I prefer the first definition by far. I relate the question to ergodic theory, as seems appropriate, and assume that the chain hass finitely many possible values, so as to not bother with positive recurrence.
Let us consider a finite state space $A$, and denote all the possible sequences of element in $A$ by $X:=A^{\mathbb{N}}$. Let us define a transformation $\sigma$ on $X$ by $(\sigma x)_n = x_{n+1}$ on $X$. For $x \in X$, we have $x_n = (\sigma^n x)_0$. In other words, by applying the transformation $\sigma$, I can read the successive values of a given sequence.
Now, let us take some probability measure $\mu$ on $A$ with full support (so as to see everything), and a stochastic matrix $P$ (the transition kernel). Using $\mu$ as the distribution of $X_0$ and the matrix $P$ to define transitions, we get a Markov chain $(X_n)_{n \geq 0} = x = ((\sigma^n x)_0)_{n \geq 0}$, which is a stochastic process with values in $A$. The distribution of $(X_n)_{n \geq 0}$ is a measure $\overline{\mu}$ on $A^{\mathbb{N}}$ which satisfies the usual conditions on cylinders, and whose first marginal is $\mu$.
The construction may look a bit confusing. However, if you forget about $\sigma$, it is what is done more or less informally when one defines Markov chains (that is the construction may be hidden, but it is there).
Hence, we can consider a Markov chain as a dynamical system $(X, \sigma)$ together with a probability measure $\overline{\mu}$. We can use the definitions of ergodic theory, and what we get in the end is that:
- the system $(X, \sigma, \overline{\mu})$ is measure-preserving if and only if $\mu$ is stationnary for $P$;
- the system $(X, \sigma, \overline{\mu})$ is ergodic (in the sense of ergodic theory) if and only if the Markov chain is irreducible;
- the system $(X, \sigma, \overline{\mu})$ is mixing if and only if the Markov chain is irreducible and aperiodic.
So these are two very different conditions, and aperiodicity does not correspond to ergodicity. As a corollary, one can apply ergodic theorems to Markov chains with no need for aperiodicity.
Since my comment provided sufficient clarification:
When there's a stationary state, your system will evolve towards that state. In your case, the two left eigenvectors are $(−1,1)$ and $(3,10)$ with corresponding eigenvalues $−0.3$ and $1$. Every other state of the system can be decomposed into those two states. The first state exihibits oscillating behaviour, but it dies out as $0.3<1$. The other state is stationary. So whatever your initial state, you'll evolve towards that stationary state.
Best Answer
If all of $a,b,c,d,e,f$ are $>0$, then the chain is aperiodic. Starting in state 2 you can go $2\to1\to2$ or $2\to4\to1\to2$ with non-zero probability. Hence, the period of state 2 divides both 2 and 3, and so the period of state 2 is 1. Since the chain is irreducible, all states are aperiodic.
If, for example, $a=0$ then the chain is not even irreducible.