text:
# The Spectral Gap of the 2-D stochastic Ising model With Nearly Single-Spin Boundary Conditions

## 1. Introduction and Main Theorem

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and let $`\eta \{1,0,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{x^2\backslash \mathrm{\Lambda }:x\text{ is adjacent to some site }`$ $`\text{in }\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. The Hamiltonian for the Ising model on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with boundary condition $`\eta `$ is

$$H_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma )=\underset{xy:x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _x\sigma _y\underset{xy:x\mathrm{\Lambda },y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _x\eta _y,\sigma \{1,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

where the first sum is over unordered pairs of adjacent sites. Let $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$ denote the equilibrium measure when the inverse temperature is $`\beta `$:

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta (\sigma )=(Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta )^1e^{\beta H_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }(\sigma )},$$

where $`Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$ is the partition function. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{1,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the configuration space, and let $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote a generic configuration. (When convenient we write “+” and “-” in place of 1 and -1 for the two spins.)

We consider the time evolution of the dynamic version of the model under Glauber dynamics. Let $`\sigma ^x`$ denote the configuration given by $`\sigma _y^x=\sigma _y`$ for $`y=x`$, $`\sigma _y^x=\sigma _y`$ for $`yx`$. The flip rate at a site $`x`$ when the configuration is $`\sigma `$ is denoted $`c(x,\sigma )`$ (notationally supressing its dependence on $`\eta `$.) We assume that the flip rates are uniformly bounded:

$$0<c_0^{}c(x,\sigma )c_0\text{for all }x\text{ and }\sigma .$$

We also make the usual assumptions that the flip rates are attractive and translation invariant, satisfy detailed balance and have finite range; see e.g.  for full descriptions of these properties. The generator $`A=A_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$ of the corresponding Markov process is given by

$$(Af)(\sigma )=\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}c(x,\sigma )\left(f(\sigma ^x)f(\sigma )\right),$$

and the Dirichlet form $`𝒟=𝒟_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$ by

$$𝒟(f,g)=f,Ag_\mu ,$$

so that

$$𝒟(f,f)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mu (\sigma )c(x,\sigma )\left(f(\sigma ^x)f(\sigma )\right)^2,$$

where $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$. The spectral gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta ,\beta )`$ for such dynamics, which is the smallest positive eigenvalue of $`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta `$, has the following representation:

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta ,\beta )=\underset{fL^2(\mu )}{inf}\frac{𝒟(f,f)}{\mathrm{var}_\mu (f)},$$

where $`\mathrm{var}_\mu (f)`$ denotes the variance of $`f`$. The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ describes the rate of exponential convergence in $`L^2(\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta )`$ to equilibrium, in the sense that for $`S()`$ the semigroup generated by $`A`$ and $`_\mu `$ the $`L^2(\mu )`$ norm, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the largest constant such that

$$S(t)ff𝑑\mu _\mu ff𝑑\mu _\mu e^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\text{for all }fL^2(\mu )\text{ and }t0.$$

We say that two configurations $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are *adjacent* if for some $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have $`\sigma _x\sigma _x^{}`$ but $`\sigma _y=\sigma _y^{}`$ for all $`yx`$. For $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ define

$$_{in}S=\{\sigma S:\sigma \text{ is adjacent to some site of }S^c\}.$$

Considering only indicator functions we obtain

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta ,\beta )c_0|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\underset{D\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{inf}\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta (_{in}D)}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta (D)(1\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^\beta (D))}$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N=[N,N]^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N^2`$. Let $`l_h`$ and $`l_v`$ denote the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, and consider the boundary condition $`\eta ^{k,ϵ}`$ given for $`k0`$ and $`ϵ\{0,1\}`$ by

(1.3)
$$\eta _x^{k,ϵ}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }d(x,l_h)k\text{or}d(x,l_v)k;\hfill \\ ϵ,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`d(,)`$ denotes Euclidean distance. As a special case of results in  we have that for $`\beta `$ very large, for some $`C,\lambda `$ depending only on $`\delta ,\beta `$ and $`ϵ`$,

(1.4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{\delta N,ϵ},\beta )Ce^{\lambda N}\text{for all }\delta \frac{1}{2}\text{ and }N1.$$

Here we will generalize this as follows. Let $`\beta _c`$ denote the critical inverse temperature of the Ising model on $`^2`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\beta >\beta _c`$.

(i) For some $`C,K,\lambda `$ depending only on $`\beta `$, for all $`N1`$ and $`k1`$ satisfying $`NkK\mathrm{log}N`$,

(1.5)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0},\beta )Ce^{\lambda (Nk)}.$$

(ii) For some $`C,K\lambda `$ depending only on $`\beta `$, for all $`N1`$ and $`k1`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{min}(k,Nk)K\mathrm{log}N`$,

(1.6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1},\beta )Ce^{\lambda \mathrm{min}(k,Nk)}.$$

It is easily verified that the spectral gap changes by at most a constant when a single boundary spin is changed; in particular this can be applied in comparing $`k=1`$ to a completely free boundary. Thus Theorem 1.1(i) essentially includes exponential decay of the gap under the free boundary condition at low temperatures, a result obtained by Thomas .

Theorem 1.1 generalizes (1.4) to all $`\delta <1`$ and $`\beta >\beta _c`$, and shows that the $`L^2`$ rate of convergence to equilibrium in the stochastic Ising model can be quite slow even when the boundary condition is overwhelmingly of a single spin, and otherwise free. For the full “plus” boundary condition ($`k=N`$) at subcritical temperatures, it is believed  that the spectral gap is of order $`N^2`$; Martinelli  proved that for very low temperatures,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{N,0},\beta )\mathrm{exp}(\lambda (\delta )N^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta })\text{for all }\delta >0.$$

Presuming $`N^2`$ is the correct rate for the “plus” boundary condition, Theorem 1.1(i) shows that removing as few as $`O(\mathrm{log}N)`$ plus spins from the corners of the box dramatically shrinks the spectral gap.

For $`kcN`$ with $`0<c<1`$, Theorem 1.1 shows that the spectral gap decreases at least exponentially fast in $`N`$. Schonmann  showed that for all $`\eta `$, all $`N`$ and all $`\beta >0`$, for some $`C=C(\beta )`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ,\beta )\frac{C}{N}e^{4\beta N},$$

so the gap can never decrease faster than exponentially in $`N`$.

Our proof of Theorem 1.1 will use the method suggested by (1.2): we find an event $`D`$ with $`_{in}D`$ much smaller than $`D`$. This event $`D`$ is a variant of the event that none of the four strips of “+” spins in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ is connected to any of the other strips by a path of “+” spins.

## 2. Preliminaries

Throughout the paper, $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{}`$ will be used to represent constants which depend only on the temperature (or other parameters) of the model. We use $`ϵ_i`$ for constants which should be viewed as “small.”

Our proof will make use of the Fortuin-Kasteleyn random cluster model, or briefly, the *FK model* (, , ; see also , ) which is a graphical representation of the Potts model. To discuss this, we need some notation for bond configurations. By a bond we mean an unordered pair $`xy`$ of adjacent sites in $`^2`$. When convenient we view bonds as being open line segments in the plane; this should be clear from the context. Define the sets of bonds

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{xy:x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }\},\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{xy:x\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ or }y\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.$$

For general $`A^2`$, we write $`(A)`$ for $`(A^2)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$. A *bond configuration* is an element $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; when convenient we alternatively view $`\omega `$ as a subset of $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ or as a subgraph of $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$. Bonds $`e`$ with $`\omega _e=1`$ are *open* in $`\omega `$; those with $`\omega _e=0`$ are *closed*. Let $`C(\omega )`$ denote the number of open clusters in $`\omega `$ which do not intersect $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For $`p[0,1]`$ and $`q>0`$, the FK model $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{p,q}`$ on $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ with parameters $`(p,q)`$ and wired boundary condition is defined by the weights

(2.1)
$$W(\omega )=p^{|\omega |}(1p)^{|\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })||\omega |}q^{C(\omega )}$$

Here $`|\omega |`$ means the number of open bonds in $`\omega `$. More generally, given $`\rho \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^c}`$ we define $`(\omega \rho )`$ to be the bond configuration on the full lattice which coincides with $`\omega `$ on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and with $`\rho `$ on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^c`$. Let $`C(\omega \rho )`$ be the number of open clusters of $`(\omega \rho )`$ which intersect $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The FK model $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho }^{p,q}`$ with bond boundary condition $`\rho `$ is given by the weights in (2.1) with $`C(\omega )`$ replaced by $`C(\omega \rho )`$. Alternately, given $`\eta \{1,0,1\}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ define

(2.2) $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )=\{\omega \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}:\eta _x`$ $`=\eta _y\text{ for every }x,y\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ for which }xy\text{ in }\omega ,`$
$`\omega _e=0\text{ for all }e\{xy:x\mathrm{\Lambda },y\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta _y=0\}\}.`$
Here $`xy`$ means there is a path of open bonds connecting $`x`$ to $`y`$. The FK model $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta }^{p,q}`$ with site boundary condition $`\eta `$ is given by the weights in (2.1), multiplied by $`\delta _{V(\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )}(\omega )`$. Taking $`\eta _x=0`$ for all $`x`$ gives the FK model with free boundary condition; we denote it $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },f}^{p,q}`$. For a summary of basic properties of the FK model, see . In particular, since we are in two dimensions, for $`p\sqrt{q}/(1+\sqrt{q})`$ there is a unique translation-invariant infinite-volume FK measure on $`(^2)`$, which can be obtained as the limit of $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },w}^{p,q}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$; we denote this measure $`P^{p,q}`$. For $`q1`$, the FK model has the FKG property. For

$$\alpha (p,q)=\frac{p}{p+q(1p)}$$

and $`e(^2)`$, we have

$$P^{p,q}(\omega _e=1\omega _b,be)\alpha (p,q)\text{ for every }(\omega _b,be).$$

Changing a single bond in the boundary condition changes the value of $`C(\omega \rho )`$ by at most 1. It follows easily that for boundary conditions $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ differing at only one bond, we have

(2.3)
$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho }^{p,q}qP_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho ^{}}^{p,q}.$$

As shown in , for $`\beta `$ given by $`p=1e^\beta `$, a configuration of the Ising model on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with boundary condition $`\eta `$ at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ can be obtained from a configuration $`\omega `$ of the FK model at $`(p,2)`$ with site boundary condition $`\eta `$, by choosing a label for each cluster of $`\omega `$ independently and uniformly from $`\{1,1\}`$; this *cluster-labeling construction* yields a joint site-bond configuration for which the sites are an Ising model and the bonds are an FK model. When the parameters are related in this way, we call the Ising and FK models *corresponding*. Alternately, if one selects an Ising configuration $`\sigma `$ and does independent percolation at density $`p`$ on the set of bonds

$$\{xy\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }):\sigma _x=\sigma _y\},$$

the resulting bond configuration is a realization of the corresponding FK model. We call this the *percolation construction* of the FK model. From Onsager’s exact solution of the Ising model (see ) and basic properties of the FK model (see ) the critical point $`\beta _c`$ of the Ising model and the percolation critical point $`p_c`$ for the FK model with $`q=2`$ are given by

(2.4)
$$1e^{\beta _c}=p_c=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}.$$

The *dual lattice* $`(^2)^{}`$ is $`^2`$ shifted by $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$; sites and bonds of this lattice are called *dual sites* and *dual bonds*. $`x^{}`$ denotes $`x+(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$. When necessary for clarity, bonds of $`^2`$ are called *regular bonds*. To each regular bond $`e`$ there is associated a unique dual bond $`e^{}`$ which is its perpendicular bisector. For $`𝒟(^2)`$ we write $`𝒟^{}`$ for $`\{e^{}:e𝒟\}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(^2)^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined as for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, but using adjacency in the dual lattice. The dual bond $`e^{}`$ is defined to be open precisely when $`e`$ is closed, so that for each bond configuration $`\omega `$ on $`^2`$, there is unique dual configuration $`\omega ^{}`$ on $`(^2)^{}`$. For $`p[0,1]`$ the value $`p^{}`$ *dual to* $`p`$ at level $`q`$ is given by

$$\frac{p}{q(1p)}=\frac{1p^{}}{p^{}}.$$

If the regular bonds are distributed as the infinite-volume FK model at $`(p,q)`$ on $`^2`$ with wired boundary condition, then the dual bonds form the infinite-volume FK model at $`(p^{},q)`$ on $`(^2)^{}`$ with free boundary condition (see .)

An Ising configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ determines a set of contours, each consisting of dual bonds $`e^{}\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}`$ for which the corresponding regular bond $`e=xy`$ has $`\sigma _x\sigma _y`$. In the joint Ising/FK configuration, therefore, contours consist entirely of open dual bonds.

