Hmm. I'm not an expert, but some of this seems definitely not to be accurate. Some of the "Bullshit" turns out perhaps to be quite important.
Take the statement:
> Markov Chain is essentially a fancy name for a random walk on a graph
Is that really true? I definitely don't think so. To my understanding, a Markov process is a stochastic process that has the additional (aka "Markov") property that it is "memoryless". That is, to estimate the next state you only need to know the state now, not any of the history. It becomes a Markov chain if it is a discrete, rather than continuous process.
There are lots of random walks on graphs that satisfy this definition. Like say you have a graph and you just specify the end points and say "walk 5 nodes at random from this starting node, what is the expectation that you end up at a specific end node". This could be a Markov process. At any point to estimate the state you only need to know the state now.
But lots of random walks on graphs do not have the Markov property. For example, say I did the exact same thing as the previous example, so I have a random graph and a start and target node and I say "Walk n nodes at random from the starting node. What's the expectation that at some point you visit the target node". Now I have introduced a dependency on the history and my process is no longer memoryless. It is a discrete stochastic process and it is a random walk on a graph but is not a Markov chain.
An example of a Markov and non-Markov processes in real life is if I have a European option on a stock I only care about what the stock price is at the expiry date. But if I have a barrier option or my option has some knock-in/knock-out/autocallable features then it has a path dependence because I care about whether at any point in its trajectory the price hit the barrier level, not just the price at the end. So the price process for the barrier option is non-Markov.
reply
low_tech_love 2 days ago | parent | next [–]
I won’t pretend to know the technical details (as the other replies do) but I want to make a point for the “pedagogical” effect here, which I agree with the author. The way I interpret the article, it’s not supposed to be a deep, theoretical treatise on the subject; more of an introductory, “intuitive” take on it. This works for those who need to either learn the concept to begin with, or refresh their memories if they don’t work with it every day. I think it’s a given that any intuitive take on a mathematical concept will always oversimplify things, with the underlying assumption that, if you actually need to know more, you’re going to have to dive deeper somewhere else. The most important thing I think is to help the reader build a rough conceptual understanding of the concept such that they can reason about it, instead of simply memorizing the terms.
Shared by James Rohal, like and 2 saves total
