arc a longer prefix can still reach $t$ more cheaply, so the pruned node is never entered into OPEN. An earlier version of this mission's goal carried only the nonnegative-cycle assumption of §2.1 and was disproved by the counterexample $s=0$, $t=2$, $a_{02}=1$, $a_{01}=2$, $a_{12}=-2$ (a graph with no cycles at all), where the algorithm terminates with $\mathrm{UPPER}=1$ while the shortest distance is $0$. Exercise 2.7 of the source treats the nonnegative-cycle case, which requires a modified algorithm.

Significance

Prop. 2.3.1 certifies simultaneously breadth-first search, Dijkstra (best-first), depth-first and small-label-first variants — every removal discipline is one refinement of the nondeterministic relation. Formally, the development contributes a reusable small-step framework for label-setting/correcting algorithms on which sharper results (Dijkstra's single-pass property, A* admissibility, §2.3.3) can later be built. The result is classical; the formal content is the induction along the nondeterministic step relation.

Difficulty

Termination is the subtle half: labels do not decrease monotonically along the run in an obvious well-founded way; the book's argument counts the finitely many distinct walk lengths below a bound — this needs the nonnegative-cycle assumption and a careful bound relating labels to simple-path lengths. The invariant proof must thread through the fold over children within a single step.

Formalization scope

Finite node type with decidable equality; arcs as a Finset of ordered pairs; lengths total on $V \times V$ (only arc values matter). The step relation is fully nondeterministic in pivot choice and child order (a permutation quantifier); correctness quantifies over all reachable terminal states — there is no fixed schedule to exploit. Distances live in EReal, so the no-path case is the honest empty infimum, not a sentinel. The trivializing risk of restricting to nonnegative arcs is avoided: only cycles are constrained.

Selected references

• D. P. Bertsekas, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Athena Scientific, 2005. (Prop. 2.3.1, §2.3.) http://www.athenasc.com/dpbook.html
• E. W. Dijkstra, A note on two problems in connexion with graphs, Numer. Math. 1 (1959), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01386390
• R. Bellman, On a routing problem, Quart. Appl. Math. 16 (1958), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/102435

Motivation and history

Compressing an operator to a closed subspace keeps the information visible within that subspace but can discard interactions with its orthogonal complement. The compression-rigidity question asks whether a particular equality detects that no such interactions were present. Its inputs are two commuting positive contractions and an ordinary strictly convex function of two real variables. The issue is the equality case, not the existence of a general operator inequality for every convex function.

The question was contributed by Boris Bilich to the CUHK-Shenzhen AI Math Problems collection and added on June 1, 2026. The original problem asks about operators on a Hilbert space without imposing finite dimension. The first formal target in this mission treated matrices with supplied joint spectral data. That finite-dimensional declaration has a verified proof on Prove2Me, but it does not settle the unrestricted Hilbert-space question. The September 2026 correction restores arbitrary complex Hilbert spaces as the main target and preserves the earlier result as a supporting artifact.

Setting

Let $H$ be a complete complex Hilbert space, and let $\mathcal B(H)$ be its algebra of bounded complex-linear operators. The multiplication $AB$ means composition, with $B$ acting first, and $A^*$ denotes the adjoint. A positive contraction $A$ is self-adjoint, satisfies $\operatorname{Re}\langle v,Av\rangle\geq0$ for every $v\in H$, and has operator norm at most one. Both zero and the identity are permitted.

Write $S=[0,1]^2$. Let $X,Y\in\mathcal B(H)$ be positive contractions satisfying $XY=YX$. Their joint continuous functional calculus assigns an operator $g(X,Y)$ to each continuous real function $g$ on $S$. It is characterized as a continuous unital real star-algebra homomorphism from $C(S,\mathbb R)$ to $\mathcal B(H)$ that maps the two coordinate functions to $X$ and $Y$. The domain has the uniform norm and the codomain the operator norm. The existence and uniqueness of this calculus follow from the standard joint spectral theorem; the relevant source is Dereziński, Lemma 6.6, printed page 43.

An orthogonal projection is an operator $P$ satisfying $P^*=P$ and $P^2=P$. The compressed operators $PXP$ and $PYP$ are still viewed as operators on the original space $H$, not as operators on a separately chosen finite-dimensional range. The question includes the additional hypothesis that these compressed operators commute. The original commutation of $X$ and $Y$ does not remove the need to state this hypothesis.

Formalization targets

The main target is the entire compression implication from the source. Let $f:S\to\mathbb R$ be continuous and strictly convex: for distinct $x,y\in S$ and $0<t<1$, its value at $tx+(1-t)y$ is strictly less than $t f(x)+(1-t)f(y)$. For $X,Y,P$ as above, the question is whether

Both outer projections on the right are part of the original assertion. There is no hypothesis that $f(0,0)=0$. Commutation of $P$ with each coordinate operator is exactly the reducing-subspace conclusion asked for in the source.

The accompanying standard infrastructure target asserts that, for every commuting pair of positive contractions on $H$,

where $\Phi$ is continuous, unital, real-linear, multiplicative and star-preserving. This is the unit-square, real-valued-function specialization of Lemma 6.6, not a claim that this known theorem is a new research conjecture. Its Lean proof is a separate supporting obligation. The earlier two-dimensional milestone and the proved finite-dimensional capstone remain available; neither replaces the new main target.

Significance

A positive resolution would show that exact preservation of one strictly convex functional-calculus value, under the specified commuting-compression hypothesis, forces both operators to preserve the projection's range and its orthogonal complement. A negative resolution would require an actual Hilbert space, operators and strictly convex function satisfying every hypothesis while at least one of the two reducing identities fails.

The formal development separates this research question from the standard spectral infrastructure needed to express it. The new main declaration is an open proof obligation. The joint-calculus existence-and-uniqueness declaration is also unproved in this contribution, although mathematically standard. Local compilation and server publication check the declarations' well-formedness; they are not proofs of either statement. Only the earlier finite-dimensional result is being reported here as already proved.

Difficulty

Arbitrary bounded commuting self-adjoint operators need not have a joint eigenbasis. Consequently a matrix formulation that records finitely many joint spectral atoms cannot serve as the general operator model. The compressed pair may also have different spectral data from the original pair. The equality involves these two different functional calculi, with a projection on either side of each value.

Strict convexity in this question is ordinary scalar strict convexity on the square. Operator convexity, finite rank of the projection, compactness of the coordinate operators, and a multivariable operator Jensen inequality are not additional assumptions. Introducing any of them would change the requested question. The general formulation must also retain boundary cases rather than exclude them to simplify an argument.

Formalization scope

The Lean model uses actual bounded complex-linear maps on an arbitrary complete inner-product space. It imposes no finite-dimensionality, separability, common-eigenbasis or nonzero-space assumption. It includes $P=0$, $P=I_H$ and the zero Hilbert space. The scalar field convention is complex; a real-Hilbert-space transfer is not separately formalized here.

The function is stored on the ambient real plane, but continuity, strict convexity and evaluation use only its restriction to $S$. Values outside $S$ are irrelevant, and continuity outside the square is not required. Thus storing an ambient function does not exclude any continuous function originally defined only on the square.

Joint evaluation is a total definition. If a representing continuous unital real star-algebra homomorphism exists, it chooses one for the operator pair and then evaluates the supplied function. Otherwise it returns zero. The separate existence-and-uniqueness target establishes that this fallback is inapplicable to commuting positive contractions and that the choice is immaterial. No field in the model assumes the compression-rigidity conclusion. The supporting standard theorem must also apply to the compressed pair using the original projection and positivity hypotheses, without adding representation existence as a new restriction on the main question.

The replacement definition and both statements were built at Lean 4.30.0 with supported Mathlib revision c5ea00351c28e24afc9f0f84379aa41082b1188f, and their final versions received independent blind readbacks. Published older declarations and their proof identities are preserved. They should be cited with their finite-dimensional scope, not described as a solution of the arbitrary-Hilbert-space target.

Selected references

• Boris Bilich, Equality case for compressed convex functional calculus, CUHK-Shenzhen AI Math Problems, Problem 2, added June 1, 2026. Original statement.
• Jan Dereziński, Bounded operators, Warsaw University lecture notes, January 2007, Lemma 6.6, printed page 43. Joint continuous functional calculus.