Given sets $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a site configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we write $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`\{\sigma _x:x\mathrm{\Phi }\}`$ and let $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Similarly for $`𝒟\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and a bond configuration $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we write $`\omega _𝒟`$ for $`\{\omega _e:e𝒟\}`$ and let $`𝒢_𝒟`$ denote the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by $`\omega _𝒟`$.

An infinite-volume FK model $`P^{p,q}`$ (or other bond percolation model) is said to have the *weak mixing property* if there exist $`C,\lambda `$ such that, given finite sets $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and any two bond boundary conditions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^c`$, we have

$$\mathrm{Var}(P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho _1}^{p,q}(\omega _{(\mathrm{\Phi })}),P_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\rho _2}^{p,q}(\omega _{(\mathrm{\Phi })}))C\underset{x\mathrm{\Phi },y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}e^{\lambda |yx|},$$

Loosely this says that the maximum influence, on a fixed region, of the boundary condition decays exponentially to 0 as the boundary recedes to infinity. Equivalently, for all events $`A𝒢_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^c}`$ and $`B𝒢_\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

(2.5)
$$|P^{p,q}(BA)P^{p,q}(B)|C\underset{x\mathrm{\Phi },y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}e^{\lambda |yx|}.$$

In contrast, $`P^{p,q}`$ is said to have the *ratio weak mixing property* if there exist $`C,\lambda `$ such that, given finite sets $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and any two bond boundary conditions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^c`$, we have for all events $`A𝒢_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^c}`$ and $`B𝒢_\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

(2.6)
$$\left|\frac{P^{p,q}(AB)}{P^{p,q}(A)P^{p,q}(B)}1\right|C\underset{x\mathrm{\Phi },y\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}e^{\lambda |yx|},$$

whenever the right side of this inequality is at most 1. Note that (2.6) is much stronger than (2.5) for $`A,B`$ for which the probabilities on the left side of (2.5) are much smaller than the right side of (2.5). Weak mixing for the Ising model has a variety of useful consequences, particularly in two dimensions; see . It was shown in  that for the FK model in two dimensions, exponential decay of either the connectivity (in infinite volume, with wired boundary) or the dual connectivity (in infinite volume, with free boundary) implies ratio weak mixing. In particular, for $`q=2`$ and $`p>p_c(2)`$, exponential decay of dual connectivity follows from the known properties (see ) of Gibbs uniqueness and exponential decay of correlations for the Ising model at inverse temperature $`\beta ^{}<\beta _c(2)`$ corresponding to $`p^{}<p_c(2)`$. Thus we have the following.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`p>p_c(2)`$. Then the FK model $`P^{p,2}`$ on $`(^2)`$ has the ratio weak mixing property.

The following is an immediate consequence of the definition of ratio weak mixing.

###### Lemma 2.2.

() Suppose that the FK model $`P^{p,q}`$ has the ratio weak mixing property. There exists a constant $`c_1`$ as follows. Suppose $`r>3`$ and $`𝒟,(^2)`$ with $`\mathrm{diam}()r`$ and $`d(𝒟,)c_1\mathrm{log}r`$. Then for all $`A𝒢_𝒟`$ and $`B𝒢_{}`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{2}P^{p,2}(A)P^{p,2}(B)P^{p,2}(AB)2P^{p,2}(A)P^{p,2}(B).$$

We write $`y\stackrel{}{}z`$ for the event that $`y`$ is connected to $`z`$ by a path of open dual bonds. For $`q1`$, $`P^{p,q}`$ has the FKG property (see ), so $`\mathrm{log}P^{p,q}(0^{}\stackrel{}{}x^{})`$ is a subadditive function of $`x`$, and therefore the limit

(2.7)
$$\tau (x)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}P^{p,q}(0^{}\stackrel{}{}(nx)^{}),$$

exists for $`x^2`$, provided we take the limit through values of $`n`$ for which $`nx^2`$. This definition extends to $`^2`$ by continuity (see ); the resulting $`\tau `$ is a norm on $`^2`$, when the dual connectivity decays exponentially (i.e. $`\tau (x)`$ is positive for all $`x0`$, or equivalently by lattice symmetry, $`\tau (x)`$ is positive for some $`x0`$; we abbreviate this by saying $`\tau `$ *is positive*.) By standard subadditivity results,

(2.8)
$$P^{p,q}(0^{}\stackrel{}{}x^{})e^{\tau (x)}\text{for all}x.$$

In the opposite direction, it is known  that if $`\tau `$ is positive (so ratio weak mixing holds), then for some $`ϵ_1`$ and $`c_2`$,

(2.9)
$$P^{p,q}(0^{}\stackrel{}{}x^{})ϵ_1|x|^{c_2}e^{\tau (x)}\text{for all}x0.$$

It follows from the fact that the surface tension $`\tau `$ is a norm on $`^2`$ with axis symmetry that, letting $`e_i`$ denote the $`i`$th unit coordinate vector, we have

(2.10)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\tau (e_1)\frac{\tau (x)}{|x|}\sqrt{2}\tau (e_1)\text{ for all }x0.$$

A weakness of Lemma 2.2 is that the locations $`𝒟,`$ of the two events must be deterministic. The next lemma from  applies only to a limited class of events but allows the locations to be partially random. For $`𝒞𝒟(^2)`$ we say an event $`A\{0,1\}^𝒟`$ *occurs on* $`𝒞`$ (or on $`𝒞^{}`$) in $`\omega \{0,1\}^𝒟`$ if $`\omega ^{}A`$ for every $`\omega ^{}\{0,1\}^𝒟`$ satisfying $`\omega _e^{}=\omega _e`$ for all $`e𝒞`$. For a possibly random set $`(\omega )`$ we say $`A`$ *occurs only on* $``$ (or equivalently, on $`^{}`$) if $`\omega A`$ implies $`A`$ occurs on $`(\omega )`$ in $`\omega `$. We say events $`A`$ and $`B`$ *occur at separation* $`r`$ in $`\omega `$ if there exist $`𝒞,𝒟`$ with $`d(𝒞,)r`$ such that $`A`$ occurs on $`𝒞`$ and $`B`$ occurs on $``$ in $`\omega `$. Let $`A_rB`$ denote the event that $`A`$ and $`B`$ occur at separation $`r`$. Let $`𝒟^r=\{e(^2):d(e,𝒟)r\}`$.

For $`x`$ a (regular or dual) site, we write $`C_x=C_x(\omega )`$ for the (regular or dual) cluster of $`x`$ in the bond configuration $`\omega `$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

() Let $`P^{p,q}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$, with $`\tau `$ positive and $`q1`$, satisfying the ratio weak mixing property. There exist constants $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ as follows. Let $`𝒟(^2),x(^2)^{}`$ and $`r>c_3\mathrm{log}|𝒟|`$, and let $`A,B`$ be events such that $`A`$ occurs only on $`C_x`$ and $`B𝒢_𝒟`$. Then

(2.11)
$$P^{p,q}(A_rB)(1+c_4e^{ϵ_2r})P^{p,q}(A)P^{p,q}(B).$$

Let $`\overline{xy}`$ denote the line through $`x`$ and $`y`$. Let

$$H_a^+=\{(x_1,x_2)^2:x_2a\}$$

and let $`H_{xy}`$ denote the closed halfspace bounded by $`\overline{xy}`$ which is to the right as one moves from $`x`$ to $`y`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

() Let $`P^{p,q}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$, with $`\tau `$ positive and $`q1`$, satisfying the ratio weak mixing property. There exist $`ϵ_3,c_5`$ such that for all $`xy^2`$ and all dual sites $`u,vH_{xy}`$,

$$P(u\stackrel{}{}v\text{ via a path in }H_{xy})\frac{ϵ_3}{|vu|^{c_5}}e^{\tau (vu)}.$$

For the $`\tau `$ of (2.7), the next lemma is an easy consequence of the sharp triangle inequality satisfied by $`\tau `$ (see ), which is obtained from the exact solution of the Ising model on $`^2`$. We will not use this method here, however, to help make it apparent that our results are not specific to the Ising model.

For $`u^2`$ let $`D_u^+`$ and $`D_u^{}`$ denote the diagonal lines through $`u`$ and $`u+(1,1)`$ and through $`u`$ and $`u+(1,1)`$, respectively. Let $`T_{N,k}^1`$ denote the triangle with vertices $`(k,N),(k,N)`$ and $`(0,(Nk))`$. Note the base of $`T_{N,k}^1`$ is in the bottom side of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and the other two sides are parallel to the diagonals. Let $`T_{N,k}^i,i=2,3,4`$, be the corresponding triangles (obtained by rotation) with bases in the left, top and right sides of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Suppose $`\tau `$ is a norm on the plane which has axis and diagonal symmetry. There exists a constant $`ϵ_4`$ as follows. Let $`0<k<k+2m<N`$ and $`x=(x_1,N\frac{1}{2}),y=(y_1,N\frac{1}{2})`$ with $`x_1k,y_1k`$, and $`z=(z_1,z_2)H_{N\frac{1}{2}}^+\backslash T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+2m+\frac{1}{2}}^1`$. Then

(2.12)
$$\tau (zx)+\tau (yz)2k\tau (e_1)+ϵ_4m.$$

###### Proof.

If $`x_1km`$ or $`y_1k+m`$ then $`\tau (yx)\tau ((2k+m)e_1)`$ and (2.12) follows easily. Hence assume $`|x_1|,y_1[k,k+m)`$. We may also assume $`z_10`$.

If $`z_1>y_1`$ then from symmetry and convexity we have $`\tau (zx)\tau (yx)`$ and $`\tau (yz)\tau (me_1/2)`$, and (2.12) follows easily. Hence we assume $`0z_1y_1`$.

If $`z`$ is above $`D_x^+`$, let $`z^{}`$ be the reflection of $`z`$ across $`D_x^+`$. Then $`z^{}T_{N,k+2m}^1`$ and $`\tau (z^{}x)=\tau (zx)`$, and it follows easily from symmetry and convexity that $`\tau (yz)\tau (yz^{})`$. Thus it is sufficient to prove (2.12) for $`z^{}`$. Hence we may assume $`z`$ is on or below $`D_x^+`$.

Now let $`u=(u_1,u_2)`$ be the reflection of $`z`$ across $`D_y^{}`$, and let $`v=(v_1,v_2)`$ be the point where $`\overline{xz}`$ intersects $`D_y^{}`$. By the above assumptions on $`z`$ and simple geometry, we have $`x_1u_1v_1`$ and $`x_2u_2v_2`$. Using symmetry and convexity we therefore obtain

$$\tau (zx)=\tau (zv)+\tau (vx)\tau (zv)+\tau (ux).$$

Since $`\tau (yz)=\tau (yu)`$, it follows that

$`\tau (zx)+\tau (yz)`$ $`\tau (zv)+\tau (ux)+\tau (yu)`$
$`ϵ_4m+\tau (yx),`$
as desired. ∎

For $`x,y(^2)^{},r>0`$ and $`G^2`$, we say there is an *r-near dual connection* from $`x`$ to $`y`$ in $`G`$ if for some $`u,v(^2)^{}`$ with $`d(u,v)r`$, there are open dual paths from $`x`$ to $`u`$ and from $`y`$ to $`v`$ in $`G`$. Let $`N(x,y,r,G)`$ denote the event that such an $`r`$-near dual connection exists. The following result is from .

