arXiv:1706.02858v2 [math.ST] 14 Mar 2018

On rumour propagation among sceptics
Farkhondeh A. Sajadi and Rahul Roy1
University of Isfahan, Isfahan and Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi
Keywords: complete coverage, eventual coverage, rumour process.
AMS Classification: 60K35

Abstract: Junior, Machado and Zuluaga (2011) introduced a model to understand the
spread of a rumour. This model consisted of individuals situated at i.i.d. points of the
line N. An individual at the origin 0 starts a rumour and passes it to all individuals
in the interval [0, ρ0 ], where ρ0 is a positive random variable. An individual located in
this interval receives the rumour and transmits it further. The rumour process is said to
survive if all the individuals in the model receive the rumour. We study this model, when
the individuals are more sceptical and they transmit only if they receive the rumour from
at least two different sources.
In stochastic geometry the equivalent of this rumour process is the study of coverage
of the space Nd by random sets. Our study here extends the study of coverage of space
and considers the case when each vertex of Nd is covered by at least two distinct random
sets.

1

Introduction

Let {Xi : 1 ≥ 1} be a collection of i.i.d. Bernoulli (p) random variables, i.e.,
(
1 with probability p
Xi =
0 with probability 1 − p.

(1)

Also let {ρi : 1 ≥ 1} be a collection of i.i.d. N valued random variables, independent of the
collection {Xi : 1 ≥ 1}. Let ρ denote a generic random variable with the same distribution
as ρi .
In addition, let ρ0 an independent N valued random variables, independent of the
collections {Xi : 1 ≥ 1} and {ρi : 1 ≥ 1}, with ρ0 having the same distribution as ρ.
Taking X0 ≡ 1, consider the region
[
([i, i + ρi ]).
C :=
{i≥0:Xi =1}

1

f.sajadi@sci.ui.ac.ir, rahul@isid.ac.in

1

Junior, Machado and Zuluaga (2011) takes {i : Xi = 1} as the location of individuals
on N and a rumour is started at the origin which is received by individuals located in
[0, ρ0 ]. An individual at i on receiving the rumour spreads it among all individuals in
the region [i, i + ρi ], and thus the rumour propagates. This model they call the firework
process. They also introduce another model of rumour propagation, called the reverse
firework process, where they study the region
[
([i − ρi , i]).
C̃ :=
{i≥0:Xi =1}

Their object of interest is under what conditions on the processes {Xi : 1 ≥ 1} and {ρi :
1 ≥ 1} are the regions C and C̃ unbounded connected regions with positive probability,
i.e. the rumour process ‘percolates’.
Remark 1.1. A simple argument using Kolmogorov’s 0-1 law yields that C (or C̃) being an
unbounded connected region with positive probability is equivalent to C (or C̃) containing
a region [t, ∞), for some t ≥ 1 with probability 1.
We study the spread of rumour among sceptics. A sceptic individual at i spreads it
among all individuals in the region [i, i + ρi ] only if s/he received the rumour from at least
two distinct sources, i.e.,
(i) for the firework process, there are two individuals at j and k (say) with j 6= k and
−1 ≤ j, k < i such that i ∈ [j, j + ρj ] ∩ [k, k + ρk ]; here we assume that there is
an individual at location −1, who spreads the rumour in the region [−1, −1 + ρ−1 ],
where ρ−1 is a random variable independent of all other random variables and
having the same distribution as ρ,
(ii) for the reverse firework process, there are two individuals at j and k (say) with
j 6= k and −1 ≤ j, k < i such that j, k ∈ [i − ρi , i].
Towards this we define the regions
D := {x ∈ R : there exist j, k ≥ −1 with j 6= k and Xj = Xk = 1
such that x ∈ ([j, j + ρj ] ∩ [k, k + ρk ])},
D̃ := {x ∈ R : x ∈ [i − ρi , i] for some i with Xi = 1 and there exist
− i ≤ j, k < i with j 6= k and Xj = Xk = 1 such that j, k ∈ [i − ρi , i]}.
We look for conditions on on the processes {Xi : 1 ≥ 1} and {ρi : 1 ≥ 1} such that the
regions D and D̃ are unbounded connected regions with positive probability.
Remark 1.2. As in the case of rumour propagation in C and C̃, a simple argument
using Kolmogorov’s 0-1 law yields that D (or D̃) being an unbounded connected region
with positive probability is equivalent to D (or D̃) containing a region [t, ∞), for some
t ≥ 1 with probability 1.
Thus we define