Motivation

The fundamental group $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ is the first algebraic invariant a student of topology meets, and $\pi_1(S^1)\cong\mathbb{Z}$ is the first computation of it that carries real content. Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology (Cambridge University Press, 2002; freely available at pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf) is the standard text on the subject. Its Chapter 1 opens with exactly this computation (Theorem 1.7, p. 29) and immediately draws three classical consequences from it: the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (Theorem 1.8), the Brouwer fixed point theorem for the disk (Theorem 1.9), and the Borsuk–Ulam theorem for the sphere (Theorem 1.10).

This mission is the opening entry in a series that formalizes Hatcher's book capstone by capstone. It covers the subsection "The Fundamental Group of the Circle" of Section 1.1 (pp. 29–33): the covering-space lifting properties that drive the proof, the theorem itself, and its three applications. Later entries in the series (van Kampen's theorem, the classification of covering spaces, simplicial and singular homology) will build on the declarations introduced here, which all live in the shared Lean namespace Hatcher.

Setting

A path in a topological space $X$ is a continuous map $f : I \to X$, where $I = [0,1]$. A homotopy of paths is a family $f_t : I \to X$, $0 \le t \le 1$, such that the endpoints $f_t(0) = x_0$ and $f_t(1) = x_1$ are independent of $t$ and the associated map $F : I \times I \to X$, $F(s,t) = f_t(s)$, is continuous. A loop at a basepoint $x_0$ is a path with $f(0) = f(1) = x_0$. The set of homotopy classes $[f]$ of loops at $x_0$ is the fundamental group $\pi_1(X, x_0)$; its product is $[f][g] = [f\cdot g]$, where $f\cdot g$ traverses $f$ and then $g$, each at double speed (Hatcher, Proposition 1.3).

The circle $S^1 \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is realised as the unit circle of $\mathbb{C}$, so the point $(\cos\theta, \sin\theta)$ is $e^{i\theta}$ and the basepoint $(1,0)$ is $1$. Hatcher's map

is Hatcher.circleCover. The loops

based at $(1,0)$ are Hatcher.omegaLoopN n, and $\omega = \omega_1$ is Hatcher.omegaLoop; its class $[\omega] \in \pi_1(S^1, 1)$ is Hatcher.omegaClass.

A covering space of $X$ is a space $\tilde X$ together with a map $p : \tilde X \to X$ such that every $x \in X$ has an open neighbourhood $U$ for which $p^{-1}(U)$ is a disjoint union of open sets each mapped homeomorphically onto $U$ by $p$ (Hatcher's condition $(\ast)$, p. 29; such a $U$ is evenly covered). A lift of a map $f : Y \to X$ is a map $\tilde f : Y \to \tilde X$ with $p \circ \tilde f = f$.

Formalization targets

Goal (Theorem 1.7)

$\pi_1(S^1, 1)$ is an infinite cyclic group generated by $[\omega]$. In the form stated in Lean:

Surjectivity of $n \mapsto [\omega]^n$ says $[\omega]$ generates; uniqueness of $n$ says the group is infinite cyclic rather than finite.

Milestones on the road to the goal

1. $p(s) = e^{2\pi i s}$ is a covering space of $S^1$ (Hatcher, p. 29).
2. Homotopy lifting property (c): for a covering space $p : \tilde X \to X$, a map $F : Y \times I \to X$ and a lift of $F|_{Y \times \{0\}}$ extend uniquely to a lift of $F$ (p. 30).
3. Path lifting property (a): a path $f$ starting at $x_0$ and a point $\tilde x_0 \in p^{-1}(x_0)$ determine a unique lift $\tilde f$ starting at $\tilde x_0$ (p. 29).
4. Lifting homotopies of paths (b): a homotopy of paths $f_t$ starting at $x_0$ lifts uniquely to a homotopy of paths $\tilde f_t$ starting at $\tilde x_0$ (p. 29).
5. Every loop in $S^1$ at $(1,0)$ is homotopic to $\omega_n$ for a unique $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ (the reformulation of Theorem 1.7 that Hatcher actually proves, p. 29).
6. $[\omega]^n = [\omega_n]$ for every $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ (Hatcher's remark after Theorem 1.7, p. 29).

Applications (Theorems 1.8–1.10)

Significance

The result itself. The computation $\pi_1(S^1) \cong \mathbb{Z}$ assigns to every loop in the circle an integer, its winding number, and shows that this integer is the only homotopy invariant of the loop. It is the seed of degree theory, and in Hatcher's text it is the starting point for every later computation of fundamental groups (products, van Kampen, covering spaces). The three applications are the standard demonstration that a single algebraic invariant can settle purely geometric or algebraic existence questions.

Formalizing it. Mathlib (revision 0df444a) already contains the covering-space infrastructure: IsCoveringMap, path lifting (IsCoveringMap.liftPath, eq_liftPath_iff'), homotopy lifting (IsCoveringMap.liftHomotopy, eq_liftHomotopy_iff'), monodromy, and the fact that Circle.exp is a covering map (Circle.isCoveringMap_exp). It also has FundamentalGroup X x as the endomorphism group of the fundamental groupoid. It does not contain the computation $\pi_1(S^1) \cong \mathbb{Z}$, nor the two-dimensional Brouwer and Borsuk–Ulam theorems. The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra is in Mathlib as Complex.exists_root (proved by Liouville's theorem rather than by Hatcher's argument); it is kept as a milestone because it is one of the section's stated theorems, and a solver may close it directly from Mathlib. Milestones 2–4 are also within reach of the existing lifting API, but they are the lemmas Hatcher states and uses, and a faithful record of them in the mission's own namespace is what later entries in the series will import.

Difficulty

The obvious first idea for the goal is to define the winding number of a loop through the complex argument. That fails because $\arg$ is discontinuous on $S^1$; the integer has to be produced by lifting the loop through $p$ and reading off the endpoint of the lift, which is only well defined because of the uniqueness in the path lifting property. The second difficulty is uniqueness of $n$: this needs lifting of homotopies (milestone 4), not just of paths, together with the observation that a lifted homotopy of paths has constant endpoints.

Connecting the concrete loops to Mathlib's abstract $\pi_1$ is its own obstacle. FundamentalGroup Circle 1 multiplies by composing morphisms of the fundamental groupoid, so identifying $[\omega]^n$ with the class of the explicit loop $\omega_n$ (milestone 6) requires reparametrization arguments for concatenated paths, for negative $n$ as well as positive.

For Theorem 1.9 the difficulty is the construction and continuity of the retraction $r : D^2 \to S^1$ from a fixed-point-free map, and then the non-existence of a retraction, which uses that $\pi_1(S^1) \neq 0$. For Theorem 1.10 Hatcher's proof lifts a loop $g(s) = f(\cos 2\pi s, \sin 2\pi s)/\lvert \cdots \rvert$ through $p$ and shows the lift changes by an odd integer over half a turn; making that parity argument rigorous in Lean is the substance of the milestone.

Formalization scope

• $S^1$ is Circle (the unit circle in $\mathbb{C}$) with basepoint 1; $D^2$ is Metric.closedBall (0 : EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin 2)) 1; $S^2$ is Metric.sphere (0 : EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin 3)) 1, with $-x$ the antipodal point.
• A covering space is Mathlib's IsCoveringMap p. This agrees with Hatcher's condition $(\ast)$; neither requires $p$ to be surjective.
• Paths are continuous maps C(I, X) or Mathlib Paths; for homotopies of paths, the square is written I × I with Hatcher's coordinate order $F(s,t) = f_t(s)$: the first coordinate is the path parameter, the second the homotopy parameter. In the general homotopy lifting property the domain is Y × I with $Y$ an arbitrary topological space, as in Hatcher.
• $\pi_1(S^1, 1)$ is Mathlib's FundamentalGroup Circle 1, and $[\omega]$ is FundamentalGroup.fromPath ⟦omegaLoop⟧. Because the goal quantifies over integer powers of a single element, the order of multiplication in FundamentalGroup is immaterial to its truth.
• The goal is stated as $\forall g\, \exists! n,\ [\omega]^n = g$ rather than as an abstract isomorphism with $\mathbb{Z}$, so that the generator is pinned to Hatcher's explicit loop; an isomorphism FundamentalGroup Circle 1 ≃* Multiplicative ℤ sending $[\omega]$ to $1$ is an immediate corollary and a welcome contribution.
• "Nonconstant polynomial" is 0 < f.degree, which excludes both the zero polynomial and nonzero constants.