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`P^{p,q}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$, with $`q1`$, for which $`\tau `$ is positive. There exist $`c_i`$ such that if $`|x|>1`$ and $`rc_6\mathrm{log}|x|`$ then

$$P^{p,q}(N(0,x,r,^2))e^{\tau (x)+c_7r}.$$

The next lemma shows that a dual connection via a site for which the triangle inequality is strict by an amount $`t>0`$ has an excess cost proportional to $`t`$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`P^{p,q}`$ be an FK model on $`(^2)`$, with $`q1`$, for which $`\tau `$ is positive. There exists $`c_8`$ as follows. Suppose $`x,y,z(^2)^{}`$ and $`tc_8\mathrm{log}|yx|`$ satisfy $`|yx|>1`$ and

$$\tau (zx)+\tau (yz)\tau (yx)+t.$$

Then

$$P^{p,q}(x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y)e^{\tau (yx)\frac{1}{20}t}.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.1, $`P^{p,q}`$ has the ratio weak mixing property. Let $`B=B_\tau (z,3(\tau (yx)+t))`$. Then provided $`c_8`$ is large,

(2.13)
$$P^{p,q}(z\stackrel{}{}B^c)c_9(\tau (yx)+t)e^{\tau (yx)t}\frac{1}{3}e^{\tau (yx)\frac{1}{2}t}.$$

Thus we need only consider paths inside $`B`$. Let $`ϵ_5>0`$ to be specified and consider $`\omega [x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y]N(x,y,ϵ_5t,B\backslash B_\tau (z,t/5))^c`$. For such $`\omega `$, there exist $`z^{},z^{\prime \prime }(B_\tau (z,t/5)(^2)^{})`$ and paths $`x\stackrel{}{}z^{},y\stackrel{}{}z^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`B`$ occuring at separation $`ϵ_5t`$. Now

$$\tau (z^{}x)+\tau (yz^{\prime \prime })\tau (xx)+\tau (yz)2\left(\frac{t}{5}+\tau (e_1)\right)\tau (yx)+\frac{1}{2}t,$$

so using Lemma 2.3, provided $`c_8`$ is large,

(2.14) $`P^{p,q}`$ $`\left([x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }B]N(x,y,ϵ_5t,B\backslash B_\tau (z,t/5))^c\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{z^{},z^{\prime \prime }}{}}2P^{p,q}(x\stackrel{}{}z^{})P^{p,q}(z^{\prime \prime }y)`$
$`2|(B_\tau (z,t/5)(^2)^{})|^2e^{\tau (yx)t/2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\tau (yx)t/4}.`$
Next, provided $`ϵ_5`$ is small, an application of Lemma 2.2 gives

(2.15) $`P^{p,q}`$ $`\left([x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }B]N(x,y,ϵ_5t,B\backslash B_\tau (z,t/5))\right)`$
$`P^{p,q}\left([z\stackrel{}{}B_\tau (z,t/10)^c]N(x,y,ϵ_5t,B\backslash B_\tau (z,t/5))\right)`$
$`2P^{p,q}\left(z\stackrel{}{}B_\tau (z,t/10)^c\right)P^{p,q}\left(N(x,y,ϵ_5t,B\backslash B_\tau (z,t/5))\right)`$
$`2c_{10}te^{t/10}e^{\tau (yx)+c_7ϵ_5t}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{\tau (yx)t/20}.`$
Together, (2.13), (2.14) and (2.15) complete the proof. ∎

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.1$`(i)`$

Let

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$

By a *plus path* in a site configuration $`\sigma `$ we mean a lattice path on which all sites $`z`$ have $`\sigma _z=1`$; *minus paths* are defined analogously. We write $`x\stackrel{+}{}y`$ ($`x\stackrel{-}{}y`$) for the event that $`x`$ is connected to $`y`$ by a plus (minus) path. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N`$, the *cluster* of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a bond configuration $`\omega \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)}`$ is the set

$$C(\mathrm{\Phi },\omega )=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }:\text{ in }\omega ,x\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\}.$$

The *plus cluster* of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a site configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}`$ is the set

$$C_+(\mathrm{\Phi },\sigma )=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }:\text{ in }\sigma ,x\stackrel{+}{}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\}.$$

If $`\sigma _x=1`$, then of course $`C_+(x,\sigma )`$ is empty. The *minus cluster* $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Phi },\sigma )`$ is defined analogously.

For $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ we define

$$Q(\mathrm{\Phi })=_{x\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(x+[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]^2\right).$$

Here $`x+[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]^2`$ denotes the translation of $`[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]^2`$ by $`x`$. For $`x^2`$ and $`r>0`$ we let $`B(x,r)`$ and $`B_\tau (x,r)`$ be the closed Euclidean ball and $`\tau `$-ball, respectively, of radius $`r`$ about $`x`$.

Fix $`\beta >\beta _c,N1`$ and $`K\mathrm{log}NkN`$, with $`K`$ to be specified later. Let $`p=1e^\beta `$ and $`j=(Nk)/4`$. We assume $`k`$ and $`j`$ are integers; the modifications otherwise are trivial. Let $`_{N,k}^ϵ`$ denote the joint site/bond distribution obtained using the percolation construction of the FK model, for which the site marginal distribution is $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,ϵ}}^\beta `$ and the bond marginal distribution is $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,ϵ}}^{p,2}`$. (To avoid ambiguous notation we write $`_{N,k}^{}`$ for $`_{N,k}^1`$.) We write $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ for a generic joint configuration in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\times \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)}`$. We call $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ *allowable* (under $`\eta ^{k,ϵ}`$) if $`_{N,k}^ϵ((\sigma ,\omega ))>0`$. Define the strip of sites $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=([k,k]\times \{N1\})^2`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,i=2,3,4,`$ be the corresponding strips of sites, obtained by rotation, in the left, top and right sides of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+1}`$, respectively. (We will refer to the side corresponding to subscript $`i`$ as the $`i`$th side of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$, for general $`n`$.) For $`i=1,2,3`$ let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ be the set of sites in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ which are between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}`$, in the obvious sense, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4,5}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4,1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,1}`$ be the set of sites in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ which are between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. We also include the appropriate “corner site” as an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$, e.g. $`(N1,N1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,j}^{}=\{x(^2)^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}:x\text{ is a corner of }Q(y)\text{ for some }y\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,j}\}.$$

Let $`D_i`$ be the event that there is no plus-path in $`\sigma `$ in $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ to $`(T_{N,k+3j}^i)^c`$, and $`D=_{i=1}^4D_i`$. In the FK model, an event closely related to $`D_i`$ is

$$E_i=\{\omega \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^i\}.$$

We begin with a lower bound on the probability of $`E_i`$. The main point is that restricting the path to lie in $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^i`$ does not excessively alter the probability of an open dual path from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`p>p_c(2)`$. There exist $`c_i,ϵ_i`$ such that for $`N,k1`$ with $`c_{11}\mathrm{log}NNkN`$, and $`E_i`$ as above,

$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_i)\frac{ϵ_6}{k^{c_{13}}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

###### Proof.

We may assume $`i=1`$ and $`kc_{12}`$, with $`c_{12}`$ to be specified. Let $`m=c_{14}\mathrm{log}k`$ and $`n=c_{15}\mathrm{log}k`$, where $`c_{14}>c_{15}`$ are to be specified and $``$ denotes the integer part. Provided $`c_{11}`$ is large (depending on $`c_{14}`$), we have $`mj`$. Let $`x^{}=(k\frac{1}{2},N\frac{1}{2}),y^{}=(k+\frac{1}{2},N\frac{1}{2}),x=x^{}+(n,n),y=y^{}+(n,n)`$ and let

$$E_1^{}=\{\omega \{0,1\}^{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}:x\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }T_{N,k+2m}^1H_{N+n}^+\}.$$

By Lemma 2.4, for some $`ϵ_7`$,

(3.1)
$$P^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }H_{N+n}^+)\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Note this probability is for the infinite-volume limit. For each dual site $`zH_{N+n}^+\backslash T_{N,k+2m}^1`$, let $`F_z`$ denote the event that there exist open dual paths $`x^{}\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y^{}`$. By (3.1),

(3.2)
$$P^{p,2}(E_1^{})\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}P^{p,2}\left(_{z(^2)^{}H_{N+n}^+\backslash T_{N,k+2m}^1}F_z\right).$$

We wish to show that the second term on the right side of (3.2) is at most half of the first term on the right side. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(^2)^{}B_\tau (x,3k\tau (e_1))H_{N+n}^+\backslash T_{N,k+2m}^1`$. We have

(3.3)
$$P^{p,2}\left(_{z(^2)^{}H_{N+n}^+\backslash T_{N,k+2m}^1}F_z\right)P^{p,2}\left(x\stackrel{}{}B_\tau (x,3k\tau (e_1))^c\right)+\underset{z\mathrm{\Theta }}{}P^{p,2}(F_z).$$

By (2.8), provided $`c_{12}`$ is large,

(3.4)
$$P^{p,2}\left(x\stackrel{}{}B_\tau (x,3k\tau (e_1))^c\right)c_{16}ke^{3k\tau (e_1)}\frac{1}{4}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Fix $`z\mathrm{\Theta }`$. We decompose the event $`F_z`$ according to whether there is a $`(c_6\mathrm{log}5k)`$-near dual connection from $`x`$ to $`y`$ in $`B(z,3c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c`$, where $`c_6`$ is from Lemma 2.6 and $`c_{17}`$ is to be specified. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z=B(z,c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)(^2)^{}`$. Using (2.8) and Lemma 2.2, provided $`c_{17}`$ and $`c_{12}`$ are large we obtain

(3.5) $`P^{p,2}`$ $`\left(F_zN(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)\right)`$
$`P^{p,2}\left([z\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_z]N(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)\right)`$
$`2P^{p,2}\left(z\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_z\right)P^{p,2}\left(N(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)\right)`$
$`2c_{18}ke^{\frac{1}{2}c_{17}\tau (e_1)\mathrm{log}k}e^{\tau (yx)+c_7c_6\mathrm{log}5k}`$
$`e^{\frac{1}{4}c_{17}\tau (e_1)\mathrm{log}k2(kn)\tau (e_1)},`$
where $`c_7`$ is from Lemma 2.6. Since $`|\mathrm{\Theta }|c_{19}k^2`$, provided we choose $`c_{17}`$ large enough (depending on $`c_{15}`$) this gives

(3.6)
$$\underset{z\mathrm{\Theta }}{}P^{p,2}\left(F_zN(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)\right)\frac{1}{8}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Next, let $`r=c_6\mathrm{log}5k`$ and for $`z\mathrm{\Theta }`$ let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}=B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)(^2)^{}`$. We have

(3.7)
$$F_zN(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)^c_{u,v\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}}\left([xu]_r[yv]\right).$$

Now for $`u,v\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}`$,

$$\tau (ux)\tau (zx)\tau (uz)\tau (zx)3c_{17}\tau (e_1)\mathrm{log}k$$

and similarly

$$\tau (yv)\tau (yv)3c_{17}\tau (e_1)\mathrm{log}k.$$

Hence provided $`c_{14}`$ is large enough (depending on $`c_{17}`$), we obtain using Lemma 2.5 that

$$\tau (ux)+\tau (yv)2(kn)\tau (e_1)+ϵ_4m6c_{17}\tau (e_1)\mathrm{log}k2(kn)\tau (e_1)+\frac{ϵ_4}{2}m.$$

Combining this with (3.7), Lemma 2.3 and (2.8), provided $`c_{14}`$ and $`c_{14}/c_{15}`$ are large we get

(3.8) $`P^{p,2}\left(F_zN(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)^c\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{u,v\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}}{}}2P^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}u)P^{p,2}(y\stackrel{}{}v)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_z^{}|^2e^{2(kn)\tau (e_1)ϵ_4m/2}`$
$`e^{2k\tau (e_1)ϵ_4m/4},`$
and then

(3.9)
$$\underset{z\mathrm{\Theta }}{}P^{p,2}\left(F_zN(x,y,c_6\mathrm{log}5k,B(z,2c_{17}\mathrm{log}k)^c)^c\right)c_{19}k^2e^{2k\tau (e_1)ϵ_4m/4}\frac{1}{8}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Combining (3.2), (3.3), (3.6) and (3.9) we obtain

$$P^{p,2}(E_1^{})\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Then from Lemma 2.2, provided $`c_{15}`$ is large,

$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_1^{})\frac{1}{4}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.$$

Let $`\gamma _x`$ and $`\gamma _y`$ be dual paths of (minimal) length $`2n`$ from $`x`$ to $`x^{}`$ and from $`y`$ to $`y^{}`$, respectively, in $`T_{N,k+2m}^1`$. Let $`E_1^{\prime \prime }`$ denote the event that all dual bonds in $`\gamma _x`$ and $`\gamma _y`$ are open. From the FKG inequality,

$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_1)P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_1^{}E_1^{\prime \prime })P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_1^{})P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E_1^{\prime \prime })\frac{1}{4}\frac{ϵ_7}{k^{c_5}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}\alpha (p,2)^{4n}$$

and the lemma follows. ∎

For $`\omega E_i,Q(C(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\omega ))`$ includes a unique open dual path $`\gamma _i(\omega )`$ in $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^i`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$. This path is “closer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$” than any other open dual path in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+\frac{1}{2}}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$. Further, for fixed $`\nu `$ the event $`[\gamma _i=\nu ]`$ depends only on the bond/dual bond configuration in the closed region, which we denote $`I(\nu )`$, between $`\nu `$ and the side of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+\frac{1}{2}}`$ to which $`\nu `$ is attached.

Let $`E=_{i=1}^4E_i`$, and suppose $`\omega E`$. Let

$$R(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+\frac{1}{2}}\backslash _{i=1}^4I(\gamma _i(\omega )).$$

Note $`0R(\omega )`$, and (under boundary condition $`\eta ^{k,0}`$) all the dual bonds forming $`R(\omega )`$ are open in $`\omega `$. The latter means that for fixed $`U`$, conditionally on $`R(\omega )=U`$ the configuration on $`(U)`$ is the FK model with free boundary condition.

Let

$$Y_N=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+\frac{1}{2}}\backslash _{i=1}^4T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^i,Y_N^{}=\{xY_N:d(x,Y_N)j\}.$$

Let $`0<h<j`$ to be specified, let $`w_{12}=(k+2j,N+h)`$, let $`\lambda _{12}`$ be the vertical line from $`w_{12}`$ down to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N`$ at $`(k+2j,N)`$ and let $`\chi _{12}`$ be the vertical line from $`w_{12}`$ up to the diagonal $`D_0^{}`$ at $`(k+2j,k2j)`$. Using axis symmetry we obtain 7 more corresponding points $`w_{ij}`$ and paths $`\chi _{ij},\lambda _{ij}`$, for $`i=1,2,3,4`$ and $`j=1,2`$, with $`w_{ij}`$ at distance $`h`$ from side $`i`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N`$.

