# Can a system that holds information about it's past ever be Markovian?

To my (basic) understanding a Markov process is a process wherein the future state of a system only depends on the current state, and not on the past states of the system.

I was wondering on what the standard approach is on systems that inherently hold information about their past in them.

One could image, in the discrete-time case, system carrying in it a representation of it's three previous states. There are two cases to distinguish here:

• The future state of the system is not a function of this memory and only of factors that don't have anything to do with it. This is perhaps a boring case (although there might be interesting examples I don't know of).
• The future state of the system is a function of this memory information, yet in a "Markovian" way. This is the case I am most interested in.

Are these things that would be considered as Markovian systems (perhaps on a different scale)? Are there examples of these kinds of systems?

-
In what sense are systems that belong to the second case then "Markovian"...? If their evolution is a function of the memory of the system, then they cannot be Markovian by definition. However, if this amount of memory is finite (like the example of storing 3 previous states that you mention), then on time-scales long compared to this memory-storage time scale, the system would be effectively Markovian. – Vijay Murthy Mar 11 '12 at 19:33
A definite example of what I said above is the generalized Langevin equation. See here and here for a discussion and also the Markovian approximation. – Vijay Murthy Mar 11 '12 at 19:46
You can do the product of the system state space and the memory state space, getting a Markov process. But maybe you are thinking about something different, with additional restrictions on the allowed transitions. – mmc Mar 11 '12 at 20:54
I guess what I'm asking is this: are the restrictions for an evolving system to be Markovian laid mainly on the system or on the state-to-state transition rules? And why the one or the other? Perhaps this is too axiomatic to be questioned even, in which case that would be an answer too. – romeovs Mar 11 '12 at 21:09