Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:30:13.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Near-constancy phenomena in branching processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

J. D. Biggins  and
N. H. Bingham
J. D. Biggins
Affiliation:
Department of Probability and Statistics, The University of Sheffield, P.O. Box 597, Sheffield 510 2UN
N. H. Bingham
Affiliation:
Mathematical Department, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW2O OEX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The occurrence of certain ‘near-constancy phenomena’ in some aspects of the theory of (simple) branching processes forms the background for the work below. The problem arises out of work by Karlin and McGregor [8, 9]. A detailed study of the theoretical and numerical aspects of the Karlin–McGregor near-constancy phenomenon was given by Dubuc[7], and considered further by Bingham[4]. We give a new approach which simplifies and generalizes the results of these authors. The primary motivation for doing this was the recent work of Barlow and Perkins [3], who observed near-constancy in a framework not immediately covered by the results then known.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , November 1991 , pp. 545 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A.. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables (Dover, 1965).Google Scholar
[2]Athreya, K. B. and Ney, P. E.. Branching Process (Springer-Verlag, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Barlow, M. T. and Perkins, E. A.. Brownian motion on the Sierpinski gasket. Probab. Theory Related Fields 79 (1988), 543–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Bingham, N. H.. On the limit of a supereritical branching process. J. Appl. Probab. 25A (1988), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Copson, E. T.. An Introduction to the Theory of Functions of a Complex Variable (Oxford University Press, 1935).Google Scholar
[6]Dubuc, S.. La densité de Ia loi-limite d'un processus en cascade expansif. Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete 19 (1971), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Dubuc, S.. Etude théorique et numérique de Ia fonction de Karlin–McGregor. J. Analyse Math. 42 (1982), 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Karlin, S. and McGregor, J.. Embeddability of discrete-time branching processes into continuous-time branching processes. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (1968), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Karlin, S. and McGregor, J.. Embedding iterates of analytic functions with two fixed points into continuous groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (1968), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Linnik, Yu. V. and Ostrovskii, I. V.. Decomposition of Random Variables and Vectors. Transl. Math. Monographs no. 48. (American Mathematical Society, 1977).Google Scholar
[11]Nadarajah, S.. Near-constancy phenomena in branching processes. M.Sc. thesis, Sheffield University (1990).Google Scholar
[12]Nielsen, N.. Die Gammafunktion (Chelsea, 1965).Google Scholar
[13]Titchmarsh, E. C.. The Theory of Functions (Oxford University Press, 1939).Google Scholar