We want to show that with high probability, there are no open dual paths starting from $`Y_N^{}`$, or from near $`\chi _{ij}`$, which reach $`Y_N`$. Let $`y_{ijl1},y_{ijl2}`$ be the endpoints of the dual bond which is dual to the $`l`$th bond of $`\chi _{ij}`$. Then

$$d(y_{ijlm},Y_N)h+\frac{l}{\sqrt{2}}\text{for all }i,j,l,m.$$

For $`xY_N`$ let

$$G_x=B(x,\frac{1}{2}d(x,Y_N))(^2)^{},$$

and define

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\left(Y_N^{}(^2)^{}\right)\{y_{ijlm}:1i4;j=1,2;1lNhk2j;m=1,2\}.$$

Suppose $`UY_N`$. Then $`d(G_x,U)j/2`$ for all $`xY_N^{}`$. Hence using Lemma 2.2, provided $`K`$ and $`h`$ are large enough we get

(3.10) $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}`$ $`(x\stackrel{}{}G_x\text{ for some }x\mathrm{\Psi }_N\omega E,R(\omega )=U)`$
$`=P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}G_x\text{ for some }x\mathrm{\Psi }_N)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{xY_N^{}(^2)^{}}{}}P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}G_x)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,l,m}{}}P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(y_{ijlm}\stackrel{}{}G_{y_{ijlm}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{xY_N^{}(^2)^{}}{}}2P^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}G_x)+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,l,m}{}}2P^{p,2}(y_{ijlm}\stackrel{}{}G_{y_{ijlm}})`$
$`|Y_N^{}(^2)^{}|e^{j\tau (e_1)/2}+c_{20}{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}(h+l)e^{\frac{1}{4}\tau (e_1)(h+l)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
Let $`F`$ denote the event that $`x\stackrel{}{}G_x`$ for no $`x\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$, and all bonds in $`\lambda _{ij}`$ are open for all $`i,j`$. If $`\omega EF`$, then there is an open circuit in $`Y_N`$ surrounding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ and for each $`i`$, a portion of this open circuit, together with $`\lambda _{i1}`$ and $`\lambda _{i2}`$, forms an open path in $`T_{N,k+3j}^i\backslash T_{N,k+j}^i`$ from a site adjacent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}`$ to a site adjacent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$. When this occurs (with $`\omega EF`$), we call this circuit together with all $`\lambda _{ij}`$ a *blocking pattern*. Note the blocking pattern is contained in $`R(\omega )`$. We have using (3.10) and the FKG inequality that for all $`UY_N`$,

(3.11) $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}`$ $`(\text{there is a blocking pattern in }R(\omega )\omega E,R(\omega )=U)`$
$`=P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(\text{there is a blocking pattern in }U)`$
$`P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(F)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{U^2,f}^{p,2}(\text{all bonds in }\lambda _{ij}\text{ are open for all }i,j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha (p,2)^{8h}.`$
But considering the cluster-labeling construction of the joint Ising/FK configuration, we see that if the configuration $`\omega E`$ has a blocking pattern in $`R(\omega )`$ and all sites $`x`$ in the blocking pattern have $`\sigma _x=1`$ (which occurs with probability 1/2, given such $`\omega `$), then $`\sigma D`$. Thus from (3.11), the FKG property and Lemma 3.1, for some $`ϵ_8`$,

(3.12)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (D)\frac{1}{4}\alpha (p,2)^{8h}P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(E)\frac{ϵ_8}{k^{4c_{13}}}e^{8k\tau (e_1)}.$$

We turn now to upper bounds on $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (_{in}D)`$. Analogously to $`\gamma _i(\omega )`$, for $`\sigma D`$, $`Q(C_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\sigma ))`$ includes a unique open dual path $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$ in $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}`$, for each $`i`$. For fixed $`\nu `$ the event $`[\gamma _i^+=\nu ]`$ depends only on the site configuration in $`\overline{I(\nu )^2}`$.

Suppose $`\sigma _{in}D`$ and $`\sigma ^xD`$. Then for some $`i`$ we have $`xC_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\sigma )`$, and either $`xT_{N,k+3j+1}^i`$ or there is an open dual circuit $`\gamma `$ in $`\omega `$ outside $`I(\gamma _i^+(\sigma ))`$ which includes an edge of $`Q(x)`$ and surrounds some site outside $`T_{N,k+3j}^i`$. We can choose $`\gamma `$ to be the outer boundary of $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for some plus-cluster $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`\sigma `$. In this case we call $`\gamma `$ an *appendable circuit attachable at* $`x`$.

According to Lemma 2.2, we can choose a constant $`c_{21}`$ as follows. Let $`Z_N^{i,i+1}=\{x^2:d(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1})c_{21}\mathrm{log}N\}`$ and $`Z_N=_iZ_N^{i,i+1}`$. Let $`V_{closed}`$ be the event that all bonds in $`\{xy:y\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,x\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}\text{ for some }i\}`$ are closed. Let $`V_{open}`$ be the event that all bonds in $`(^2)\backslash \overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)`$ are open. (Note the boundary condition $`\eta ^{k,0}`$ conditions $`\omega `$ on $`V_{open}V_{closed}`$.) Then for all events $`A𝒢_{\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\backslash (Z_N)}`$, we have

(3.13)
$$\frac{1}{2}P^{p,2}(A)P^{p,2}(AV_{closed})2P^{p,2}(A).$$

We therefore call $`Z_N`$ the *free-boundary influence region*. In particular, provided $`K`$ is large (depending on $`c_{21}`$), using the FKG inequality and (3.13) we have

(3.14) $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1})`$ $`=P^{p,2}(Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1}V_{open}V_{closed})`$
$`P^{p,2}(Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1}V_{closed})`$
$`2P^{p,2}(Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1})`$
$`c_{22}(\mathrm{log}N)e^{2(kc_{21}\mathrm{log}N)\tau (e_1)}`$
$`N^{c_{23}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}.`$
Our main task is roughly to show, using Lemma 2.5, that the probability for a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$ (specifically, part of $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$) which does not stay inside $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i`$ is smaller than the right side of (3.12) by at least a factor of $`e^{ϵ_9j}`$, for some $`ϵ_9`$. We must decompose the event $`_{in}D`$ into several pieces according to the geometry of the sets $`C_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\sigma )`$ and $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\omega )`$. The most difficult case is that of leakage along the (free) boundary, in which $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$ goes outside $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i`$ by way of $`Z_N`$.

We define one more special dual path as follows. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ let

$$\widehat{C}(\mathrm{\Phi },\omega )=\{x\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash Z_N:\text{in }\omega ,x\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\backslash (Z_N)\}.$$

If $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ is allowable and $`\sigma D`$, then $`Q(\widehat{C}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\omega ))`$ includes a unique open dual path from $`Z_N^{i,i+1}`$ to $`Z_N^{i1,i}`$ in $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\backslash (Z_N)`$; we denote this path $`\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )`$. We have

$$\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )I(\gamma _i(\omega ))I(\gamma _i^+(\omega ))T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i.$$

Let $`u_i(\omega )`$ and $`v_i(\omega )`$ be the starting and ending sites, respectively, of $`\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )`$ in $`Z_N^{i,i+1}`$ and $`Z_N^{i1,i}`$, respecitvely. Also define

$$W_N^{i,i+1}=\{x^2:d(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1})2ϵ_{10}j\},W_N=_iW_N^{i,i+1},$$

where $`ϵ_{10}`$ is to be specified. Provided $`K`$ is large enough (depending on $`ϵ_{10}`$ and $`c_{21}`$), we have $`Z_N^{i,i+1}W_N^{i,i+1}`$.

*Case 1.* Consider $`\sigma _{in}D`$, and $`\omega `$ with $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ allowable, for which for some $`i`$ there exist (in order) dual sites $`x,z,y\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )`$ with

(3.15)
$$\tau (yx)(2k2c_{21}\mathrm{log}N)\tau (e_1),\tau (zx)+\tau (yz)(2k+4ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1).$$

We let $`A_1`$ denote the set of $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ for which this occurs, let $`J_i`$ denote the set of all $`(x,y,z)(T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i(^2)^{})^3`$ for which (3.15) holds, and let $`J_i^{}`$ denote the set of all $`(x,y,z)J_i`$ which also satisfy

$$\tau (yx)(2k+2ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1).$$

As in (3.14), provided K is large enough (depending on $`ϵ_{10}`$ and $`c_{21}`$), using (3.13), (3.14) and Lemmas 2.2 and 2.7 we get

(3.16) $`^0(A_1)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(x,y,z)J_i}{}}P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash (Z_N);`$
$`Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for all }li)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(x,y,z)J_i}{}}2P^{p,2}(x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash (Z_N);`$
$`Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for all }li)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(x,y,z)J_i}{}}16P^{p,2}\left(x\stackrel{}{}z\stackrel{}{}y\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash (Z_N)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{li}{}}P^{p,2}(Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N))`$
$`16\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(x,y,z)J_i^{}}{}}e^{\tau (yx)}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(x,y,z)J_i\backslash J_i^{}}{}}e^{\tau (yx)\frac{1}{10}ϵ_{10}j\tau (e_1)}\right)\left(N^{c_{23}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}\right)^3`$
$`16\left(4|J_1^{}|e^{(2k+2ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1)}+4|J_1\backslash J_1^{}|e^{(2k+\frac{1}{10}ϵ_{10}j2c_{21}\mathrm{log}N)\tau (e_1)}\right)\left(N^{c_{23}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}\right)^3`$
$`e^{(8k+\frac{1}{20}ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1)}.`$
*Case 2*. Let

$$R_N^i=T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i(T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^iW_N).$$

We may think of $`R_N^i`$ as a “triangle with feet.” Let $`A_2`$ denote the set of all $`(\sigma ,\omega )_{in}D\backslash A_1`$ for which, for some $`i`$, there exists a dual site $`zT_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash R_N^i`$ which is either in $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$ or in some appendable circuit attachable at some $`xC_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\sigma )`$. (In particular, this means that $`z\stackrel{}{}(B(z,ϵ_{10}j)(^2)^{})`$ and $`B(z,2ϵ_{10}j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{N+1}`$.) Suppose $`(\sigma ,\omega )A_2`$. We claim that $`B(z,2ϵ_{10}j)\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )=\varphi `$. For all $`u\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}^{}`$ and $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1,i}^{}`$, by Lemma 2.5 we have

$$\tau (zu)+\tau (vz)2k\tau (e_1)+ϵ_4j.$$

Therefore for all $`u^{}Z_N^{i,i+1},v^{}Z_N^{i1,i}`$ and $`z^{}B(z,2ϵ_{10}j)`$, provided $`K`$ is large (depending on $`c_{21}`$) and $`ϵ_{10}`$ is small (depending on $`ϵ_4`$),

$$\tau (z^{}u^{})+\tau (v^{}z^{})2k\tau (e_1)+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_4j2c_{21}(\mathrm{log}N)\tau (e_1)4ϵ_{10}j\tau (e_1)(2k+4ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1).$$

Taking $`u^{}=u(\omega ),v^{}=v(\omega )`$ and comparing to (3.15) we see that since $`(\sigma ,\omega )A_1`$, we cannot have $`z^{}\widehat{\gamma }_i(\omega )`$, proving our claim. Therefore as in (3.16),

(3.17) $`_{N,k}^0(A_2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{z(T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash R_N^i)(^2)^{}}{}}P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}(z\stackrel{}{}B(z,ϵ_{10}j)^c\text{ in }B(z,ϵ_{10}j+1),`$
$`Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^iB(z,2ϵ_{10}j)^c\backslash (Z_N),`$
$`Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for all }li)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{z(T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash R_N^i)(^2)^{}}{}}2P^{p,2}(z\stackrel{}{}B(z,ϵ_{10}j)^c\text{ in }B(z,ϵ_{10}j+1),`$
$`Z_N^{i1,i}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{i,i+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^iB(z,2ϵ_{10}j)^c\backslash (Z_N),`$
$`Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for all }li)`$
$`32{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{z(T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\backslash R_N^i)(^2)^{}}{}}P^{p,2}(z\stackrel{}{}B(z,ϵ_{10}j)^c){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}P^{p,2}\left(Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\right)`$
$`c_{24}|T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^1(^2)^{}|je^{\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{10}j\tau (e_1)}\left(N^{c_{23}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)}\right)^4`$
$`e^{(8k+\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{10}j)\tau (e_1)}.`$
*Case 3*. Let $`A_3=_{in}D\backslash (A_1A_2)`$, and suppose $`(\sigma ,\omega )A_3`$. In this case, plus spins are “leaking along the boundary,” in the following sense: for some $`i`$, we have $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )R_N^i`$, and either $`\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$ or some appendable circuit $`\gamma `$ contains a dual site $`zW_N`$ at one of the “toes” of $`R_N^i`$, that is, in the right or left side of $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i`$. Note that such a $`\gamma `$ necessarily has $`\gamma T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^iR_N^i`$, since $`(\sigma ,\omega )A_2`$. We will assume $`z`$ is in an appendable circuit, attachable at some site $`x`$; the case of $`z\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$ is similar but slightly simpler. From symmetry, we may also assume $`i=1`$ and $`z`$ is in the right side of $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^1`$. We let $`A_3^{}(x,z)`$ denote the event that $`A_3`$ occurs with a specified choice of $`x,z`$, with $`i=1`$ and with $`z`$ in an appendable circuit, and let $`A_3^{}=_{x,z}A_3^{}(x,z)`$. We define $`A_3^{\prime \prime }(z)`$ and $`A_3^{\prime \prime }`$ analogously for the case of $`z\gamma _i^+(\sigma )`$.

