holy shit wait he's doing the induction step wrong take a look at this shit
q_z^(n) (a, B)may be interpreted as the probability that the instantaneous expression ofZwill beB"after n steps" given thatZ"starts" with instantaneous expressiona.
you literally didn't specify how the state would change over time!! you didn't prove the relation at all!!!!
where the summation ranges over all instantaneous expression
γ.
and just where is the γ of unknown cardinality specified? well,
look at this shit!!!! HE DID NOT PROVE THIS!!!!
q_z^(n) (a, 😎 = Σ_y q_z^(n - 1) (a, γ) * q_z(γ, B)
and not only has he just asserted without proof this recursive relation (which absolutely 100% does NOT follow from the priors).......