2

Definition 1.3. The firework process (respectively, reverse firework process,) percolates
among sceptics if, with probability 1, D (respectively, D̃,) contains a region [t, ∞), for
some t ≥ 1.
Remark 1.4. Using this equivalent definition obtained by the tail event properties allows
us to study the model without considering the influence of the two initiators X−1 and X0 .
Proposition 1.5. Let
l := lim inf jP(ρ ≥ j) > 1 and L := lim sup jP(ρ ≥ j) < ∞.
j→∞

j→∞

We have that both the firework process and the reverse firework process percolate if p > 1/l
and neither of them percolates if p < 1/L.
We note here that this is the same condition that Junior, Machado and Zuluaga (2011)
obtain for the percolation among ‘non-sceptical’ individuals. Indeed, the above proposition
goes through among more radical sceptics too, i.e. if individuals need to receive the rumour
from k ≥ 1 distinct sources before they transmit the rumour.
As noted in the review article Junior, Machado and Ravishankar (2016), the above
model is related to the study of coverage processes in stochastic geometry. Athreya, Roy
and Sarkar (2004) introduce a notion of ‘eventual coverage’ which, for 1-dimension, is
identical to the equivalent formulation of the percolation of rumour process as given in
Remark 1.1. We state the model in brief here and present the results obtained.
Let {Xi : i ∈ Nd } be a collection of i.i.d. Bernoulli (p) random variables and {ρi :
i ∈ Nd } a collection of i.i.d. N valued random variables, independent of the collection
{Xi : i ∈ Nd }. Let ρ denote a generic random variable with the same distribution as ρi .
Let
C := ∪i:Xi =1 (i + [0, ρi ]d )
denote the covered region of Nd .
Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004) define a notion of eventual coverage as follows: Nd is
eventually covered if there exists a t ∈ Nd such that t + Nd ⊆ C. For our purposes we say
Nd is eventually doubly covered if there exists a t ∈ Nd such that t + Nd ⊆ D, where
D := {x ∈ Rd : there exist i, j ∈ Nd with i 6= j and Xi = Xj = 1
such that x ∈ (i + [0, ρi ]d ) ∩ (j + [0, ρj ]d )}.
We have
Proposition 1.6. (i) For d = 1, let
l := lim inf jP(ρ ≥ j) > 1 and L := lim sup jP(ρ ≥ j) < ∞.
j→∞

j→∞

We have
Pp (N is eventually doubly covered) =

3

(

1
0

if p > 1/l
if p < 1/L.

(ii) For d ≥ 2, we have
Pp (Nd is eventually doubly covered) =

(

1
0

if lim inf j→∞ jP(ρ ≥ j) > 0
if limj→∞ jP(ρ ≥ j) = 0.

In stochastic geometry the notion of coverage of space has received widespread attention. In particular Hall (1988) and Chiu, et al (2013) provide a review of the topics
studied. Our endeavour in this paper may be viewed as an effort to introduce a notion of
‘reinforced coverage’.