The Ising model has the following “bounded energy” property:

(3.18)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (\sigma _y=1\sigma _w,wy)\frac{1}{1+e^{8\beta }}\text{for all }(\sigma _w,wy).$$

Given a site $`x`$, let $`\omega ^x`$ denote the configuration given by

$$\omega _e^x=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }x\text{ is an endpoint of }e;\hfill \\ \omega _e,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that if $`(\sigma ,\omega )`$ is allowable, then so is $`(\sigma ^x,\omega ^x)`$. Let

$$B_m^{trunc}=B\{(y_1,y_2)^2:y_1<m\}\text{for }m>0,B^2,$$

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}=\left([k,k+2j)\times \{N\}\right)^2,$$

$$\psi _{1,2}=\{k+2j\}\times [N,N+2ϵ_{10}j]$$

and

$$\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=\{y(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)_{k+2j}^{trunc}:\text{ in }\sigma ^x,y\stackrel{-}{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}\text{ in }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_N)_{k+2j}^{trunc}\}.$$

For $`J^2`$ define the boundary condition $`\eta ^{k,0,J}`$ by

(3.19)
$$\eta _u^{k,0,J}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }uJ;\hfill \\ \eta _u^{k,0},\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Fix $`x,z`$ and suppose $`(\sigma ,\omega )A_3^{}(x,z)`$. There is then a plus path in $`\sigma ^x`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to $`\psi _{1,2}`$ in $`R_N^1`$, and $`\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)`$ is contained in the region between this plus path and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)_{k+2j}^{trunc}`$. Since

$$|\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)\psi _{1,2}|2ϵ_{10}j,$$

using the “bounded energy” property (3.18) of the Ising model we have for fixed $`J`$

(3.20) $`_{N,k}^0`$ $`\left((\sigma ,\omega )A_3^{}(x,z),\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J\right)`$
$`_{N,k}^0(\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J,\text{ and in }\omega ^x,\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{4,1}\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash \overline{J})^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}`$
$`\text{and }Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for }l=2,3,4)`$
$`c_{25}^{2ϵ_{10}j}_{N,k}^0(\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J,\text{ and in }\omega ^x,\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{4,1}\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash \overline{J})^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}`$
$`\text{and }Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for }l=2,3,4`$
$`\text{and }\sigma _y=1\text{ for all }y\psi _{1,2}J)`$
$`=c_{25}^{2ϵ_{10}j}_{N,k}^0(\text{in }\omega ^x,\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{4,1}\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash \overline{J})^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}`$
$`\text{and }Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for }l=2,3,4\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J`$
$`\text{and }\sigma _y=1\text{ for all }y\psi _{12}J)`$
$`_{N,k}^0\left(\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J\text{ and }\sigma _y=1\text{ for all }y\psi _{1,2}J\right).`$
Here $`\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1`$ means the translate of $`\psi _{1,2}`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}e_1`$. When $`\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J`$, we have by definition $`\sigma _y^x=1`$ for all $`yJ(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)_{k+2j}^{trunc}`$ and for all $`y\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}\backslash J`$, so from the Markov property of the Ising model, the conditioning on the right side of (3.20) is equivalent to conditioning on $`\sigma _y^x=1`$ for all $`y\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}`$. Therefore the first probability on the right side of (3.20) is

(3.21) $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}),\eta ^{k,0,J}}^{p,2}(\text{in }\omega ^x,\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{4,1}\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}))^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}`$
$`\text{and }Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (Z_N)\text{ for }l=2,3,4).`$
Let

$$\widehat{Z}_N^{1,2}=\{x^2:d(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}\backslash \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2})c_{21}\mathrm{log}N\},\widehat{Z}_N=\widehat{Z}_N^{1,2}Z_N^{2,3}Z_N^{3,4}Z_N^{4,1},$$

where $`c_{21}`$ is from the definition of $`Z_N`$. One effect of changing the measure from $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^{p,2}`$ to $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}),\eta ^{k,0,J}}^{p,2}`$ is to shrink the free-boundary influence region from $`Z_N`$ to $`\widehat{Z}_N`$. More precisely, as in (3.16), we have using Lemma 2.2 that (3.21) is at most

(3.22) $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}),\eta ^{k,0,J}}^{p,2}`$ $`(\text{in }\omega ^x,Z_N^{4,1}\stackrel{}{}(\psi _{1,2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_1)\widehat{Z}_N^{1,2}`$
$`\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}))^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}\backslash (\widehat{Z}_N)\text{ and}`$
$`Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (\widehat{Z}_N)\text{ for }l=2,3,4)`$
$`16P^{p,2}(\text{in }\omega ^x,Z_N^{4,1}\stackrel{}{}(\psi _{1,2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_1)\widehat{Z}_N^{1,2}`$
$`\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\backslash (\overline{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}))^{}(R_N^1)_{k+2j\frac{1}{2}}^{trunc}\backslash (\widehat{Z}_N))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{4}{}}}P^{p,2}(Z_N^{l1,l}\stackrel{}{}Z_N^{l,l+1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^l\backslash (\widehat{Z}_N)).`$
To bound the first probability on the right side of (3.22), we observe that, provided $`K`$ is large, if $`u\widehat{Z}_N^{4,1}`$ and $`v(\psi _{1,2}\frac{1}{2}e_1)\widehat{Z}_N^{1,2}`$, then

$$\tau (vu)(2k+2j\frac{1}{2}2c_{21}\mathrm{log}N)\tau (e_1)(2k+j)\tau (e_1).$$

Further, we can replace $`\omega ^x`$ with $`\omega `$ at the expense of at most a constant factor. Therefore as in (3.16), the right side of (3.22) is at most

$$c_{26}je^{(2k+j)\tau (e_1)}(N^{c_{23}}e^{2k\tau (e_1)})^3e^{(8k+\frac{1}{2}j)\tau (e_1)}.$$

Plugging this into (3.20), provided $`ϵ_{10}<1/8`$ and $`K`$ is large we obtain

(3.23) $`_{N,k}^0(A_3^{})`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,z,J}{}}c_{25}^{2ϵ_{10}j}e^{(8k+\frac{1}{2}j)\tau (e_1)}_{N,k}^0\left(\widehat{C}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2},\sigma ^x)=J\right)`$
$`e^{(8k+\frac{1}{4}j)\tau (e_1)}.`$
A similar proof gives the same bound for $`_{N,k}^0(A_3^{\prime \prime })`$. Combining this with (3.16) and (3.17) gives

(3.24)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (_{in}D)=_{N,k}^0(A_1A_2A_3)e^{(8k+ϵ_{11}j)\tau (e_1)}.$$

It follows easily from (3.14) that $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (D)1/2`$. Combining this with (3.12), (3.24) and (1.2) yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0},\beta )c_{27}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_N|k^{4c_{13}}e^{ϵ_{11}j}e^{ϵ_{11}j/2}=e^{ϵ_{11}(Nk)/8},$$

which proves Theorem 1.1 for $`ϵ=0`$.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1$`(ii)`$

The FK measure corresponding to the boundary condition $`\eta ^{k,1}`$ is given (cf. (2.2)) by

$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}^{p,2}=P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,w}^{p,2}(V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1})),$$

where $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1})`$ is the event that there is no open dual path from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j,j+1}`$ for any $`ij`$. Our calculations, however, are facilitated by using a different conditioning, as follows. Consider bond configurations on $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1})`$. Let $`U^{FK}`$ denote the event that for all $`i`$, all bonds $`xy`$ with $`x,y\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are open, all bonds $`xy`$ with $`x,y\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ are open, and all other bonds in $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1})\backslash \overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)`$ are closed. The FK model $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^{p,2}(U^{FK})`$ corresponds to an Ising model $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (U^{Ising})`$, where $`U^{Ising}`$ is the event that for all $`i`$, all sites in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ have the same spin, and all sites in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ have the same spin. Let $`L`$ denote the event that for all $`i`$, all sites in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ have spin 1 and all sites in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ have spin -1. Then

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}L)=\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}.$$

The measure $`_{N+1,k}^0(\omega U^{FK})=_{N+1,k}^0(\sigma U^{Ising})`$ gives the joint construction, coupling $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1,k},f}^{p,2}(U^{FK})`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (U^{Ising})`$.

For $`\sigma L`$, let

$$𝒥=\{(i,j):1i,j4,i<j\},$$

$$𝒜_N(\sigma )=\{(i,j)𝒥:\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\stackrel{+}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\text{ in }\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\}.$$

As motivation, note we expect that, roughly,

(4.1) $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (𝒜_N=𝒥L)1`$ $`\text{if }2k\tau (e_1)>(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2),`$
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (𝒜_N=\varphi L)1`$ $`\text{if }2k\tau (e_1)<(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2).`$
In the case $`2k\tau (e_1)(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)`$, we will bound the spectral gap using in (1.2) the same event $`D`$ as in Section 3, but in the opposite case we replace it with a different event $`\widehat{D}=_{i=1}^4\widehat{D}_{i,i+1}`$. Here $`\widehat{D}_{1,2}`$ is the event that there is no minus-path in $`\sigma `$ in $`\overline{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to $`(S_{N,k/4}^{1,2})^c`$, where $`S_{N,m}^{1,2}`$ is the square $`[m,N+1]\times [N1,m]`$, and $`\widehat{D}_{i,i+1},S_{N,m}^{i,i+1}`$ are the corresponding event and square obtained by rotation, for $`i=2,3,4`$.

Suppose first that $`2k\tau (e_1)(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)`$. Let $`x_{1,1}=(k\frac{1}{2},N\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`x_{1,2}=(k+\frac{1}{2},N\frac{1}{2})`$. These dual sites are approximately at the ends of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. We define corresponding sites $`x_{ij}`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$ and $`j=1,2`$. In place of the event $`E_i`$ of Lemma 3.1, we will use

$$\widehat{E}_i=\{\omega :x_{1,1}\stackrel{}{}x_{1,2}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+j+\frac{1}{2}}^i\}.$$

Lemma 3.1 and its proof remain valid for $`\widehat{E}_i`$ in place of $`E_i`$, and the proof of the lower bound (3.12) for $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (D)`$ goes through with minimal changes to give

(4.2)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DLU^{Ising})\frac{ϵ_{12}}{k^{c_{28}}}e^{8k\tau (e_1)}.$$

The proof of (3.24) also goes through with minimal changes; in fact Case 3 can be made simpler using the fact that the boundary regions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ are each wired. (We will not do so here, since it is unnecessary.) The result is that

(4.3)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (_{in}DLU^{Ising})e^{(8k+ϵ_{13}j)\tau (e_1)}.$$

Combining (4.2) and (4.3) gives

(4.4) $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}^\beta (_{in}D)}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}^\beta (D)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (_{in}DL)}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DL)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (_{in}DLU^{Ising})}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DLU^{Ising})}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{12}}{k^{c_{28}}}}e^{ϵ_{13}j\tau (e_1)}.`$
In Section 3 we easily obtained the lower bound $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,0}}^\beta (D^c)1/2`$ to complete the proof. Here the situation is a little more complex. A lower bound of the form

(4.5)
$$\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (D^cLU^{Ising})}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DLU^{Ising})}\theta $$

for some $`\theta `$ is equivalent to the statement

(4.6)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}^\beta (D^c)=\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (D^cL)\frac{\theta }{1+\theta }.$$

Hence we consider bounds for the numerator and denominator of (4.5). Let $`F_{i,i+1}`$ denote the event that $`x_{i,2}\stackrel{}{}x_{i+1,1}`$ via a path in $`S_{N,k/4}^{i,i+1}`$, and $`F=_{i=1}^4F_{i,i+1}`$. We have

(4.7) $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (D^cLU^{Ising})`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (\widehat{D}LU^{Ising})`$
$`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^{p,2}(FU^{FK})_{N+1,k}^0(\widehat{D}LFU^{FK}).`$
It is straightforward to prove an analog of Lemma 2.5 for $`S_{N+\frac{1}{2},2m+\frac{1}{2}}^{1,2}`$ in place of $`T_{N+\frac{1}{2},2m+\frac{1}{2}}^1`$. Therefore mimicking the proof of Lemma 3.1, we obtain

(4.8)
$$P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^{p,2}(F_{i,i+1}U^{FK})\frac{ϵ_{14}}{(Nk)^{c_{29}}}e^{(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)}.$$

Then, analogously to (3.12), from (4.7),

(4.9)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (D^cLU^{Ising})\frac{ϵ_{15}}{(Nk)^{c_{29}}}e^{4(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)}.$$

Next we have, using (2.3) and Lemma 2.2,

(4.10) $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DLU^{Ising})`$ $`P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^{p,2}(x_{i,2}\stackrel{}{}x_{i+1,1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\text{ for all }iU^{FK})`$
$`2^8P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,w}^{p,2}(x_{i,2}\stackrel{}{}x_{i+1,1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\text{ for all }i)`$
$`2^8P^{p,2}(x_{i,2}\stackrel{}{}x_{i+1,1}\text{ in }T_{N+\frac{1}{2},k+3j+\frac{3}{2}}^i\text{ for all }i)`$
$`2048e^{8k\tau (e_1)}.`$
Since $`2k\tau (e_1)(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)`$, (4.9) and (4.10) give

$$\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (D^cLU^{Ising})}{\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N+1},f}^\beta (DLU^{Ising})}\frac{ϵ_{15}}{8(Nk)^{c_{29}}}.$$

With (4.5) and (4.6), this shows

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N,\eta ^{k,1}}^\beta (D^c)\frac{ϵ_{15}}{16(Nk)^{c_{29}}},$$

which with (4.4) completes the proof of Theorem 1.1 for $`ϵ=1`$, as in Section 3.