Contributions welcome: proofs of the milestones from Mathlib's lifting API, a degree homomorphism $\pi_1(S^1,1) \to \mathbb{Z}$ packaged for reuse, and any lemma about concatenation and reparametrization of loops in Circle that later chapters of the series can import.

Selected references

• A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Section 1.1, "The Fundamental Group of the Circle", pp. 29–33. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf
• L. E. J. Brouwer, Über Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten, Mathematische Annalen 71 (1911), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01456931
• K. Borsuk, Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre, Fundamenta Mathematicae 20 (1933), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.4064/fm-20-1-177-190
• Mathlib, Mathlib/Topology/Homotopy/Lifting.lean (path and homotopy lifting for covering maps). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/Topology/Homotopy/Lifting.lean
• Mathlib, Mathlib/AlgebraicTopology/FundamentalGroupoid/FundamentalGroup.lean (the fundamental group). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/AlgebraicTopology/FundamentalGroupoid/FundamentalGroup.lean

Motivation

The strategic-form game is the basic object of noncooperative game theory, and the Nash equilibrium — a profile of randomized strategies from which no player benefits by deviating unilaterally — is its central solution concept. Nash proved in 1951 that every game with finitely many players and finite strategy sets has such an equilibrium (Nash, Non-cooperative games, Ann. Math. 54 (1951)); this single existence theorem is the reason the concept organizes the rest of the field, from the computational complexity of finding equilibria to the price of anarchy. The theorem is stated as Theorem 1.8 of Nisan–Roughgarden–Tardos–Vazirani (eds.), Algorithmic Game Theory (Cambridge, 2007), the source text of this mission series, whose first chapter (Tardos–Vazirani) also treats the two special cases that admit direct algorithmic proofs: two-person zero-sum games, where equilibria are exactly the optimal solutions of a dual pair of linear programs (von Neumann 1928; Theorem 1.11), and a simple linear market, where equilibrium prices are computed by an ascending tight-set algorithm (Theorem 1.17).

A timeline of the existence theorem: von Neumann (1928) proved the minimax theorem for two-person zero-sum games; Nash (1950, 1951) extended existence to arbitrary finite games, first via Kakutani's fixed-point theorem and then via Brouwer's. All known proofs of the general theorem pass through a fixed-point principle, and this is not an artifact: computing a Nash equilibrium is PPAD-complete (Daskalakis–Goldberg–Papadimitriou 2009; Chen–Deng–Teng 2009), and PPAD is precisely the complexity class of the fixed-point arguments.

Setting

A finite strategic-form game consists of a finite set $\iota$ of players, for each player $i$ a finite nonempty set $S_i$ of pure strategies, and for each player a payoff function $u_i : \prod_j S_j \to \mathbb{R}$; all players are utility maximizers. A mixed strategy for player $i$ is a probability distribution on $S_i$, represented as a weight function $\sigma_i : S_i \to \mathbb{R}$ with $\sigma_i \ge 0$ and $\sum_{s} \sigma_i(s) = 1$ (a lottery). Players randomize independently, so a mixed profile $\sigma = (\sigma_i)_{i}$ induces the product distribution on pure strategy vectors, and player $i$'s expected payoff is

A mixed profile $\sigma$ is a (mixed) Nash equilibrium if for every player $i$ and every lottery $\tau$ on $S_i$, replacing $\sigma_i$ by $\tau$ does not increase $U_i$.

A two-person zero-sum game is given by a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$: the row player picks a row distribution $p$, the column player a column distribution $q$, and the column player pays the row player $p^{\mathsf T} A q$ in expectation.

The market of §1.8.1 of the source has finitely many divisible goods, good $a$ in $s_a$ units, and finitely many buyers, buyer $j$ bringing budget $m_j > 0$ and interested in a nonempty set of goods; utilities are linear 0/1, so a buyer wants any goods from her interest set and none other. Market-clearing prices are positive prices under which each buyer can spend her whole budget on cheapest goods in her interest set while every good sells out exactly.

Formalization targets

Goal (capstone) — Theorem 1.8

Stated for an arbitrary finite family of finite nonempty strategy types; no bound on the number of players, no genericity assumptions.

Supporting — Brouwer fixed-point theorem

Mathlib currently has no form of Brouwer's theorem; every known proof of Theorem 1.8 needs it (or an equivalent), so it enters the mission as an explicit milestone rather than an assumed library fact.

Theorem 1.11 — zero-sum games

of the explicit two-player game with payoffs $A_{xy}$ to the row player and $-A_{xy}$ to the column player. The source states the result as: optimal solutions of a dual pair of LPs form a Nash equilibrium of the zero-sum game; the first two conjuncts are the saddle point that LP optimality amounts to, and the third states the Nash-equilibrium clause against the mission's own game vocabulary, so "zero-sum" is formal (the two payoffs sum to zero) rather than implicit in the shape of the statement.

Theorem 1.17 (existence form)

The source proves this by an ascending-price algorithm and also bounds its running time; the complexity half has no formal counterpart in this mission.

Significance

The capstone is the foundation of the whole mission series: correlated equilibria, price-of-anarchy bounds, and mechanism-design characterizations in later missions all quantify over or compare against Nash equilibria, and the series inherits its game vocabulary (IsLottery, IsMixedProfile, expectedPayoff, IsMixedNash) from this mission.

Formalizing it produces the first Brouwer fixed-point theorem in this environment — a well-known gap in mathlib with reuse value far beyond game theory (every degree-theoretic and equilibrium-existence argument needs it). The zero-sum milestone yields the minimax theorem, reusable for the learning-dynamics mission that follows. All results here are classical and proved on paper; the work requested is machine-checked proof, not new mathematics.

Difficulty

The central difficulty is Brouwer. The standard routes are (i) Sperner's lemma plus a limit argument, which needs a formal theory of simplicial subdivisions that does not exist in mathlib; (ii) algebraic topology (no retraction of the ball onto the sphere), for which mathlib has singular homology but not yet the homology of spheres in usable form; (iii) analytic proofs (Milnor–Rogers). None is short; the milestone is deliberately stated for a general nonempty compact convex set in a finite-dimensional normed space so that any route serves, and so the lemma lands in reusable generality.

Given Brouwer, Theorem 1.8 still requires Nash's gain-function construction on the product of simplices and the verification that fixed points are equilibria — bookkeeping-heavy but standard. Theorem 1.11 does not need Brouwer: mathlib's Sion minimax theorem (Mathlib.Topology.Sion) applies to the bilinear payoff on the product of standard simplices, or one can argue by LP duality directly. Theorem 1.17 needs the tight-set/max-flow argument of Lemmas 1.15–1.16 or any direct construction of the equilibrium.

Formalization scope

Games are presented concretely: players form a finite index type, strategies a finite type per player, payoffs are functions into $\mathbb{R}$; mixed strategies are weight functions with a IsLottery predicate, not measure-theoretic distributions. Deviations in the equilibrium definition range over all lotteries (not only pure strategies): the pure-deviation reduction is a lemma a solver may prove, not part of the definition. Strategy sets are assumed nonempty in the capstone; the player set need not be. In the zero-sum milestone both dimensions are positive (Fin (m+1), Fin (n+1)), payoffs flow from the column player to the row player, stdSimplex plays the role of the mixed-strategy space, and the Nash-equilibrium conjunct is stated for the Boolean-indexed two-player game built by matrixGameStrat/zeroSumPayoff/matrixGameProfile from the definitions bundle. In the market milestone all supplies and budgets are positive, every buyer's interest set is nonempty, and every good has an interested buyer, matching the standing assumptions of §1.8.1; allocations are recorded as money spent, so the clearing condition is $\sum_j x_{ja} = p_a s_a$ with no division anywhere.