2

Proof of Proposition 1.5

Let S be the event that "the firework process percolates" and S̃ be the event that "the
reverse firework process percolates". Observe that,
S=

∞ [
∞
\

∞
[

([ρn−i ≥ i + 1] ∩ [ρn−j ≥ j + 1]) ,

n=1 i=1 j=1,j6=i

and
S̃ =

∞ [
∞
\

∞
[

([ρn+i ≥ i] ∩ [ρn+j ≥ j]) .

n=1 i=1 j=1,j6=i

We will show that if p > 1/l, then we have P(S) = 1, P(S̃) = 1 and if p < 1/L, then
P(S) = 0, P(S̃) = 0.
We prove the proposition for the firework process, a similar proof works for the reverse
firework process. Using De Morgan’s law, we have
Sc =

∞ \
∞
[

∞
\

([ρn−i ≤ i] ∪ [ρn−j ≤ j]) .

n=1 i=1 j=1,j6=i

4

Since p > 1/l, there exists η > 1 such that l > η/p. Also let i0 be such that iP(ρ ≥ i) > ηp ,
for all i ≥ i0 . Therefore, for all i, j ≥ i0 and each fixed n,


∞
∞
\
\
P
([ρn−i ≤ i] ∪ [ρn−j ≤ j])
i=i0 j=i0 ,j6=i


 

∞
∞
∞
∞

 \
\
\
\
[ρn−i ≤ i] 
[ρn−j ≤ j]) ∪
= P

 

j=i0 i=j+1
i=i0 j=i+1




∞
∞
∞
∞
\
\
\
\
[ρn−i ≤ i]
[ρn−j ≤ j] + P 
= P
j=i0 i=j+1

i=i0 j=i+1



≤ P
=
≤
≤

∞
\

∞
Y

[1 −

j=i0 +1
∞
Y

[1 −

[ρn−i ≤ i]

i=i0 +1

[1 − P(ρ ≥ j + 1)] +

j=i0 +1
∞
Y

1
j+1 ]

∞
\

[ρn−j ≤ j] + P

j=i0 +1

j=i0 +1

Q
But, ∞
j=i0 +1 [1 −
Finally



∞
Y

!

[1 − P(ρ ≥ i + 1)]

i=i0 +1
∞
Y
η
η
[1 −
]+
]
p(j + 1)
p(i
+ 1)
i=i +1
0

∞
Y

1
]+
j+1
i=i

= 0 as well as

[1 −

0 +1

Q∞

i=i0 +1 [1

1
].
i+1
−

1
i+1 ]

= 0. Therefore, P(S c ) = 0.

P(percolation among sceptic individuals)
≤ P(percolation among ‘non sceptical’ individuals)
=0
for p < 1/L , where the equality above follows from Theorem 2.1 of Junior, Machado and
Ravishankar (2016).

3

Proof of Proposition 1.6

As mentioned earlier (i) of Proposition 1.6 is just Proposition 1.5 rephrased. Thus we need
to prove (ii).
First note that from Proposition 3.2(a) of Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004), we know
that if limj−→∞ jP(ρ ≥ j) = 0 then Pp (Nd is eventually covered) = 0, and so
Pp (Nd is eventually doubly covered) = 0.

5

We prove Proposition 1.6 (ii) for the case d = 2; the proof carries through in a
straightforward fashion for higher dimensions. Fix 0 < p < 1 and we assume that
lim inf j−→∞ jP(ρ ≥ j) > 0.
For (i, j) ∈ N2 , define
Bi,j := {(i, j) 6∈ D}.
If we show that, for some N ≥ 1,
X

Pp (Bi,j ) < ∞,

i,j≥N

then Borel-Cantelli lemma guarantees that, with probability 1, there exists N0 ≥ 1 such
that (i, j) ∈ D for all i, j ≥ N0 , i.e. we have eventual coverage.
For u := (i − l1 , j − l2 ) ∈ N2 with 1 ≤ l1 ≤ i, 1 ≤ l2 ≤ j, we observe that (i, j) ∈
u + [0, ρu ]2 if and only if ρu ≥ max{l1 , l2 }. Also note that for i ≥ j and 0 ≤ t ≤ j − 1 there
are exactly 2t + 1 vertices (i − l1 , j − l2 ) with max{l1 , l2 } = t (viz. {(i − l1 , j − l2 ) : l1 =
t and 0 ≤ l2 ≤ t or l2 = t and 0 ≤ l1 ≤ t}), while for j ≤ t ≤ i there are exactly j vertices
(i − l1 , j − l2 ) with max{l1 , l2 } = t (viz. {(i − l1 , j − l2 ) : l1 = t and 0 ≤ l2 ≤ j − 1}).
Thus, for Ai,j := {(i, j) 6∈ C}, and, for i ≥ j,
Pp (Bi,j )
= Pp (Ai,j )+
i−j
Y