The proof when $`2k\tau (e_1)<(Nk)\tau (e_1+e_2)`$ is similar, with the roles of $`D`$ and $`\widehat{D}`$ interchanged, using squares $`S_,^{i,i+1}`$ in place of the triangles $`T_,^i`$.

## 5. Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank N. Yoshida for helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# 𝐾-theory of 𝐶^∗-algebras from one-dimensional generalized solenoids

## 1. Introduction

Ian Putnam and David Ruelle have developed a theory of $`C^{}`$-algebras for certain hyperbolic dynamical systems (). These systems include Anosov diffeomorphisms, topological Markov chains and some examples of substitution tiling systems. The corresponding $`C^{}`$-algebras are modeled as reduced groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras for various equivalence relations.

This paper is concerned with $`C^{}`$-algebras of an orientable one-dimensional generalized solenoid $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, where $`\overline{X}`$ has local canonical coordinates which are contracting and expanding directions for $`\overline{f}`$. Naïvely speaking, Williams’s orientable generalized solenoids are higher dimensional analogues of topological Markov chains (). We consider the principal groupoids of stable and unstable equivalence on $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, denoted $`G_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ and $`G_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, respectively. We give them topologies and Haar systems () so that we may build their reduced groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras $`S(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ and $`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, respectively, as in . The homeomorphism $`\overline{f}:\overline{X}\overline{X}`$ induces automorphism of $`G_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ and $`G_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, and we form semi-direct products $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$. Their groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras are denoted $`R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ and $`R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, respectively, and are called the Ruelle algebras (). In the case of topological Markov chains, the Ruelle algebras are the Cuntz-Krieger algebras, and the stable and unstable equivalence algebras are the corresponding $`AF`$-subalgebras of the Cuntz-Krieger algebras.

An important tool in the study of $`C^{}`$-algebras is $`K`$-theory. Giordano, Herman, Putnam and Skau showed that almost complete information about the orbit structure of Cantor systems is encoded by the $`K`$-theory of their associated $`C^{}`$-algebras (). And Kirchberg and Phillips showed in their recent papers () that nuclear, purely infinite, separable, simple $`C^{}`$-algebras are classified by their $`K`$-theory.

In this paper, we compute the $`K`$-groups of the unstable equivalence algebras and the Ruelle algebras of $`1`$-solenoids to answer the questions posed in \[17, §4\]. We show that the unstable equivalence algebra of a $`1`$-solenoid $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ with an adjacency matrix $`M`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to the crossed product of a natural Cantor system of $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ by $``$ so that its $`K_0`$-group is order isomorphic to the dimension group of $`M`$ and its $`K_1`$-group is $``$. Then we use the Pimsner-Voiculescu exact sequence, the Universal Coefficient Theorem and Spanier-Whitehead duality to obtain that the $`K_0`$-groups of Ruelle algebras are isomorphic to $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)\}`$ and the $`K_1`$-groups are $`\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M)`$. Thus $`C^{}`$-algebras from one-dimensional generalized solenoids are one-dimensional analogues of the Cuntz-Krieger algebras.

The outline of the paper is as follow: In section 2, we recall the axioms of one-dimensional generalized solenoids and their ordered group invariants. In section 3, we review the definitions of Smale spaces, and show that orientable one-dimensional solenoids are Smale spaces. Then we observe that the stable equivalence algebras are strongly Morita equivalent to inductive limit systems of $`C^{}`$-algebras, and that the $`K`$-theory of the unstable equivalence algebras are determined by the adjacency matrices of one-dimensional generalized solenoids. In section 4, we compute $`K`$-groups of unstable and stable Ruelle algebras, and show that they are $``$-isomorphic to each other by the classification theorem of Kirchberg-Phillips.

## 2. One-dimensional solenoids

We review the properties of one-dimensional generalized solenoids of Williams which will be used in later sections. As general references for the notions of one-dimensional generalized solenoids and their ordered group invariants we refer to .

### One-dimensional generalized solenoids

Let $`X`$ be a finite directed graph with vertex set $`𝒱`$ and edge set $``$, and $`f:XX`$ a continuous map. We define some axioms which might be satisfied by $`(X,f)`$ ().

1. (Indecomposability) $`(X,f)`$ is indecomposable.
2. (Nonwandering) All points of $`X`$ are nonwandering under $`f`$.
3. (Flattening) There is $`k1`$ such that for all $`xX`$ there is an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ such that $`f^k(U)`$ is homeomorphic to $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$.
4. (Expansion) There are a metric $`d`$ compatible with the topology and positive constants $`C`$ and $`\lambda `$ with $`\lambda >1`$ such that for all $`n>0`$ and all points $`x,y`$ on a common edge of $`X`$, if $`f^n`$ maps the interval $`[x,y]`$ into an edge, then $`d(f^nx,f^ny)C\lambda ^nd(x,y)`$.
5. (Nonfolding) $`f^n|_{X𝒱}`$ is locally one-to-one for every positive integer $`n`$.
6. (Markov) $`f(𝒱)𝒱`$.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be the inverse limit space

$$\overline{X}=X\stackrel{𝑓}{}X\stackrel{𝑓}{}\mathrm{}=\left\{(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X\right|f(x_{n+1})=x_n\},$$

and $`\overline{f}:\overline{X}\overline{X}`$ the induced homeomorphism defined by

$$(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})(f(x_0),f(x_1),f(x_2),\mathrm{})=(f(x_0),x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}).$$

###### Remark 2.1.

Williams’ construction (\[24, 6.2\]) gives a (unique) measure $`\mu _0`$ for which there is a constant $`\lambda >1`$ such that $`\mu _0(X)=1`$ and $`\mu _0(f(I))=\lambda \mu _0(I)`$ for every small interval $`IX`$. Define $`d_0(x_0,y_0)`$ to be the measure of the smallest interval from $`x_0`$ to $`y_0`$ in $`X`$, and

$$d(x,y)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^id_0(x_i,y_i)$$

for $`x=(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})`$ in $`\overline{X}`$. Then $`(\overline{X},d)`$ is a compact metric space.

Let $`Y`$ be a topological space and $`g:YY`$ a homeomorphism. We call $`Y`$ a 1-dimensional generalized solenoid or $`1`$-solenoid and $`g`$ a solenoid map if there exist a directed graph $`X`$ and a continuous map $`f:XX`$ such that $`(X,f)`$ satisfies all six Axioms and $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is topologically conjugate to $`(Y,g)`$. We call a point $`xX`$ a non-branch point if $`x`$ has an open neighborhood which is homeomorphic to an open interval, and branch point otherwise. An elementary presentation $`(X,f)`$ of a $`1`$-solenoid is such that $`X`$ is a wedge of circles and $`f`$ leaves the unique branch point of $`X`$ fixed.

###### Proposition 2.2 (\[24, 5.2\]).

For each $`1`$-solenoid $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, there exists an integer $`m`$ such that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f^m})`$ has an elementary presentation.

Suppose that $`(X,f)`$ is a presentation of a $`1`$-solenoid. Since the inverse limit spaces of $`(X,f)`$ and $`(X,f^n)`$ are homeomorphic () for every positive integer $`n`$, for the purpose of computing invariants of the space $`\overline{X}`$ there is no loss of generality in replacing $`(X,f)`$ with $`(X,f^n)`$ where $`n=mk`$ is a positive integer such that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f^m})`$ has an elementary presentation $`(Y,g)`$ and for every $`yY`$ there is an open set $`U_y`$ such that $`g^k(U_y)`$ is an open interval. Hence we can assume that every point $`xX`$ has a neighborhood $`U_x`$ such that $`f(U_x)`$ is an interval.

Recall that a continuous map $`\gamma :[0,1]G`$, a directed graph, is orientation preserving if $`e^1\gamma :I[0,1]`$ is increasing for every interval $`I[0,1]`$ such that $`\gamma (I)`$ is a subset of a directed edge $`e`$. A continuous map $`\varphi :G_1G_2`$ between two directed graphs is orientation preserving if, for every orientation preserving map $`p:[0,1]G_1`$, the map $`\varphi p:[0,1]G_2`$ is orientation preserving ().

When we can give a direction to each edge of $`X`$ so that the connection map $`f:XX`$ is orientation preserving, we call $`(X,f)`$ an orientable presentation. For a $`1`$-solenoid $`Y`$ with a solenoid map $`g`$, if there exists an orientable presentation $`(X,f)`$ then $`Y`$ is called an orientable $`1`$-solenoid.

###### Standing Assumption.

In this paper, we always assume that $`(X,f)`$ is an orientable elementary presentation such that every point $`xX`$ has a neighborhood $`U_x`$ such that $`f(U_x)`$ is an interval.

###### Notation 2.3.

Suppose that $`(X,f)`$ is a presentation of a $`1`$-solenoid, and that $`=\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ is the edge set of the directed graph $`X`$. For each edge $`e_i`$, we can give $`e_i`$ the partition $`\{I_{i,j}\}`$, $`1jl(i)`$, such that

1. the initial point of $`I_{i,1}`$ is the initial point of $`e_i`$,
2. the terminal point of $`I_{i,j}`$ is the initial point of $`I_{i,j+1}`$ for $`1j<l(i)`$,
3. the terminal point of $`I_{i,l(i)}`$ is the terminal point of $`e_i`$,
4. $`f|_{\text{Int}I_{i,j}}`$ is injective, and
5. $`f(I_{i,j})=e_{i,j}^{s(i,j)}`$ where $`e_{i,j}`$, $`s(i,j)=1`$ if the direction of $`f(I_{i,j})`$ agree with that of $`e_{i,j}`$, and $`s(i,j)=1`$ if the direction of $`f(I_{i,j})`$ is reverse to that of $`e_{i,j}`$.

The wrapping rule $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}:^{}`$ associated with $`f`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{f}:e_ie_{i,1}^{s(i,1)}\mathrm{}e_{i,l(i)}^{s(i,l(i))},$$

and the adjacency matrix $`M`$ of $`(,\stackrel{ˇ}{f})`$ is given by

$$M(i,k)=\mathrm{\#}\{I_{i,j}f(I_{i,j})=e_k^{\pm 1}\}.$$

###### Remark 2.4 (\[24, 6.2\]).

The measure $`\mu _0`$ in remark 2.1 is given as follows: Suppose that $`\lambda `$ is the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix $`M`$ and that $`𝐯=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_n)`$ is the corresponding Perron eigenvector such that $`_{i=1}^nv_i=1`$. For edges $`e_i,e_j`$ of $`X`$ and an interval $`I`$ of $`e_i`$ such that $`f^n(I)=e_j`$ and $`f^n|_{\text{Int}I}`$ is injective, let

$$\mu _0(e_i)=v_i\text{ and }\mu _0(I)=\lambda ^nv_j.$$

Then $`\mu _0`$ is extended to a regular Borel measure on $`X`$ by the standard procedure.

###### Theorem 2.5 ().

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid. Then there exists a uniquely ergodic flow $`\varphi `$ whose phase space is $`\overline{X}`$.