Trivializing readings are ruled out: the empty simplex has no lotteries, so nonemptiness hypotheses appear exactly where their absence would make an existence claim false (Brouwer on the empty set, games with an empty strategy set, zero-dimensional matrix games).

Selected references

• J. F. Nash, Non-cooperative games, Annals of Mathematics 54 (1951), 286–295. DOI
• J. von Neumann, Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele, Mathematische Annalen 100 (1928), 295–320. DOI
• N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, É. Tardos, V. V. Vazirani (eds.), Algorithmic Game Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2007, Chapter 1. DOI
• C. Daskalakis, P. W. Goldberg, C. H. Papadimitriou, The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium, SIAM J. Computing 39 (2009), 195–259. DOI

Motivation

The matrix-multiplication exponent measures the asymptotic arithmetic cost of multiplying square matrices. An upper bound $\omega<c$ means that, over the field under consideration, $N\times N$ matrices can be multiplied using $O(N^{c+\varepsilon})$ arithmetic operations for every $\varepsilon>0$. Improvements to $\omega$ are a central benchmark in algebraic complexity because matrix multiplication is also a basic subroutine in linear algebra, graph algorithms, and symbolic computation.

The existing Prove2Me mission formalizes Schönhage's bound $\omega<2.55$ from a concrete two-summand tensor degeneration. The present mission advances the same formal development to the next clean historical construction. Pan and Winograd found a simultaneous approximate algorithm for three matrix products; Romani recorded its tensor form and the parameter choice $n=11$, $k=5$, which gives $\omega\le 2.5218127\ldots$. Schönhage's 1981 paper reports the equivalent bound $3\log 52/\log 110$ in the arbitrary-field setting. The exact formal target here is the slightly weaker rational inequality $\omega<1261/500=2.522$.

Setting

For a field $K$, the matrix-multiplication tensor $\langle a,b,c\rangle_K$ encodes multiplication of an $a\times b$ matrix by a $b\times c$ matrix:

A direct sum places several such tensors in disjoint coordinate blocks. A tensor $T$ has border rank at most $r$ when it is a polynomial degeneration of the diagonal tensor $I_r=\sum_{s<r}e_s\otimes e_s\otimes e_s$. In the Lean development this relation is Degenerates T (TensorObj.diagObj K 3 r). The argument order matters: the first tensor is the target and the diagonal tensor is the source.

The platform already defines ordinary tensor rank, asymptotic tensor rank, the tensor-rank exponent matMulExp K, the equivalent Strassen-preorder exponent matMulExp_strassen K, and Schönhage's asymptotic sum inequality. This mission reuses those declarations. No alternative definition of $\omega$ is introduced.

Formalization targets

The goal has exactly the same quantified proposition as the existing $2.55$ mission, with only the rational endpoint changed:

The source construction to be formalized is

Each summand has volume $110$:

The milestone chain records the degeneration, its asymptotic-rank consequence, the exact numerical implication

and the resulting Strassen-form exponent bound. The public goal then transfers the bound to matMulExp K through the already established equality of the two exponent definitions.

Significance

Mathematically, this construction improves the concrete exponent certified by the existing mission from $2.55$ to $2.522$ without changing the surrounding theory. It isolates the first genuinely new ingredient after the accepted Schönhage example: a larger simultaneous tensor degeneration rather than a sharper numerical estimate for the old witness.

For formalization, the mission tests whether the current polynomial-degeneration API can express a historically important trilinear aggregation at realistic scale. Once the explicit witness is available, the remaining declarations form a reusable template for later bounds: a source tensor degeneration, an asymptotic-rank bound, a specialization of the asymptotic sum inequality, and a final exponent transfer. This creates a trustworthy stepping stone toward the Coppersmith--Winograd tensor and later laser-method analyses.

The $2.522$ theorem is known mathematically; the open work is its machine-checked Lean formalization. The exact numerical endpoint and every downstream bridge from the degeneration have already been checked locally. The explicit Pan--Winograd degeneration remains the substantive open milestone.

Difficulty

The central difficulty is not the logarithmic comparison. It is constructing and verifying the polynomial family whose leading nonzero coefficient is exactly the tagged direct sum of the three matrix-multiplication tensors and whose earlier coefficients vanish. The family has $156$ diagonal source slots and many indexed target coordinates. A proof must account for all mixed-coordinate terms and all cancellations uniformly over an arbitrary field.

Romani's published summary states the approximate-rank inequality but does not spell out a Lean-ready map between its trilinear forms and the platform's TensorObj.bigAdd coordinate spaces. A solver must therefore recover the source indexing carefully and prove that the resulting modewise linear maps have the required coefficients. Reversing the degeneration direction, conflating tensor rank with asymptotic rank, or silently assuming a characteristic-zero scalar identity would invalidate the result.

Formalization scope

All theorems quantify over an arbitrary type $K$ with [Field K], matching the existing Schönhage goal and the arbitrary-field statement of the source bound. Tensor spaces are finite-dimensional function spaces already packaged by MMObj; the three products are combined with TensorObj.bigAdd. Border rank is represented by the existing finitely supported polynomial-family predicate Degenerates. Because the source summary specifies approximate rank but not a leading order, the main degeneration milestone existentially quantifies that order instead of hard-coding one.

The mission includes no placeholder laser-value definition and makes no claim about the later $2.376$ analysis. It also excludes Schönhage's additional microscopic symmetrization improvement beyond $3\log52/\log110$. A valid solution must construct the stated degeneration itself; a vacuous hypothesis or a redefinition of matMulExp is outside scope.

Reusable contributions include coefficient lemmas for polynomial tensor families, finite-index equivalences for direct sums, and generic aggregation identities that specialize to the $n=11$, $k=5$ witness. Contributions that merely restate the target under stronger field hypotheses do not close the arbitrary-field milestone.

Selected references

• A. Schönhage, Partial and Total Matrix Multiplication, SIAM Journal on Computing 10(3), 1981, pp. 434--455. DOI 10.1137/0210032.
• Francesco Romani, Some Properties of Disjoint Sums of Tensors Related to Matrix Multiplication, CNR Nota Interna B80-4, February 1980, printed p. 6; journal version, SIAM Journal on Computing 11(2), 1982. Archived preprint and DOI 10.1137/0211020.
• Avi Wigderson and Jeroen Zuiddam, Asymptotic Spectra: Theory, Applications and Extensions, 2023, for the tensor-preorder and asymptotic-rank framework reused by the Lean development. Author manuscript.

Motivation

The coupling method of Mission III asks for a coupling of two copies of a chain from every pair of starting states — often painful to construct globally. Chapter 14 of Levin–Peres–Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times (AMS, 2009) replaces that global demand by a local one. The path coupling technique of Bubley and Dyer says: put a connected graph structure on the state space, and couple one step of the chain only across edges; if each edge contracts in expectation, contraction propagates automatically along paths to arbitrary pairs of distributions. The bookkeeping runs through the transportation metric (Kantorovich distance) between distributions, whose theory — attainment by an optimal coupling, the triangle inequality — is developed on the way. The chapter's payoff is the sharpest elementary bound for sampling proper colorings (Theorem 14.8: the Glauber dynamics mixes in $O(n\log n)$ steps once $q>2\Delta$), and, through the sampling-to-counting reduction of Jerrum–Valiant–Vazirani, a polynomial-time approximation algorithm for counting colorings — the paradigm of the Markov chain Monte Carlo method as an algorithmic tool.

Setting

All chains live on a finite state space $V$ with a transition matrix $P$; $P^t(x,\cdot)$ is the time-$t$ distribution from $x$, $\|\mu-\nu\|_{TV}=\max_{A\subseteq V}|\mu(A)-\nu(A)|$ the total variation distance, $d(t)=\max_x\|P^t(x,\cdot)-\pi\|_{TV}$ the worst-case distance to the stationary distribution $\pi$, and $t_{\mathrm{mix}}(\varepsilon)=\min\{t:d(t)\le\varepsilon\}$ the mixing time. A coupling of distributions $\mu,\nu$ is a distribution $q$ on $V\times V$ with marginals $\mu$ and $\nu$.