[1 − pG(k + j − 1)]

k=1
j−1
Y

[1 − pG(t)]

2t+1


j−1
X
j


pG(t) [1 − pG(t)]

t=0

j−1
Y

2t

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1




+



l6=t,l=0

t=0

×


i−j
X


pG(k + j − 1) [1 − pG(k + j − 1)]

j−1

i−j
Y

[1 − pG(l + j − 1)]

Noting that for i ≥ j
Pp (Ai,j ) =

j−1
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

l=0

i−j
Y

[1 − pG(k + j − 1)]

.

(2)



l6=k,l=1

k=1

j




j

k=1

(the last product is taken to be 1 if i = j), (2) simplifies to
Pp (Bi,j ) = Pp (Ai,j ) + pPp (Ai,j )

i−1
X
t=0

G(t)
.
1 − pG(t)

(3)

Before we proceed we fix some quantities. Since lim inf jP(ρ ≥ j) > 0 we may choose
j−→∞

η > 0 such that lim inf jP(ρ ≥ j) > η. Also, for this η and our fixed p ∈ (0, 1) let a be
j−→∞

6

such 0 < e−pη < a < 1. Now we choose N ≥ 1 such that for all j ≥ N the following hold:
(i) jP(ρ ≥ j) > η,
(ii) (1 − pηj −1 )j < a,
(4)

(iii) pjη > 1.

Note that (ii) above guarantees that for all j ≥ N , we have (1 − pG(j))j < a.
From the proof of Proposition 3.2(b) of Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004) we know that,
for j ≥ N ,
∞
X
Pp (Ai,j ) < ∞.
i=1

Thus if we show that, for j ≥ N ,
∞
X

Pp (Ai,j )

i−1
X
t=0

i=1

G(t)
<∞
1 − pG(t)

(5)

then we will have
∞
X

Pp (Bi,j ) < ∞ whenever j ≥ N.

(6)

i=1

Note that,

i−1
X
t=0

∞
X

Pp (Ai,j )

i=j

=

j−1

k=1

i−j
X

k=1

∞ j−1
Y
X

G(k + j − 1)
1 − pG(k + j − 1)

[1 − pG(t)]2t+1

i=j t=0

=

j−1
Y
j−1
Y

i−j
Y

[1 − pG(l + j − 1)]j

l=1

[1 − pG(t)]2t+1

t=0

=

i−j

X G(t)
X G(k + j − 1)
G(t)
=
+
. Now, for fixed j ≥ N ,
1 − pG(t)
1 − pG(t)
1 − pG(k + j − 1)
t=0

∞ i−1
Y
X

k=1

[1 − pG(l)]j−1

2t+1

t=0

∞ X
∞ i−1
X
Y


i−1
X


i=j l=j

[1 − pG(t)]

i−j
X

G(k + j − 1)
1 − pG(k + j − 1)

G(k)

j−1

[1 − pG(h)]

h6=k,h=j

k=j

[1 − pG(l)]

i−1
Y

G(k)

i−1
Y

[1 − pG(h)] for j ≥ N.

Taking
∞ i−1
X
Y

[1 − pG(l)]



h6=k,h=j

k=j i=k+1 l=j

ek :=




j−1

G(k)

i−1
Y

h6=k,h=j

i=k+1 l=j

7

[1 − pG(h)]

(7)

as the inner sum in (7), we have
ek =G(k)

k
Y

[1 − pG(l)]j−1

l=j

k−1
Y

[1 − pG(h)]

h=j

×

∞
X

1+

i
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

i=k+1 l=k+1

=G(k)

k
Y

[1 − pG(l)]j−1

l=j

k−1
Y

i
Y

j−1

[1 − pG(h)]

h=k+1

!