Suppose that $`(X,f)`$ is a presentation of a $`1`$-solenoid and that $`\mu _0`$ is the measure given on $`X`$ as in remark 2.4. For a measurable set $`I`$ in $`X`$, we let $`U_n(I)=\{(x_0,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{})\overline{X}x_nI\}`$, and define a measure $`\mu `$ on $`\overline{X}`$ by

$$\mu \left(U_n(I)\right)=\mu _0(I).$$

Then $`\mu `$ is extended to a regular Borel measure on $`\overline{X}`$ in the standard way. We call this measure Williams measure of the flow $`\varphi `$ on $`\overline{X}`$. It is not difficult to verify that $`\mu `$ is the unique $`\varphi `$-invariant measure on $`\overline{X}`$.

A closed subset $`K`$ of a phase space $`Y`$ of a flow $`\varphi `$ is called a cross section if the mapping $`\varphi :K\times Y`$ defined by $`(p,t)pt`$ is a local homeomorphism onto $`Y`$. The return time map $`r_k:KK`$ of a cross section $`K`$ is defined by $`xy=xt_x`$ where $`xK`$ and $`t_x`$ is the smallest positive number such that $`xt_x=yK`$.

###### Theorem 2.6 ().

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid with the corresponding adjacency matrix $`M`$, and that $`(K,r_K)`$ is a cross section with the return time map of $`\overline{X}`$. Then

* $`K_1(C(K)\times _{r_K})=`$,
* $`K_0(C(K)\times _{r_K})`$ is order isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$, and
* $`K_0(C(K)\times _{r_K})`$ has a unique state.

## 3. Smale spaces and $`C^{}`$-algebras from solenoids

### Smale spaces $`(`$$`)`$

Suppose that $`(Y,d)`$ is a compact metric space and $`\phi `$ is a homeomorphism of $`Y`$. Assume that we have constants

$$\text{ }0<\lambda _0<1,\text{ }ϵ_0>0$$

and a continuous map

$$(x,y)\{(x,y)Y\times Yd(x,y)2ϵ_0\}[x,y]Y$$

satisfying the following:

$$[x,x]=x,[[x,y],z]=[x,z],[x,[y,z]]=[x,z],[\phi (x),\phi (y)]=\phi \left([x,y]\right)$$

for $`x,y,zY`$ whenever both sides of the equation are defined. For every $`0<ϵϵ_0`$ let

$`V^s(x,ϵ)`$ $`=\{yY[x,y]=y\text{ and }d(x,y)<ϵ\}`$
$`V^u(x,ϵ)`$ $`=\{yY[y,x]=y\text{ and }d(x,y)<ϵ\}.`$
We assume that

$`d(\phi (y),\phi (z))`$ $`\lambda _0d(y,z)y,zV^s(x,ϵ),`$
$`d(\phi ^1(y),\phi ^1(z))`$ $`\lambda _0d(y,z)y,zV^u(x,ϵ).`$
Then $`(Y,d,\phi )`$ is called a Smale space.

### Groupoids $`(`$$`)`$

We refer to the work of Renault () for the detailed theory of topological groupoids and their associated $`C^{}`$-algebras. We give two examples of groupoids.

###### Examples 3.1 (\[21, 1.2\]).

(1) Equivalence relations. Suppose that $`R`$ is an equivalence relation on a set $`S`$. We give $`R`$ the following groupoid structure:

$`(s_1,t_1)(s_2,t_2)`$ $`=(s_1,t_2)\text{ if }t_1=s_2\text{ and}`$
$`(s,t)^1`$ $`=(t,s).`$
(2) Flows. Suppose that $`S`$ is a zero dimensional space and $`r:SS`$ is a homeomorphism. We consider the space $`S\times `$ with the equivalence relation, $`(s,\tau +1)(r(s),\tau )`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S\times /`$ be the quotient space and define a flow $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`\varphi _t(s,\tau )=\left[(s,t+\tau )\right]`$ Give the following groupoid structure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times _\varphi `$:

$`(\sigma _1,t_1)(\sigma _2,t_2)`$ $`=(\sigma _1,t_1+t_2)\text{ if }\sigma _2=\varphi _{t_1}(\sigma _1)\text{ and}`$
$`(\sigma ,t)^1`$ $`=(\varphi _t(\sigma ),t).`$
For a Smale space $`(Y,d,\phi )`$, define

$$G_{s,0}=\{(x,y)Y\times YyV^s(x,ϵ_0)\}G_{u,0}=\{(x,y)Y\times YyV^u(x,ϵ_0)\}$$

and let

$$G_s=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\phi \times \phi \right)^n\left(G_{s,0}\right)G_u=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\phi \times \phi \right)^n\left(G_{u,0}\right).$$

Then $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$ are equivalence relations on $`Y`$, called stable and unstable equivalence. Each $`\left(\phi \times \phi \right)^n\left(G_{s,0}\right)`$, $`\left(\phi \times \phi \right)^n\left(G_{u,0}\right)`$ is given the relative topology of $`Y\times Y`$, and $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$ are given the inductive limit topology. Then $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$ are locally compact Hausdorff principal groupoids. The Haar systems $`\{\mu _s^xxY\}`$ and $`\{\mu _u^xxY\}`$ for $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$, respectively, are described in \[17, 3.c\]. The groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras of $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$ are denoted $`S(Y,\phi )`$ and $`U(Y,\phi )`$, respectively.

The map $`\phi \times \phi `$ acts as an automorphism of $`G_s`$ and $`G_u`$. We form the semi-direct products

$`G_s`$ $`=\{(x,n,y)n\text{ and }(\overline{f}^n(x),y)G_s\}`$
$`G_u`$ $`=\{(x,n,y)n\text{ and }(\overline{f}^n(x),y)G_u\}`$
with groupoid operations

$`(x,n,y)(u,m,v)`$ $`=(x,n+m,v)\text{ if }y=u\text{ and}`$
$`(x,n,y)^1`$ $`=(y,n,x).`$
The product topology of $`G_{}\times `$ is transfered to $`G_{}`$ by the bijective map $`\eta :(x,y,n)(x,n,\phi (y))`$. And a Haar system on $`G_{}`$ is given by $`\mu _{}^x\eta ^1`$ where $`\mu _{}^x`$ is the Haar system on $`G_{}`$. The groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C^{}(G_s)`$ and $`C^{}(G_u)`$ are denoted $`R_s(Y,\phi )`$ and $`R_u(Y,\phi )`$ and are called the Ruelle algebras.

###### Theorem 3.2 ().

Suppose that $`(Y,\phi )`$ is a topologically mixing Smale space. Then

* $`S(Y,\phi )`$ and $`U(Y,\phi )`$ are amenable, nuclear, separable and simple $`C^{}`$-algebras, and
* $`R_s(Y,\phi )`$ and $`R_u(Y,\phi )`$ are amenable, non-unital, nuclear, purely infinite, separable, simple and stable $`C^{}`$-algebras.

For general properties of these $`C^{}`$-algebras, we refer to .

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid with the metric $`d`$ given in remark 2.1. Let $`\lambda _0=ϵ_0=\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ and define $`[,]:\overline{X}\times \overline{X}\overline{X}`$ by $`[x,y]z`$ where $`z_0=x_0`$ and $`z_n`$ is the unique element contained in the $`\lambda _0^{n+1}`$-neighborhood of $`y_n`$ such that $`f^n(z_n)=x_0`$. Then it is not difficult to show that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f},d)`$ satisfies the above conditions. Therefore we have the following:

###### Proposition 3.3.

One-dimensional generalized solenoids are Smale spaces.

### Stable equivalence algebras for $`1`$-solenoids

Suppose that $`G_s`$ is the stable equivalence groupoid of a $`1`$-solenoid $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ and that $`S(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is the corresponding groupoid algebra. We first repeat the structural question of Putnam (\[17, §4\]). For classical $`1`$-solenoids, we refer to .

###### Question.

Can $`S(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ be written as an inductive limit?

#### Generalized transversals $`(`$\[18, §3\]$`)`$

Suppose that $`G_s`$ is the stable equivalence groupoid of $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$, that $`U_p`$ is the unstable equivalence class of $`p\overline{X}`$ with the inductive limit topology and that $`g:U_pG_{s,0}`$ is given by $`x(x,x)`$ for $`xU_p`$. Let

$$G_s(p)=\{(x,y)G_sx,yU_p\}.$$

A base for a topology on $`G_s(p)`$ is

$$\{Us^1g(V^s)r^1g(V^r)UG_s,V^s,V^rU_p\text{ are open sets}\}.$$

###### Proposition 3.4 (\[18, §3\]).

* $`G_s(p)`$ is an r-discrete, second countable, locally compact, Hausdorff groupoid with counting measure as Haar system.
* $`S(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(G_s(p))`$.

Now we choose $`p`$ to be a fixed point of $`\overline{f}`$ such that $`\pi _k(p)`$ is contained in the interior of an edge $`e`$. Since the orbits of $`(\overline{X},,\varphi )`$ are determined by the cofinality relation, $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})U_p`$ if and only if there is a positive integer $`n=n(x)`$ such that $`x_ke`$ for every $`kn`$. Then $`(\overline{f}\times \overline{f})\left(G_s(p)\right)=G_s(p)`$. Let

$$G_{s,n}(p)=\{(x,y)G_{s,n}x,yU_p\}=\{(x,y)G_s(p)f^n(x_0)=f^n(y_0)\}.$$

Then $`G_{s,n}(p)`$ is a compact open subset of $`G_s(p)`$, and $`G_{s,n}(p)^0=G_s(p)^0=g(U_p)`$. Since $`G_s(p)`$ is $`r`$-discrete, the range maps $`r:G_s(p)G_s(p)^0`$ and $`r_n=r|_{G_{s,n}(p)}`$ are local homeomorphisms. Hence the Haar system of $`G_s(p)`$ restricted to $`G_{s,n}(p)`$ gives a Haar system for each $`G_{s,n}(p)`$. Then we can express $`C^{}(G_s(p))`$ as an inductive limit

$$C^{}(G_{s,1}(p))C^{}(G_{s,2}(p))\mathrm{}C^{}(G_{s,n}(p))\mathrm{}.$$

### Unstable equivalence algebras

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is an orientable solenoid and that $`\varphi `$ is the flow on $`\overline{X}`$ given in theorem 2.5. Then there exists a cross section with return time map $`(K,r)`$ such that $`\overline{X}`$ is the suspension space of $`(K,r)`$.

###### Lemma 3.5 (\[19, p.59\]).

The $`C^{}`$-algebra of $`(\overline{X},,\varphi )`$ is isomorphic to $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$.

###### Proposition 3.6 ().

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is an orientable solenoid, and that $`(Z,r)`$ is a cross section with the return time map of the flow $`\varphi `$. Then

1. $`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ and
2. $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C(K)\times _r`$.

###### Proof.

(1). Suppose $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}),y=(y_0,y_1,\mathrm{})\overline{X}`$ and $`(x,y)G_u`$. Then $`d(\overline{f}^n(x),\overline{f}^n(y))0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ implies $`d_0(x_n,y_n)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and that there exists a $`t`$ such that $`y=\varphi _t(x)`$. Let $`\alpha :(\overline{X},,\varphi )G_u`$ be given by $`(x,t)(x,\varphi _t(x))`$. Then it is not difficult to see that $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism. Therefore $`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is isomorphic to $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ by lemma 3.5. And by the same argument $`C(K)\times _r`$ is isomorphic to the groupoid $`C^{}`$-algebra of $`(K,,r)`$.

(2). Since $`\overline{X}`$ is the suspension of $`(K,r)`$, for every $`x\overline{X}`$ there exist unique $`z_xK`$ and $`\tau _x[0,1)`$ such that $`x=\varphi _{\tau _x}(z_x)`$. Define $`I=\{(x,n\tau _x)x\overline{X},n\}`$, and let $`𝒞(I)`$ be the completion of $`C_c(I)`$. Then by the Theorem in \[17, §4.a\] $`𝒞(I)`$ is a $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$-$`C(K)\times _r`$ imprimitivity bimodule. For completeness, we write down the module structures and the inner products.

Module structures. Suppose that $`\alpha C_c(I)`$, $`gC_c(\overline{X},,\varphi )`$ and $`hC_c(K,,r)`$. Then

$`\left(g\alpha \right)(x,n\tau _x)`$ $`={\displaystyle g(x,t)\alpha (\varphi _t(x),n\tau _xt)𝑑\mu ^{[x]}(t)\text{ and}}`$
$`\left(\alpha h\right)(x,n\tau _x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\alpha (x,m\tau _x)h(r^m(z_x),nm)`$
give that $`𝒞(I)`$ is a left $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ and right $`C(K)\times _r`$ bimodule with $`\left(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right)\stackrel{~}{h}=\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{h})`$ for every $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }𝒞(I)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}C(K)\times _r`$.