Given a metric-like cost $\rho$ on pairs of states, the transportation metric between two distributions is the cheapest expected cost of moving one onto the other:

Given a connected graph structure $G$ on the state space with edge lengths $\ell\ge1$, the path metric $\rho(x,y)$ is the least total length of a $G$-path from $x$ to $y$.

For the colorings application: a $q$-coloring of the vertices of a graph is proper when adjacent vertices receive distinct colors, and the Glauber dynamics on proper colorings picks a uniform vertex and re-samples its color uniformly among the colors legal there; its stationary distribution is uniform on the proper colorings. Throughout, $n$ is the number of vertices and $\Delta$ the maximum degree of the graph being colored.

Formalization targets

Goal

Theorem 14.8, the capstone of Chapter 14: for the Glauber dynamics on proper $q$-colorings, if $q>2\Delta$ then

Milestones

• Lemma 14.3 and Remark 14.2 — the transportation distance is attained by an optimal coupling, and satisfies the triangle inequality (so it is a genuine metric on distributions).
• Theorem 14.6, path coupling (Bubley–Dyer) — if for every edge $\{x,y\}$ of a connected graph structure there is a coupling of the one-step distributions $P(x,\cdot),P(y,\cdot)$ contracting the path metric by $e^{-\alpha}$ in expectation, then one step of the chain contracts the transportation metric of arbitrary distribution pairs by $e^{-\alpha}$.
• Corollary 14.7 — under the same hypotheses, $d(t)\le e^{-\alpha t}\,\mathrm{diam}(V)$ and $t_{\mathrm{mix}}(\varepsilon)\le\lceil(\log\mathrm{diam}(V)-\log\varepsilon)/\alpha\rceil$, where $\mathrm{diam}(V)$ is the largest path-metric distance between two states.
• Theorem 14.12, approximate counting — for $q>2\Delta$ there is a randomized estimator, computed from an explicit polynomial number of independent uniform random seeds, which with probability at least $1-\eta$ estimates the number of proper $q$-colorings within a $(1\pm\varepsilon)$ factor: rapid sampling yields rapid approximate counting.

Significance

The results. Path coupling converted the coupling method from an art into a calculus: one bounds a single-edge contraction constant, and the machinery does the rest. It is the standard tool for Glauber dynamics on colorings, independent sets, and other constraint-satisfaction models, and the $q>2\Delta$ colorings bound is its flagship application. Theorem 14.12 is the discrete embodiment of the Jerrum–Valiant–Vazirani equivalence between approximate counting and sampling — the conceptual foundation of the entire MCMC approach to $\#\mathrm P$-hard counting problems.

Formalizing them. Mathlib has no transportation/Kantorovich metric in the finite setting, no path coupling, and nothing on approximate counting. The transportation-metric layer (optimal couplings, triangle inequality) is reusable far beyond this mission — it is the finite Wasserstein distance. The path-coupling theorem feeds directly into Mission IX (Ising) and is quoted throughout modern mixing literature.

Difficulty

The transportation metric asks for minimization over the (compact) polytope of couplings: attainment is a finite-dimensional compactness argument, and the triangle inequality requires gluing two optimal couplings along their common marginal — the classic construction that must be carried out with explicit finite sums here. Path coupling itself is an induction along geodesics of the path metric, with the subtlety that the composite coupling produced along a path need not be optimal, only admissible; the bookkeeping of the contraction constant through the induction is exactly the kind of argument Lean keeps honest. Theorem 14.8 instantiates the machinery: the single-edge coupling for colorings needs a careful case analysis of the proposed recolorings at the two endpoints (matching legal colors bijectively), and the contraction constant $(q-2\Delta)/(q-\Delta)$ emerges from counting disagreeing proposals. Theorem 14.12 layers a probabilistic-amplification argument (medians of means over independent runs) on top of the mixing bound; its combinatorial core — expressing $|\Omega|^{-1}$ as a telescoping product of marginal probabilities — is elementary but notation-heavy, and the formal statement quantifies over explicit seed spaces, so the whole estimator is a finite object.

Formalization scope

The transportation metric is an sInf over coupling costs (the coupling polytope is nonempty for genuine distributions, and attainment is part of the milestone, so the junk value never propagates); the path metric is an sInf over walk lengths in a connected graph. The Glauber dynamics on colorings is the restriction to proper colorings of the single-site heat-bath chain of Mission II, matching §3.3 of the book; its state space is the subtype of proper colorings, nonempty whenever $q>2\Delta$ (a fact the hypotheses of the goal supply). Mixing-time upper bounds are stated with the book's explicit ceilings, so no rounding slack is hidden. In Theorem 14.12 the estimator is presented concretely as a function of finitely many uniform seeds, and "with probability $\ge1-\eta$" is a counting inequality over the seed space — no measure theory enters. Contributions of intermediate lemmas (optimal-coupling gluing, geodesic decompositions, colorings edge-coupling) are welcome and will be reused by Mission IX.

Selected references

• D. A. Levin, Y. Peres, E. L. Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, American Mathematical Society, 2009. https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/i/ip/ipg/www/2013-2014/Random_Walks/markovmixing.pdf
• R. Bubley, M. Dyer, Path coupling: a technique for proving rapid mixing in Markov chains, FOCS 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1997.646111
• M. Jerrum, A very simple algorithm for estimating the number of k-colorings of a low-degree graph, Random Structures Algorithms 7 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.3240070205
• M. Jerrum, L. Valiant, V. Vazirani, Random generation of combinatorial structures from a uniform distribution, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 43 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(86)90174-X

Motivation

A reversible Markov chain is an electrical network: states are nodes, and the conductance $c(x,y)=\pi(x)P(x,y)$ turns hitting probabilities into voltages and hitting times into resistances. This dictionary, going back to Kakutani and popularized by Doyle and Snell, converts probabilistic estimates into the physical laws of circuits — series/parallel reduction, energy minimization, monotonicity under edge removal. Chapters 9–11 of Levin–Peres–Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times (AMS, 2009) develop the dictionary and its two crown results: the commute time identity of Chandra–Raghavan–Ruzzo–Smolensky–Tiwari, $\mathbb E_a(\tau_b)+\mathbb E_b(\tau_a)=c_G\,R(a\leftrightarrow b)$, and the Matthews method bounding cover times by hitting times with harmonic-number precision.

Setting

A network is a symmetric nonnegative conductance function $c$ on pairs of vertices; the associated walk moves with probabilities

where $c(x)=\sum_y c(x,y)$, and $c_G=\sum_x c(x)$. A function $h$ is harmonic at $x$ if $h(x)=\sum_y P(x,y)h(y)$. The voltage with boundary values $1$ at $a$ and $0$ at $z$ is $W(x)=\mathbb P_x\{\tau_a<\tau_z\}$, the harmonic extension of its boundary data; the current flowing out of $a$ has strength $\|I\|=\sum_y c(a,y)\,[W(a)-W(y)]$, and the effective resistance is $R(a\leftrightarrow z)=\|I\|^{-1}$. A flow from $a$ to $z$ is an antisymmetric edge function obeying the node law off $\{a,z\}$; its energy is $\mathcal E(\theta)=\sum_e\theta(e)^2/c(e)$. Hitting times $\tau_S=\min\{t\ge0:X_t\in S\}$, their expectations, the Green's function $G_{\tau_z}(a,x)$, the maximal hitting time $t_{\mathrm{hit}}$, and the cover time $t_{\mathrm{cov}}$ (expected time to visit every state, maximized over starts) all use the trajectory calculus of Mission I.

Formalization targets

Goal

This is Proposition 10.6, the commute time identity — the exact bridge between the probabilistic and electrical sides, and the engine of the transience/recurrence theory of Mission XII.