[1 − pG(h)] 1 + [1 − pG(k)]j

h=j

h

× 1+

∞
X

i
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

j−1

i=k+2 l=k+2

i
Y

[1 − pG(h)]

h=k+2

i

!

.

(8)

!

(9)

Similarly, for ek+1 , as in the term in the first equality above, we have
ek+1 =G(k + 1)

k+1
Y

[1 − pG(l)]j−1

l=j

×

k
Y

[1 − pG(h)]

h=j

1+

∞
X

i
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

j−1

i=k+3 l=k+3

i
Y

[1 − pG(h)] .

h=k+3

Taking
C(k, j) := 1 +

∞
X

i
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

j−1

i=k+2 l=k+2

i
Y

[1 − pG(h)]

h=k+2

we see that
j−1

ek+1
[1 − pG(k)]
G(k + 1) [1 − pG(k + 1)]
= C(k, j)
j .
ek
G(k)
1 + C(k, j) [1 − pG(k + 1)]
Now,

G(k+1)
G(k)

(10)

≤ 1 for all k ≥ 0, and, for fixed j,
j−1

(i) for k large enough, 0.9 < [1 − pG(k + 1)]

[1 − pG(k + 1)] ≤ 1;

(ii) for j ≥ N , from equation (3.5) of Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004), we have
P∞
Qi
j−1
< ∞ and hence
i=k+2
l=k+2 [1 − pG(l)]
∞
X

i
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

i=k+2 l=k+2

j−1

i
Y

[1 − pG(h)] < ∞;

h=k+2

which ensures that, for k large enough, 1 ≤ C(k, j) < 1.1.
1.1
Thus, for j ≥ N and k large enough, we have ek+1
ek < 1.9 , and so, by ratio test,
∞. This shows, from (7), that (5) and thereby (6) hold.

8

P∞

k=1 ek

<

P
Now we show that, for N as above,
i,j≥N Pp (Bi,j ) < ∞. Towards this, we first
observe that, for i, j ≥ 1, by symmetry we have Pp (Bi,j ) = Pp (Bj,i ), thus we need to show
X

Pp (Bi,j ) = 2

i,j≥N

∞ X
i−1
X

Pp (Bi,j ) +

i=N j=N

∞
X

(11)

Pp (Bi,i ) < ∞.

i=N

We will show separately that
∞ X
i−1
X

Pp (Bi,j ) < ∞ and

i=N j=N

∞
X

(12)

Pp (Bi,i ) < ∞.

i=N

First, for any i, j ≥ 1,
"

Pp (Bi,j ) = 1 + p

i−1
X
t=0

#
G(t)
Pp (Ai,j ).
1 − pG(t)

From the proof of Proposition 3.2(b) of Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004) we know that,
∞ X
i−1
X

Pp (Ai,j ) < ∞ and

i=N j=N

∞
X

Pp (Ai,i ) < ∞,

i=N

thus we need to show that
∞ X
i−1 X
i−1
X

i=N j=N t=0

∞ X
i−1
X
G(t)
G(t)
Pp (Ai,j ) < ∞ and
Pp (Ai,i ) < ∞.
1 − pG(t)
1
−
pG(t)
t=0

(13)

i=N

For the first sum, interchanging the order of summation we have
∞ X
i−1 X
i−1
X

i=N j=N t=0

∞
∞
X
X
G(t)
G(t)
Pp (Ai,j ) =
1 − pG(t)
1 − pG(t)
t=0

∞
X

Pp (Ai,j ).

j=N +1 i=max(t+1,j+1)

Also breaking up the inner two sums according to the values taken by i, writing out the
expression for Pp (Ai,j ) and collecting terms together, we have
∞
X

∞
X

Pp (Ai,j )

j=N +1 i=max(t+1,j+1)

=

∞
X

∞
X

Pp (AN +r,N +m )

m=1 r=max(t−N +1,m+1)

=

t−N
X

∞
X

m=1 r=t+1−N

+

∞
X

N +m−1
Y

[1 − pG(l)]2l+1

l=0

∞
X

m=t−N +1 r=m+1

r−m
Y

[1 − pG(k + N + m − 1)]N +m

k=1

N +m−1
Y

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

l=0

r−m
Y
k=1

9

N +m

[1 − pG(k + N + m − 1)]

).

