Before starting, we have to notice that the terminology of percolation is adopted in different situations and generally in the contexts of graphs - it could be various graphs - like lattice $Z^d$, random graphs, random maps etc. But the phenomena is a little universal that a path starts from $0$ and goes to infinite faraway. In this series of talk, Hugo focuses on the situation of 2D Bernoulli percolation.
$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
p \leq p_c &,& \theta(p) = \mathbb{P}[0 \leftrightarrow \infty] = 0 \\
p > p_c &,& \theta(p) = \mathbb{P}[0 \leftrightarrow \infty] > 0
\end{eqnarray*}
$$
In 2D model, the critical point $p_c = 1/2$. Some simple argument supports this point. For example, if we draw the dual percolation between the face whose frontier is closed, we get a dual graph with probability $1-p$. If we suppose that the critical point is unique, then the transition of face happens at the same time in both the primal graph and the dual graph. So $p_c = 1- p_c$ and $p_c = 1/2$.
Definition and critical point
We give some definitions precisely. In the lattice graph $Z^2$, each site has 4 neighbors and every edge has independently a probability $p$ to be present (open) or a probability $1-p$ to be absent (closed). Then there exits a critical point $p_c$ : when $p \leq p_c$, with probability $0$ there exists a path from 0 to $\infty$, while when $p > p_c$, with probability $\theta(p)$ there exists a path from $0$ to $\infty$.$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
p \leq p_c &,& \theta(p) = \mathbb{P}[0 \leftrightarrow \infty] = 0 \\
p > p_c &,& \theta(p) = \mathbb{P}[0 \leftrightarrow \infty] > 0
\end{eqnarray*}
$$
In 2D model, the critical point $p_c = 1/2$. Some simple argument supports this point. For example, if we draw the dual percolation between the face whose frontier is closed, we get a dual graph with probability $1-p$. If we suppose that the critical point is unique, then the transition of face happens at the same time in both the primal graph and the dual graph. So $p_c = 1- p_c$ and $p_c = 1/2$.
Quantitative analysis
We hope to get some stronger result, The following theorem is first obtained by Menshikov, Aizeman and Michael $$\begin{eqnarray*}\forall p < p_c, \exists C_p > 0 \text{ s.t } \mathbb{P}_p[ 0 \leftrightarrow \partial B_n] \leq \exp{(-C_p n)}\\ \forall p > p_c, \exists C > 0 \text{ s.t } \mathbb{P}_p[0 \leftrightarrow \infty] \geq C(p - p_c) \end{eqnarray*}$$
Here, we denote the ball of radius $n$ by $\partial B_n$ and this theorem indeed, gives some numerical estimation of the speed of decrements.
Proof 1 by (Menshikov, Aizeman, Michael)
We note $\theta_n(p) = \mathbb{P}_p [0 \leftrightarrow \partial B_n]$ and $$\phi_p (S) = \sum_{x \in S, y \notin S, x \sim y} p\mathbb{P}[0 \leftrightarrow^S x]$$. We can prove it by 5 steps.
- We admit at first this important inequality$$ \frac{d}{dp} \theta_n(p) \geq \frac{1}{p(1-p)}[\inf_{0 \in S \subset B_n} \phi_p(S)](1 - \theta_n(p))$$then we define $$\tilde{p}_c = \sup \{p : \exists S \ni 0, \text{s.t} \phi_p(S) < 1\}$$we can prove $$\theta(P) \geq \frac{1}{p(1-\tilde{p}_c)}(p - \tilde{p}_c)$$
- We choose $S \subset B_{k-1}$ such that $\phi_p (S) < 1$ and prove$$\theta_{nk}(p) \leq (\phi_p(S))^n$$
- We conclude that $\tilde{p}_c = p_c$
- Verify the identity $$\frac{d}{dp}\mathbb{P}_p(X) = \sum_{e \in E} \frac{1}{p(1-p)}Cov(w_e, X)$$
- We put $X = -\mathbb{I}_{0 ! \leftrightarrow \partial B_n}$ and we prove the important inequality.
没有评论:
发表评论