Inner products. Define $`,_L:C_c(I)\times C_c(I)C_c(\overline{X},,\varphi )`$ and $`,_R:C(I)\times C(I)C_c(K,,r)`$ by

$`\alpha ,\beta _L(x,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \alpha (x,m\tau _x)\overline{\beta (x,m\tau _x)}\text{ and}}`$
$`\alpha ,\beta _R(z,k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \overline{\alpha (\varphi _t(z),kt)}\beta (\varphi _t(z),kt)𝑑\mu ^{[\varphi _t(z)]}(t)}.`$
Then we have the following corollary from propositions 2.6.

###### Corollary 3.7 ().

* $`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a simple $`C^{}`$-algebra.
* $`K_1\left(U(\overline{X},\overline{f})\right)=`$.
* $`K_0\left(U(\overline{X},\overline{f})\right)`$ is order isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ where $`M`$ is the adjacency matrix of $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$.

Recall that the flow $`\varphi `$ on $`\overline{X}`$ is uniquely ergodic without rest point (theorem 2.5). So $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ has the unique trace $`\tau _\mu `$ induced by the Williams measure $`\mu `$ (\[22, 3.3.10\]). Thus $`\tau _\mu ^{}`$, the induced state on $`K_0(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi )`$, is the unique state.

###### Proposition 3.8.

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid and that $`M`$ is the corresponding adjacency matrix with the normalized Perron eigenvector $`𝐯=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_n)`$. Then

$$\tau _\mu ^{}(K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}),K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))_+)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_M,\mathrm{\Delta }_M^+),𝐯.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`_k=`$ is the edge set of the $`k`$th coordinate space of $`\overline{X}`$. Then by proposition 2.6

$$(K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f})),K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))_+)(\underset{}{lim}C(_k,),\underset{}{lim}C_+(_k,))(\mathrm{\Delta }_M,\mathrm{\Delta }_M^+).$$

For $`gC(_k,)`$, $`x=(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k,\mathrm{})\overline{X}`$ with $`x_k=e^{2\pi is}e_i_k`$ and the canonical projection to the $`k`$th coordinate space $`\pi _k:\overline{X}X`$, define $`g_kC(X_k,S^1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}C(\overline{X},S^1)`$ by

$$g_k:x_k\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ig(e_i)s)\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{g}:xg_k\pi _k(x).$$

Then every $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a unitary element in $`C(\overline{X})`$, and $`K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))K_1(C(\overline{X}))`$ is generated by $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. If we denote $`g`$ as $`(g(e_1),\mathrm{},g(e_n))`$, then by Theorem 2.2 of

$`\tau _\mu ^{}(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\overline{X}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^{}}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}𝑑\mu ={\displaystyle _{X_k}}g^{}𝑑\mu _0={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g(e_i)\mu _0(e_i)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g(e_i)v_i`$
$`=(g(e_1),\mathrm{},g(e_n)),𝐯.`$
The above proposition refines Theorem 2.2 of  that

$$\tau _\mu ^{}(K_0(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi ))=A_\mu ,\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^1(\overline{X}).$$

###### Corollary 3.9 ().

If $`p`$ and $`q`$ are projections in $`M_{\mathrm{}}\left(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi \right)`$ such that $`\tau _\mu (p)<\tau _\mu (q)`$, then $`p`$ is equivalent to a subprojection of $`q`$.

###### Lemma 3.10 ().

$`C(K)\times _r`$ has real rank zero and topological stable rank one.

Since $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ and $`C(K)\times _r`$ are separable algebras, they have strictly positive elements. So strong Morita equivalence of $`C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi `$ and $`C(K)\times _r`$ implies that they are stably isomorphic, i.e., $`\{C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi \}𝒦`$ is $``$-isomorphic to $`\{C(K)\times _r\}𝒦`$ where $`𝒦`$ is the algebra of compact operators on a separable Hilbert space. Therefore we have the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.11.

$`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ has real rank zero and topological stable rank one.

## 4. Ruelle algebras for solenoids

We compute $`K`$-groups of Ruelle algebras for $`1`$-solenoids to show that they are $``$-isomorphic.

### Unstable equivalence Ruelle algebras

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is an oriented $`1`$-solenoid and that $`G_u(\overline{X},,\varphi )`$ is the unstable equivalence groupoid on $`\overline{X}`$. Recall that for $`x,y\overline{X}`$ such that $`y=\varphi _t(x)`$, $`t`$, we have $`\overline{f}^1(y)=\varphi _{t\lambda ^1}\overline{f}^1(x)`$.

###### Definition 4.1 (\[17, §4\]).

Let $`\alpha _u`$ be an automorphism on $`U(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ defined by

$$\alpha _u(g)(x,t)=\lambda ^1g(\overline{f}^1(x),t\lambda ^1)\text{ for }gC_c(\overline{X},,\varphi )\text{ and }(x,t)(\overline{X},).$$

The unstable equivalence Ruelle algebra $`R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is the crossed product

$$R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})=U(\overline{X},\overline{f})\times _{\alpha _u}=\left(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi \right)\times _{\alpha _u}.$$

###### Remarks 4.2.

* Let $`A`$ be an $`n\times n`$ integer matrix and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ the dimension group of $`A`$. The dimension group automorphism $`\delta _A`$ of $`A`$ is the restriction of $`A`$ to $`A`$ so that $`\delta _A(𝐯)=A𝐯`$ (\[10, 7.5.1\]). Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _A)`$ is isomorphic to $`^n/(IdA)^n`$.
* For $`gC(_k,)`$, let $`g_kC(X_k,S^1)`$ be as in the proof of proposition 3.8. The wrapping rule $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}:_{k+1}_k`$ induces a map $`f^{}:C(_k,)C(_{k+1},)`$ by $`gg\stackrel{ˇ}{f}`$ where $`(g\stackrel{ˇ}{f})(e)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}g(e_i)`$ such that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}(e)=e_1\mathrm{}e_j`$. Then $`g_kf\pi _k`$ is homotopic to $`(gf^{})_{k+1}\pi _{k+1}`$ (\[26, 3.6\]).

###### Proposition 4.3.

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid with the adjacency matrix $`M`$ and corresponding dimension group automorphism $`\delta _M`$. Then

$$K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)\}\text{ and }K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M).$$

###### Proof.

We have the following Pimsner-Voiculescu exact sequence.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))& \stackrel{1\alpha _{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}& K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))& \stackrel{\iota _{}}{}& K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\\ & & & & & & \\ K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))& \underset{\iota _{}}{}& K_1(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))& \underset{1\alpha _{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{}& K_1(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\end{array}$$

We consider $`\alpha _{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=K_0\left(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi \right)K_0\left(C(\overline{X})\times _\varphi \right)`$ as the automorphism $`\widehat{\alpha }_u:K_1(C(\overline{X}))K_1(C(\overline{X}))`$ given by the Thom isomorphism of Connes. Define $`\beta :C(\overline{X})C(\overline{X})`$ by $`hh\overline{f}^1`$ for $`hC(\overline{X})`$. Then the induced automorphism $`\beta _{}:K_1(C(\overline{X}))K_1(C(\overline{X}))`$ is the required isomorphism.

For $`gC(_k,)`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{g}C(\overline{X},S^1)`$ be the induced unitary element as in the proof of proposition 3.8. Then $`\beta ^1(\stackrel{~}{g})=\stackrel{~}{g}\overline{f}=g_k\pi _k\overline{f}=g_kf\pi _k`$ is homotopic to $`(gf^{})_{k+1}\pi _{k+1}`$. Hence if we denote $`g`$ as $`(g(e_1),\mathrm{},g(e_n))^n`$, then $`gf^{}`$ is given by $`Mg`$ and the induced automorphism $`\beta _{}^1:K_1(C(\overline{X}))K_1(C(\overline{X}))`$ is the dimension group automorphism $`\delta _M`$ of the adjacency matrix $`M`$. Therefore $`\beta _{}`$ is the inverse of $`\delta _M`$, and $`1\alpha _u:K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ is the same as $`Id\delta _M^1:\mathrm{\Delta }_M\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$.

Since $`K_1(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ is isomorphic to $``$, $`\alpha _u:`$ is trivially the identity map. Thus the six-term exact sequence is divided into the following two short exact sequences;

$$0\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M^1)K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))0$$

and

$$0K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M^1)0.$$

Therefore we conclude that

$`K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M^1)\}=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)\}\text{ and}`$
$`K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ $`\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M^1)=\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M).`$
###### Examples 4.4.

(1). Suppose that $`X`$ is the unit circle and that $`f:XX`$ is given by $`zz^n`$, $`n2`$. Then the adjacency matrix is $`(n)`$, $`K_0(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=[\frac{1}{n}]`$ and $`K_1(U(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=`$. Since $`\delta _{(n)}^1`$ is multiplication by $`\frac{1}{n}`$, we have $`K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=_{n1}`$ and $`K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=`$. See  for details.

(2). Suppose that $`Y`$ is a wedge of two circles $`a`$ and $`b`$ and that $`g:YY`$ is given by $`aaab`$ and $`bab`$. Then the adjacency matrix is $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$. So $`K_0(U(\overline{Y},\overline{g}))=`$ and $`K_1(U(\overline{Y},\overline{g}))=`$. Since $`1\alpha _{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:`$ is an isomorphism, we obtain $`K_0(R_u(\overline{Y},\overline{g}))=K_1(R_u(\overline{Y},\overline{g}))=`$.

### Stable equivalence Ruelle algebras

We use $`K`$-theoretic duality of the Ruelle algebras and the Universal Coefficient Theorem to compute $`K`$-groups of $`R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$.

###### Remark 4.5 ().

Let $`𝒩`$ be the category of separable nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebras which contains the separable Type I $`C^{}`$-algebras and is closed under strong Morita equivalence, inductive limits, extensions, and crossed products by $``$ and by $``$. Then it is not difficult to verify that unstable and stable equivalence Ruelle algebras of $`1`$-solenoids are contained in $`𝒩`$.

###### Proposition 4.6 (\[17, 5.c\]).

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid. Then $`R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is dual to $`R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ so that $`K_{}(R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ is isomorphic to $`K^{+1}(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$.

###### Proposition 4.7 (\[20, 1.19\]).

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid. Then there are short exact sequences

$$0\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)K^1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Hom}(K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)0$$

$$0\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)K^0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Hom}(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)0$$

Hence $`K`$-groups of the stable equivalence Ruelle algebra are determined by $`\mathrm{Ext}`$\- and $`\mathrm{Hom}`$-groups of $`K_{}(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$. Transform $`IdM`$ to the Smith form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}d_1& & & \\ & d_2& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & d_n\end{array}\right)$$

where $`d_i0`$ and $`d_i`$ divides $`d_{i+1}`$ (\[10, §7.4\]). Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)`$ is isomorphic to $`_{i=1}^n/d_i`$, and the dimension of $`\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M)`$ is equal to the number of zeros in the diagonal of the Smith form. Suppose $`d_1=\mathrm{}=d_m=0`$ and $`d_{m+1}0`$. Then we have

$`\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)`$ $`=\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(_{d_{m+1}}\mathrm{}_{d_n},)=_{d_{m+1}}\mathrm{}_{d_n}\text{ and}`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}(K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)`$ $`=^{m+1}.`$
Hence we have

$`K^1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))`$ $`\mathrm{Hom}(K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)`$
$`=^m_{d_{m+1}}\mathrm{}_{d_n}`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)\}.`$
Recall that $`K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))=\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M)`$ is a torsion-free subgroup of $`^{n+1}`$. Thus we have $`\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(K_1(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)=0`$ and

$$K^0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Hom}(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),).$$

Then $`K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f}))_{i=1}^n/d_i`$ implies

$$\mathrm{Hom}(K_0(R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})),)\mathrm{Hom}(_{i=1}^n/d_i,)_{i=1}^m\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M).$$

Therefore we conclude that:

###### Proposition 4.8.

Suppose that $`(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is a $`1`$-solenoid. Then

$$K_0(R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\{\mathrm{\Delta }_M/\mathrm{Im}(Id\delta _M)\}\text{ and }K_1(R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f}))\mathrm{Ker}(Id\delta _M).$$

###### Remark 4.9.

The isomorphisms in proposition 4.8 are unnatural as the short exact sequences in the Universal Coefficient Theorem split unnaturally.

Recall that the unstable and stable equivalence Ruelle algebras of a $`1`$-solenoid are nuclear, purely infinite, separable, simple and stable $`C^{}`$-algebras (proposition 3.2). Then the classification theorem of Kirchberg-Phillips implies the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.10.

$`R_u(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$ is $``$-isomorphic to $`R_s(\overline{X},\overline{f})`$.

###### Acknowledgment.

I express my deep gratitude to Dr. M. Boyle and Dr. J. Rosenberg at UMCP and Dr. I. Putnam at University of Victoria, Canada, for their encouragement and useful discussions. The $`[,]`$-function for $`1`$-solenoids was suggested by Dr. Putnam. By kind permission, I presented his definition.