Suppose a particle enters a system at $0.5$ in the unit interval $[0,1]$.
With some probability $\lambda_{right}$, particles go right by
$$x_{right} = \frac{x\pi_{H}}{x\pi_{H} + (1-x)\pi_{L} }$$ and with some probability $\lambda_{left}$, they go left by $$x_{left} = \frac{x(1-\pi_{H})}{x(1-\pi_{H}) + (1-x)(1-\pi_{L}) }$$
where $1>\pi_{H}>\pi_{L}>0$, so that $x_{right} \geq x \geq x_{left}$. These are Bayesian updating formulae.
I want to simulate the stationary distribution of this system, where the fraction of particles at each point does not change anymore. At the moment, I don't want to impose any restriction on $\pi_{H}$ and $\pi_{L}$. If $\pi_{H} = 1-\pi_{L}$, for instance, I can simplify the position of each particle just by how many net right moves it had and get closed form solution from a second-order recurrence equation, but this is not I want to do.
I had two options.
(1) Make regular grids from 0 to 1. Depending on $\pi_{H}$ and $\pi_{L}$, the grid points might not equal the support of positions created in this system, meaning some grid points might not be reached just because of the parameters in the formulae. I just linearly interpolate while finding a fixed point of $v(x) = \lambda_{right} v(x')+ \lambda_{left} v(x'') $ such that $x'_{right} =x$ and $x''_{left} = x$. However, I'm not sure if this is a mathematically or numerically rigorous method. Most importantly, when I impose $\pi_{H} =1-\pi_{L}$, it doesn't give me the same simulation result as the closed-form solution.
(2) I think this is a more brut-force way. I make every combination of $(n,m)$ where each represents the number of right and left move. The problem is, in this case, I have no clue to what extend I should allow the two natural numbers to be.
Any suggestion or reference would be greatly helpful.