Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The proof by Barsky et. al. that there is no percolation in half-spaces proceeds by a dynamic renormalization argument. The proof couples critical percolation in the half-space $\mathbb{H}^d$ with a dependant site percolation model on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that if the block sizes in the renormalization are sufficiently large then the dependant percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ is supercritical. Since the block size is still finite, the probability that a block is "good" is a polynomial in $p$ (the edge probability), and a continuity argument can then be used to show that if $\Theta(p_c)>0$ (for $\mathbb{H}^d$) then there is in fact $p < p_c$ for which the dependent percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ is still supercritical, and so the half-space in fact already contained an infinite component at $p$.

While in principle I understand this style of proof, I realized that I don't understand this specific argument well enough to know just what goes wrong if we try to run the same argument on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ rather than $\mathbb{H}^d$. In fact, I don't even understand whether the reason it breaks down essentially technical, or whether there are good reasons to believe that the same line of attack is very unlikely to work for $\mathbb{Z}^d$. (One good reason to have the latter belief is that lots of smart people have thought about the problem without success, but that's not the kind of reason I mean.)

So: Why, and how badly, does the proof of "no percolation in half-spaces" fail for full spaces?

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.