03.12.2012 Views

PERCOLATION AND DISORDERED SYSTEMS Geoffrey GRIMMETT

PERCOLATION AND DISORDERED SYSTEMS Geoffrey GRIMMETT

PERCOLATION AND DISORDERED SYSTEMS Geoffrey GRIMMETT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Percolation and Disordered Systems 201<br />

We may apply this with K = K(m, n), since K(m, n) is defined on the set of<br />

edges exterior to B(n). Therefore, by (7.21), (7.22), and (7.19),<br />

(7.23)<br />

Pp<br />

�<br />

|U � K(m, n) �� �<br />

� > t<br />

≥ 1 − (1 − p) −t � �<br />

Pp ∂R � K(m, n) in B(n)<br />

≥ 1 − (1 − p) −t η > 1 − 1<br />

2ǫ. We now couple together the percolation processes with different values<br />

of p on the same probability space, as described in Section 2.3 and just<br />

prior to the statement of Lemma 7.17. We borrow the notation and results<br />

derived above by specialising to the p-open edges. Conditional on the set<br />

U = U(K(m, n)), the values of X(e), for e ∈ U, are independent and uniform<br />

on [0, 1]. Therefore<br />

�<br />

� �<br />

�<br />

P every e in U is (β(e) + δ)-closed, |U| > t�<br />

H ≤ (1 − δ) t ,<br />

whence, using (7.18) and (7.23),<br />

�<br />

� �<br />

�<br />

P some e in U is (β(e) + δ)-open � H ≥ P(|U| > t | H) − (1 − δ) t<br />

= Pp(|U| > t) − (1 − δ) t<br />

≥ (1 − 1 1<br />

2ǫ) − 2ǫ, and the lemma is proved. �<br />

This completes the two key geometrical lemmas. In moving to the second<br />

part of the proof, we shall require a method for comparison of a ‘dependent’<br />

process and a site percolation process. The argument required at this stage<br />

is as follows.<br />

Let F be an infinite connected subset of Ld for which the associated<br />

(site) critical probability satisfies pc(F, site) < 1, and let {Z(x) : x ∈ F } be<br />

random variables taking values in [0, 1]. We construct a connected subset of<br />

F in the following recursive manner. Let e(1), e(2), . . . be a fixed ordering<br />

of the edges of the graph induced by F. Let x1 ∈ F, and define the ordered<br />

pair S1 = (A1, B1) of subsets of F by<br />

�<br />

({x1}, ∅) if Z(x1) = 1<br />

S1 =<br />

(∅, {x1}) if Z(x1) = 0.<br />

Having defined S1, S2, . . . , St = (At, Bt), for t ≥ 1, we define St+1 as follows.<br />

Let f be the earliest edge in the fixed ordering of the e(i) with the property<br />

that one endvertex, xt+1 say, lies in At and the other endvertex lies outside<br />

At ∪ Bt. Then we declare<br />

�<br />

(At ∪ {xt+1}, Bt) if Z(xt+1) = 1,<br />

St+1 =<br />

(At, Bt ∪ {xt+1}) if Z(xt+1) = 0.<br />

If no such edge f exists, we declare St+1 = St. The sets At, Bt are nondecreasing,<br />

and we set A∞ = limt→∞ At, B∞ = limt→∞ Bt. Think about<br />

A∞ as the ‘occupied cluster’ at x1, and B∞ as its external boundary.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!