G(t)
1−pG(t) ,

To simplify the expressions we take σt :=
N +m

g(k, m) := [1 − pG(k + N + m − 1)]
equations we have
∞ X
i−1 X
i−1
X

i=N j=N t=0

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

and

l=0

. Using this notation, from the previous two

∞
t−N
X
X
G(t)
Pp (Ai,j ) =
σt
1 − pG(t)
t=1
m=1

+

N +m−1
Y

sm :=

∞
X

∞
X

sm

r=t+1−N
∞
X

σt

r−m
Y

g(k, m)

k=1

∞
X

sm

m=t−N +1 r=m+1

t=1

r−m
Y

g(k, m).

(14)

k=1

We start with the first term on the right in the above equation. Reordering the sums, we
have
∞
X
t=1

σt

t−N
X

∞
X

sm

m=1 r=t+1−N

r−m
Y

g(k, m) =

∞
X

sm

m=1

k=1

Let

∞
X

αm := sm

∞
X

∞
X

σt

t=m+N

σt

t=m+N

∞
X

r−m
Y

r−m
Y

g(k, m).

(15)

r=t+1−N k=1

g(k, m)

r=t+1−N k=1

denote the summand. Observe that
∞
X

sm+1 t=m+1+N
αm+1
=
∞
αm
sm
X

r=t+1−N
∞
X

r−m−1
Y

σt

t=m+N

= [1 − pG(N +

∞
X

σt

k=1
r−m
Y

∞
X

σt

t=m+1+N
∞
r−m
X
Y

r=t+1−N
∞
X

r−m−1
Y
k=1
r−m
Y

σt

= [1 − pG(N + m)]N +m

∞
X

∞
X

σt

t=m+N

σm+N
[1−pG(N +m)]N +m+1

g(k, m)

r=t+1−N k=1

t=m+1+N
m)]2(N +m)+1
∞
X

×

g(k, m + 1)

∞
X

g(k, m) +

g(k, m)

r=t+1−N k=1

r=t+1−N

r=m+1 k=1

g(k, m + 1)

r−m−1
Y
k=1
∞
X

g(k, m + 1)

t=m+1+N

σt

∞
X

r=t+1−N

r−m−1
Y

.
g(k, m + 1)

k=1

By our choice of N and 0 < a < 1 as in (4), we have [1 − pG(N + m)]N +m < a. All
P∞
P∞
Qr−m−1
terms above being non-negative, if t=m+1+N σt r=t+1−N k=1
g(k, m + 1) < ∞,

10

then ααm+1
< a; and so an application of the ratio test will yield that the sum in (15) is
m
finite.
P∞
P∞
Qr−m−1
To show t=m+1+N σt r=t+1−N k=1
g(k, m + 1) < ∞, we again apply a ratio
P∞
Qr−m−1
test. Let τt := σt r=t+1−N k=1
g(k, m + 1) < ∞. Then,
G(t + 1)
τt+1
=
[1 − pG(t)]
τt
G(t)

[1 − pG(t + 1)]

N +m

∞
X

1+

r
Y

!

g(k, m + 1)

r=t+2−N −m k=t+2−N −m
∞
r
X
Y

×
N +m+1

1+

1 + [1 − pG(t + 1)]

g(k, m + 1)

r=t+2−N −m k=t+2−N −m

Note that

∞
X

r
Y

!.

g(k, m + 1) < ∞ (from Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004))

r=t+2−N −m k=t+2−N −m

and so we may obtain a t0 such that, for all t ≥ t0 ,
(i) 1 ≤ 1 +

∞
X

r
Y

g(k, m + 1) < 1.1 and

r=t+2−N −m k=t+2−N −m
N +m+1

(ii) [1 − pG(t + 1)]

1+

∞
X

r
Y

!

g(k, m + 1)

r=t+2−N −m k=t+2−N −m

This choice of t0 ensures that for all t ≥ t0 we have
∞
X

t=m+1+N

σt

∞
X

r=t+1−N

r−m−1
Y

τt+1
τt

> 0.9.