Milestones

Reversibility and stationarity of the network walk with $\pi(x)=c(x)/c_G$ (§9.1); Proposition 9.1 (existence and uniqueness of harmonic extensions with given boundary values, $h(x)=\mathbb E_x f(X_{\tau_B})$); Lemma 9.6 (the Green's function identity $G_{\tau_z}(a,a)=c(a)R(a\leftrightarrow z)$); Theorem 9.10 (Thomson's principle: $R(a\leftrightarrow z)$ is the minimal energy of a unit flow, attained); Theorem 9.12 (Rayleigh monotonicity: lowering conductances raises effective resistance); Lemma 10.1 (the random target lemma: $\sum_y\mathbb E_a(\tau_y)\pi(y)$ does not depend on $a$); Corollary 10.8 (the resistance triangle inequality); Theorem 11.2 (Matthews: $t_{\mathrm{cov}}\le t_{\mathrm{hit}}\,(1+\tfrac12+\dots+\tfrac1n)$); Proposition 11.4 (the matching Matthews lower bound over subsets).

Significance

The results. The commute time identity computes hitting times from circuit reductions — this is how hitting times on trees, tori and glued graphs are actually evaluated — and, through Thomson and Rayleigh, makes them monotone under graph operations, something invisible probabilistically. The Matthews bounds pin cover times up to a $\log n$ factor in complete generality; they are the tool behind cover-time results for lamplighter groups in Mission XI's sequel. Green's function identities feed Mission XII's recurrence theory, where $R(a\leftrightarrow\infty)$ decides transience.

Formalizing them. Mathlib has graph Laplacians but no electrical network theory: no effective resistance, no flows, no energy, no Thomson/Rayleigh, no hitting or cover times. This mission publishes that layer over the trajectory calculus of Mission I. It is the most reusable single block of the series outside Missions I–II: effective resistance on finite networks is of independent interest to combinatorics (spanning trees, spectral sparsification) well beyond mixing times.

Difficulty

The identity chain behind the goal runs: Green's function of the stopped walk $\to$ escape probability $\mathbb P_a\{\tau_z<\tau_a^+\}=\bigl(c(a)R(a\leftrightarrow z)\bigr)^{-1}$ (via harmonic uniqueness) $\to$ the Aldous–Fill occupation identity $G_\tau(a,x)=\mathbb E_a(\tau)\pi(x)$ for stopping times with $X_\tau=a$ — each step is a manipulation of infinite series of trajectory sums whose exchange steps (splitting a path at its first visit, last-exit decompositions) need summability from Mission I's Lemma 1.13. Thomson's principle is a finite-dimensional convex minimization: existence of the minimizer needs a compactness or completing-the-square argument, and the identification of the minimizer with the current flow needs the cycle law; the naive "differentiate the energy" route must be made exact. Matthews' method is a clean but genuinely clever argument — a uniformly random ordering of targets and the harmonic-number telescoping; the formal cost is the exchangeability of the randomized order against the chain, handled combinatorially.

Formalization scope

Networks are functions $c:V\times V\to\mathbb R$ with a symmetry-and-nonnegativity predicate; loops are permitted; connectivity enters as irreducibility of the induced walk. The voltage is defined probabilistically as $\mathbb P_x\{\tau_a<\tau_z\}$ (the book's harmonic characterization is Proposition 9.1); $R(a\leftrightarrow z)$ is the reciprocal of the explicit current strength, with total division junk when $a,z$ are disconnected — statements carry irreducibility so this does not arise. Energy counts each undirected edge once, formalized as half the ordered double sum, and $0^2/0=0$ handles absent edges. Cover times are tail sums of the explicit event "some state unvisited". The Matthews lower bound is stated with an arbitrary lower bound $m$ for the pairwise hitting times of the subset $A$ — equivalent to the book's min over pairs and easier to instantiate.

Welcome contributions: series/parallel reduction laws, the cycle and node law API for flows, escape-probability lemmas — all reused in Mission XII's infinite-network arguments.

Selected references

• D. A. Levin, Y. Peres, E. L. Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, American Mathematical Society, 2009. https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/i/ip/ipg/www/2013-2014/Random_Walks/markovmixing.pdf
• P. G. Doyle, J. L. Snell, Random Walks and Electric Networks, MAA, 1984. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0001057
• A. K. Chandra, P. Raghavan, W. L. Ruzzo, R. Smolensky, P. Tiwari, The electrical resistance of a graph captures its commute and cover times, STOC 1989. https://doi.org/10.1145/73007.73062
• P. Matthews, Covering problems for Markov chains, Ann. Probab. 16 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176991894

Modern A/B tests must infer lifetime treatment effects — e.g. customer lifetime value under a new feature — from short-horizon experiment data. Chen, Simchi-Levi and Wang (arXiv:2407.19618) model the experiment as a Markov decision process and exploit a structural fact of many practical interventions: the treatment is local, modifying the system at a single crucial state only. This mission formalizes the core asymptotic theory of the paper: for any differentiable estimator built from the experiment's transition and reward statistics, information sharing — pooling across test arms the samples collected away from the treated state — keeps the estimator asymptotically normal with the same asymptotic bias and never increases its asymptotic variance (Theorem 9), and is asymptotically efficient among unbiased estimators (Theorem 5). The route runs through a Markov chain central limit theorem with the asymptotic variance identified as the autocovariance series, and the linearization/delta method for functionals of chain statistics.

Markov Chains and Mixing Times I: Existence and Uniqueness of the Stationary Distribution

Motivation

Finite Markov chains are the basic model for memoryless random dynamics: card shuffles, random walks on graphs and groups, Monte Carlo samplers, and queueing systems are all chains on a finite state space. The single most used fact about them is that an irreducible chain has exactly one stationary distribution — a probability vector $\pi$ with $\pi = \pi P$ — and that this $\pi$ is strictly positive and encodes the long-run behaviour of the chain through the return-time identity $\pi(x) = 1/\mathbb{E}_x(\tau_x^+)$. Every later result in the theory of mixing times (convergence theorems, coupling bounds, spectral methods, cutoff) is a statement about the distance of the chain from this $\pi$, so nothing in the subject can be formalized before this mission is.

This mission is the first in a series formalizing D. A. Levin, Y. Peres and E. L. Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times (AMS, 2009), covering Chapters 1–2: the basic vocabulary of finite chains (stochastic matrices, irreducibility, period, reversibility, time reversal, random walks on graphs and groups) and the classical examples of Chapter 2 (gambler's ruin, coupon collecting, the reflection principle for simple random walk on $\mathbb{Z}$). Later missions in the series build on the definitions published here.

Setting

A chain on a finite state space $\Omega$ is presented by its transition matrix, a matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{\Omega\times\Omega}$ with nonnegative entries whose rows sum to $1$. A distribution is a row vector $\mu$ with nonnegative entries summing to $1$; one step of the chain carries $\mu$ to $\mu P$, and the $t$-step transition probabilities are the entries of the matrix power $P^t$.

The chain is irreducible if for all states $x, y$ there is a $t$ with $P^t(x,y) > 0$. The period of a state $x$ is $\gcd\,\mathcal{T}(x)$ where $\mathcal{T}(x) = \{t \ge 1 : P^t(x,x) > 0\}$, and the chain is aperiodic if every state has period $1$. A distribution $\pi$ is stationary if $\pi P = \pi$, and $\pi$ and $P$ are in detailed balance (the chain is reversible) if $\pi(x)P(x,y) = \pi(y)P(y,x)$ for all $x,y$.

Trajectory events over a finite horizon are finite sums of path weights: a length-$t$ trajectory is a function $\omega : \{0,\dots,t\} \to \Omega$, with weight $\prod_{i<t} P(\omega_i, \omega_{i+1})$ conditional on its starting state. The tail probability $\mathbb{P}_x\{\tau_z^+ > t\}$ of the first hitting time $\tau_z^+ = \min\{t \ge 1 : X_t = z\}$ is the sum of the weights of the trajectories from $x$ that avoid $z$ at times $1,\dots,t$, and expectations of hitting times are recovered by the tail-sum formula $\mathbb{E}(Y) = \sum_{t\ge0} \mathbb{P}\{Y > t\}$, formalized as a tsum over $t$.

Formalization targets

Goal

$\text{$P$ stochastic and irreducible on a finite nonempty $\Omega$} \;\Longrightarrow\; \exists!\, \pi,\ \pi = \pi P .$

This is Corollary 1.17 of the book. It asserts only existence and uniqueness, leaving the finer structure of $\pi$ to the milestones; it is the weakest statement on which the rest of the series can stand, which is why it is the goal.

