Source and context: Im reading “The Theory of Quantum Open Systems” by Breuer and Petruccione. As an application of the just derived Lindblad equation for the dynamics of the reduced density matrix $\rho_S(t)$ of subsystem $S$: $$ \frac{d}{dt} \rho_S(t) = -i [H_S, \rho_S(t)] +\mathcal{D}(\rho_S(t)), \tag{1} $$ the authors “show” that for any initial state $\rho_S(0)$ in contact with an stationary heat bath $\rho_B = \rho_{th} \equiv \exp (-\beta H_b)/\mathcal{Z}$ $$ \rho_S(t) \longrightarrow \rho_{th} \quad \text{as} \quad t \rightarrow \infty, $$ as one naturally expects. They “show” this by proving that $\rho_{th}$ is stationary, i.e. $\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{th}=0$ (I can follow that proof okay).
Questions:
Why do they just prove that $\rho_{th}$ is stationary? (I don’t find this very impressive as $\rho_{th}$ doesn’t depend on time by definition). In fact, I would have thought that according to what they showed, $\rho_{th}$ is a stationary solution of subsystem $S$ as I expected $\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{th}=0$ to be true by definition and hence $\rho_{th}$ to satisfy (1).
Wouldn’t one want to explicitly show that no matter what $\rho_S(0)$ was, in the limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ then $\rho_S\rightarrow \rho_{th}$?