< 1.1/1.9, and hence

g(k, m + 1) < ∞.

k=1

Thus the first term on the right of (14) is finite.
A similar calculation and a use of ratio test shows that the second term on the right
of (14) is finite, thereby showing that the sum in (14) is finite.
Reordering the second sum in (11) and using the notation we introduced earlier, we
have
∞ X
i−1
X

i=N t=0

N
−1 X
∞
∞ X
∞
X
X
G(t)
σt Pp (Ai,i ).
Pp (Ai,i ) =
σt Pp (Ai,i ) +
1 − pG(t)
t=0
i=t+1
i=N

(16)

t=N

From the end of Section 3.1 of Athreya, Roy and Sarkar (2004) we know that with N as
PN −1 P∞
P∞
above, i=N σt Pp (Ai,i ) < ∞ and hence t=0
i=N σt Pp (Ai,i ) < ∞.
Expanding the term Pp (Ai,i ), we have
∞ X
∞
X

t=N i=t+1

σt Pp (Ai,i ) =

∞ X
∞
X

t=N i=t+1

11

σt

i−1
Y
l=0

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

(17)

Taking at := σt
see that

P∞

i=t+1

at := σt

Qi−1

t
Y

l=0

[1 − pG(l)]

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

2l+1

l=1

from which we have

and lt :=

P∞

r=t+2

Qr

l=t+2

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

, we

n
o
2t+3
1 + [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt ) ;
2t+3

at+1
[1 − pG(t)] [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt )
G(t + 1)


=
2t+3
at
G(t) [1 − pG(t + 1)] 1 + [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt )
2t+2

=

(1 + lt )
G(t + 1) [1 − pG(t)] [1 − pG(t + 1)]
2t+3
G(t)
1 + [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt )

≤

(1 + lt )
G(t + 1) [1 − pG(t + 1)]
2t+3
G(t) 1 + [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt )

2t+2

Also, with a as in (4),
Qr+1

l=t+2
Qr
l=t+2

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

[1 − pG(l)]

2l+1

2r+3

= [1 − pG(r + 1)]


pη
< 1−p
r+1

2r+3

< a for r ≥ N,

so, by the ratio test lt < ∞ for t ≥ N . Now, since lt → 0 as t → ∞, from the remark
2t+2
following (4) we may obtain a t0 such that for t ≥ t0 , we have [1 − pG(t + 1)]
(1 + lt ) <
G(t+1)
a < 1. Also G(t) < 1 for all t, thus
at+1
< a for all t ≥ t0 ,
at
and by ratio test we have that the sum in (16) is finite.
This completes the proof of Proposition 1.6 (ii).

References
1. Athreya, S., Roy, R. and Sarkar, A. (2004). On the coverage of space by random
sets. Adv. Appl. Probab. (SGSA), 36, 1–18.
2. Chiu, S.N, Stoyan, D., N., Kendall, W.S., V. and Mecke, J. (2013). Stochastic
geometry and its applications 3rd Ed., John Wiley, Chichester.

12

3. Gallo, S., Garcia, N., Junior, V. and Rodríguez, P. (2014). Rumor Processes
on N and discrete renewal processes. J. Stat. Physics, 155, 591–602.
4. Hall, P. (1988). Introduction to the theory of coverage processes John Wiley, New
York.
5. Junior, V., Machado, F. and Zuluaga, M. (2011), Rumor processes on N. J..
Appl. Probab., 48, 624–636.
6. Junior, V., Machado, F. and Ravishankar, K. (2016) The rumor percolation
model and its variations. arXiv:1612.03853.

13