Milestones toward and around the goal

The milestone list follows the book's own route: well-definedness of the period (Lemma 1.6), positivity of some matrix power for irreducible aperiodic chains (Proposition 1.7), finiteness of expected hitting times (Lemma 1.13), existence of a positive stationary distribution together with

(Proposition 1.14), constancy of harmonic functions (Lemma 1.16), stationarity from detailed balance (Proposition 1.19), the stationary and reversible measure $\pi(x) = \deg(x)/2|E|$ of simple random walk on a graph (Examples 1.12 and 1.20), the time reversal $\hat P$ and its path-reversal identity (Proposition 1.22), and the random walks on finite groups of Section 2.6 (Propositions 2.12–2.14). From Chapter 2 the list adds the gambler's ruin formulas $\mathbb{P}_k\{X_\tau = n\} = k/n$ and $\mathbb{E}_k(\tau) = k(n-k)$ (Proposition 2.1), the coupon collector expectation $n\sum_{k\le n} 1/k$ and tail bound $e^{-c}$ (Propositions 2.3 and 2.4), and the reflection principle and the bound $\mathbb{P}_k\{\tau_0 > r\} \le 12k/\sqrt{r}$ for simple random walk on $\mathbb{Z}$ (Lemma 2.18 and Theorem 2.17).

Significance

The result itself. Existence and uniqueness of $\pi$ is the pivot on which the entire quantitative theory turns: it defines the target of convergence, and the identity $\pi(x)\,\mathbb{E}_x(\tau_x^+) = 1$ ties the stationary measure to return times, which later missions use for hitting-time and cover-time results. Detailed balance is the practical tool by which stationary measures of graph and group walks are computed, and the Chapter 2 examples (gambler's ruin, coupon collecting, reflection) are the standard building blocks reused throughout the book — the coupon collector bound, for instance, is exactly the estimate behind the $n \log n + cn$ analysis of the top-to-random shuffle in a later mission of this series.

Formalizing it. Mathlib currently has no theory of finite Markov chains: no stochastic-matrix predicate, no stationary distribution, no periodicity, no hitting times. Everything proved in this mission is new formal mathematics, and the definition layer published here (mm_basic, mm_path, mm_classical) is the shared foundation that all twelve subsequent missions of the series import. All results are classical and have textbook proofs; none has a machine-checked proof.

Difficulty

The delicate point is the existence proof. The natural first idea — extract $\pi$ from an eigenvector of $P^{\mathsf T}$ for eigenvalue $1$, or invoke a fixed-point theorem — either does not give positivity and nonnegativity without further work, or uses compactness machinery (Brouwer) that is unavailable. The book's proof instead builds $\tilde\pi(y) = \mathbb{E}_z(\text{visits to } y \text{ before } \tau_z^+)$ and verifies $\tilde\pi P = \tilde\pi$ by reindexing trajectory sums; formalizing it requires managing infinite series of path sums (summability from the geometric tail bound of Lemma 1.13, exchanging tsum with finite sums, splitting a trajectory at its last step). The uniqueness half is linear algebra via constancy of harmonic functions (Lemma 1.16), which is elementary but requires a maximum-principle argument over a finite state space. The reflection principle and Theorem 2.17 are finite combinatorics on $\pm 1$ paths — the bijection is easy to describe and fiddly to implement.

Formalization scope

States form a Fintype with decidable equality; chains are Matrix V V ℝ with the row-stochasticity predicate IsStochastic; distributions are functions V → ℝ with the predicate IsDist. Everything is distribution-side: no probability space or measure theory is used. The period is formalized as $\sup\{d : d \mid t \text{ for all } t \in \mathcal{T}(x)\}$, which equals $\gcd \mathcal{T}(x)$ when $\mathcal{T}(x) \neq \varnothing$ and takes the junk value $0$ otherwise. Expectations of hitting times are tsums of tail probabilities, with the usual junk value $0$ for non-summable families — the statements are arranged (e.g. multiplicatively, $\pi(x)\cdot\mathbb{E}_x(\tau_x^+) = 1$) so that junk values cannot make them vacuously true. Existence statements carry a Nonempty V hypothesis; irreducibility on the empty space is vacuous, and without nonemptiness the goal would be false, not trivial. The coupon collector and the walk on $\mathbb{Z}$ are presented directly by their driving randomness (uniform draws Fin t → Fin n, uniform sign strings Fin r → Bool), so those probabilities are elementary counting; in particular the reflection principle is stated as an equality of cardinalities of sets of sign strings — this is equivalent to the probabilistic statement because all $2^r$ strings are equally likely.

Contributions welcome beyond the milestone list: simp lemmas for the definition layer, the taboo-matrix representation of avoidance probabilities (useful for Lemma 1.13), and any interface lemmas connecting pathWeight sums to matrix powers — these will be reused by every later mission in the series.

Selected references

• D. A. Levin, Y. Peres, E. L. Wilmer, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, American Mathematical Society, 2009. https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/i/ip/ipg/www/2013-2014/Random_Walks/markovmixing.pdf
• J. R. Norris, Markov Chains, Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810633
• D. Aldous, J. A. Fill, Reversible Markov Chains and Random Walks on Graphs, 2002 (unfinished monograph). https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/RWG/book.html

The classical convergence theory of smooth convex minimization. For a function that is $m$-strongly convex and $M$-smooth ($mI \preceq \nabla^2 f(x) \preceq MI$), gradient descent converges linearly, while Newton's method exhibits its famous two phases: a damped phase in which every backtracking step decreases the objective by a fixed amount $\gamma$, and a quadratically convergent phase in which the scaled gradient norm squares at each step, $\tfrac{L}{2m^2}\lVert \nabla f(x^{+})\rVert_2 \le \bigl(\tfrac{L}{2m^2}\lVert \nabla f(x)\rVert_2\bigr)^2$. Together they give the iteration count of B&V (9.36),

with $L$ the Lipschitz constant of the Hessian and $\alpha,\beta$ the backtracking parameters. This mission formalizes Chapters 9–10 of Boyd & Vandenberghe with every constant exactly as printed — a quantitative theory entirely absent from Mathlib.

The Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions are the central result of convex optimization: for a convex differentiable problem satisfying Slater's condition, a point is optimal exactly when primal feasibility, dual feasibility, complementary slackness and Lagrangian stationarity hold. This mission formalizes Chapters 4–5 of Boyd & Vandenberghe end to end — the first-order optimality criterion, concavity of the Lagrange dual, weak duality, Slater's strong-duality theorem with dual attainment (via the separating-hyperplane argument of §5.3.2), the saddle-point characterization, sensitivity bounds and Pareto scalarization — culminating in the full KKT characterization.

Linear programming has a complete duality theory; integer programming does not — and the Lagrangean dual measures exactly how far duality reaches. This mission formalizes the duality theory of integer programming from Section 11.4 of Bertsimas–Tsitsiklis, built on the general linear programming duality of Section 4.10. For the integer program

with integer data, the complicating constraints $Ax \ge b$ are dualized with multipliers $p \ge 0$ over the tractable set $X = \{x \text{ integer} \mid Dx \ge d\}$: the dual function is

and the Lagrangean dual is $Z_D = \max_{p \ge 0} Z(p)$. Weak duality $Z_D \le Z_{IP}$ (Theorem 11.2) always holds, but strong duality can fail. The convex hull $CH(X)$ of the integer points of a polyhedron with integer data is itself a polyhedron (Theorem 11.3, Meyer's theorem), and the capstone — Theorem 11.4, the central result of Section 11.4 — identifies the Lagrangean dual exactly: $Z_D$ equals the optimal cost of the linear program

. This is the geometric explanation of the strength of Lagrangean relaxation, yields the bound ordering $Z_{LP} \le Z_D \le Z_{IP}$, and Corollary 11.1 characterizes exactly when the bounds collapse. The polyhedral engine is the general weak/strong duality pair (Theorems 4.17/4.18) over a primal $\min c'x$ s.t. $Ax \ge b$, $x \in P = \{x \mid Dx \ge d\}$, and the formulation-strength comparison $P_{sub} \subseteq P_{cut}$ of Theorem 10.1 supplies the motivating principle that tighter relaxations of the same integer set give sharper bounds.

How can an unbounded polyhedron be described by finitely many geometric objects? Sections 4.8-4.9 of Bertsimas-Tsitsiklis build the cone machinery: recession cones $\{d \mid Ad \ge 0\}$ and their rays, extreme rays (defined, like basic solutions, by $n-1$ linearly independent active constraints), the pointedness criterion (Theorem 4.12: $0$ is an extreme point of a polyhedral cone iff the cone contains no line iff $n$ of the constraint vectors are linearly independent), and the characterization of unbounded linear programs (Theorems 4.13-4.14: over a pointed polyhedral cone, and then over any polyhedron with an extreme point, the optimal cost is $-\infty$ iff some extreme ray $d$ has $c'd < 0$). The capstone is the resolution theorem (Theorem 4.15): a nonempty polyhedron $P$ with at least one extreme point equals $Q = \{\sum_i \lambda_i x^i + \sum_j \theta_j w^j \mid \lambda_i \ge 0, \theta_j \ge 0, \sum_i \lambda_i = 1\}$ — the convex hull of its extreme points plus the cone generated by a complete set of its extreme rays. It specializes to Theorem 2.9 / Corollary 4.4 (a nonempty bounded polyhedron is the convex hull of its extreme points) and Corollary 4.5 (a pointed polyhedral cone is generated by its extreme rays). The converse, Theorem 4.16, states that every finitely generated set is a polyhedron — in particular the convex hull of finitely many vectors is a polyhedron. Together these form the Minkowski-Weyl equivalence of the two representations of polyhedra, verified absent from Mathlib and the genuine content of this mission.

Matrix completion — recovering a low-rank matrix $M = ZZ^\top$ from a small random subset of its entries — powers recommender systems and collaborative filtering. In practice it is solved by running (stochastic) gradient descent on the non-convex objective

where $\Omega=\{(i,j)|M_{i,j} \text{ is observed}\}$ and $R(X)$ is a certain regularizer. from a random starting point, and it just works.

Ge, Lee and Ma (NeurIPS 2016 Best student paper award) explained why: the regularized objective has no spurious local minima — every local minimum is global and exactly recovers $M$. This mission formalizes that landmark theorem in Lean 4, in its strongest known form and along its simplest known proof: the unified landscape analysis of Ge–Jin–Zheng (ICML 2017) and an improved sampling bound in Chen–Li (JMLR 2019). Conditional on an explicit good-sample predicate (which holds with high probability under Bernoulli sampling), every local minimum $X$ of $f$ satisfies $XX^\top = ZZ^\top$.

Bandit feedback is only one point on a spectrum: a learner might see more than its own loss (full information) or less (a spam filter never learns what happened to mail it deleted). Chapter 37 of Lattimore–Szepesvári studies finite adversarial games $G = (\mathcal{L}, \Phi)$ where the loss matrix and the feedback matrix are decoupled. The goal theorem is the celebrated classification theorem: every finite partial-monitoring game has minimax regret exactly $0$, $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$, $\Theta(n^{2/3})$ or $\Omega(n)$ — determined by two purely combinatorial conditions, global and local observability, on the game's neighbourhood structure. A single geometric dichotomy thus governs the price of information in every online decision problem with finite actions and feedback.

When actions are feature vectors and the mean reward is linear — $X_t = \langle \theta_*, A_t\rangle + \eta_t$ — a bandit can generalize across arms: pulling one arm reveals information about all of them. Chapter 19 of Lattimore–Szepesvári carries the optimism principle into this setting: LinUCB (a.k.a. OFUL) plays the action maximizing $\max_{\theta\in\mathcal{C}_t}\langle\theta, a\rangle$ over the confidence ellipsoid $\mathcal{C}_t$ of Mission IX. The goal theorem: with probability $1-\delta$, $\hat R_n \le \sqrt{8n\beta_n \log\frac{\det V_n}{\det V_0}} \le \sqrt{8dn\beta_n\log\frac{d\lambda + nL^2}{d\lambda}}$ — regret $\tilde O(d\sqrt{n})$ independent of the number of actions. The combinatorial engine is the elliptical potential lemma, bounding how many times adaptively chosen directions can be surprising. Chapter 22's phased elimination with G-optimal design (Mission IX) sharpens this to $\tilde O(\sqrt{dn\log k})$ for finite action sets.

Least-squares estimation from adaptively collected data is the statistical heart of linear bandits: the actions $A_t$ depend on past noise, so classical fixed-design theory does not apply. Chapter 20 of Lattimore–Szepesvári resolves this with the method of mixtures: the process $M_t(x) = \exp(\langle x, S_t\rangle - \frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2_{V_t(\lambda)})$ is a supermartingale, and integrating over a Gaussian mixture yields the self-normalized bound — the goal theorem — $\mathbb{P}\big(\exists t : \|S_t\|^2_{V_t(\lambda)^{-1}} \ge 2\log\frac{1}{\delta} + \log\frac{\det V_t(\lambda)}{\lambda^d}\big) \le \delta$, valid uniformly over all times. The resulting confidence ellipsoids for the regularized least-squares estimator (Abbasi-Yadkori et al.) calibrate every algorithm of Mission X. The mission also formalizes the Kiefer–Wolfowitz theorem of Chapter 21: G-optimal and D-optimal experimental designs coincide, with optimal value exactly $d$ — the classical equivalence theorem of optimal design theory.

Motivation

Itô's lemma is the stochastic chain rule. It identifies the additional drift created when a nonlinear function is applied to a process with Brownian fluctuations. This second-order correction is central to stochastic differential equations, martingales and mathematical finance. The Wikipedia article discusses the scalar formula, multidimensional and jump extensions, geometric Brownian motion, stochastic exponentials, product rules and Black–Scholes.

The mission will formalise these statements in a dependency-first Lean 4 development. Wikipedia supplies the topic map; rigorous proof obligations use stochastic integration and quadratic variation. Rémy Degenne's BrownianMotion and MathFin are independently developed Lean comparison sources. Their exact scopes and pinned dependencies must be audited before import or adaptation.

A live Prove2Me catalogue audit on 26 October 2026 found accepted Brownian-increment, elementary Itô-integral, isometry, continuous-modification and time-independent vector Itô-formula theorems at the same Mathlib revision. Those results are reusable prerequisites, so the new mission concentrates on the time-dependent and semimartingale gaps. The full time-dependent multidimensional continuous-semimartingale theorem is an existing Open target.

Setting

Let $(\Omega,\mathcal F,(\mathcal F_t)_{t\ge0},\mathbb P)$ be a filtered probability space with the usual conditions, and $B$ a real Brownian motion adapted to the filtration. Fix a deterministic finite horizon $T$. Initially let $\mu,\sigma$ be bounded adapted continuous real processes. Their integrals define

Let $f:[0,T]\times\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ be $C^{1,2}$, with continuous derivatives $f_t,f_x,f_{xx}$ satisfying sufficient boundedness/integrability assumptions. The principal capstone proves, for each deterministic $t\le T$, almost surely,

A later milestone uses continuous modifications to strengthen this to one probability-one event for all $t\in[0,T]$. The notation $(dB)^2=dt$ describes quadratic variation in a probabilistic limit, not pointwise differential equality. No formal process definition may assume the identity it is supposed to prove.

Formalization targets

Brownian motion and quadratic variation

Reuse exact compatible Prove2Me Brownian-process results and pinned Mathlib declarations. Prove increment moment and independence identities, deterministic partition quadratic-variation convergence $\sum_{\pi_n}(B_v-B_u)^2\to T$ in $L^2$ or probability, weighted quadratic-variation convergence and vanishing drift-Brownian covariation. State the convergence mode and partition assumptions for each theorem.

Stochastic-integral construction and isometry

Audit and reuse the Prove2Me results for predictable simple-process integration, representation independence and the elementary isometry; establish new statements only for missing mathematical interfaces or stronger conditions: $\mathbb E[(\int_0^T H_s\,dB_s)^2]=\mathbb E[\int_0^T H_s^2\,ds]$ for square-integrable predictable $H$. A central theorem is the isometry in integral form: