0
$\begingroup$

In M. Barlow's paper: arxiv.org/pdf/math/0302004.pdf, P17- (2.7) formula.

Let $k\geq 10$, and consider a tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ by disjoint squares $$T(x):=\{y\in \mathbb{Z}^2: x_i\leq y_i< x_i+k, i=1, 2\}$$ with side $k-1$. Let $\widehat{Q}$ be a macroscopic square of side $m$, and associate with $\widehat{Q}$ the microscopic square $$Q=\cup\{T(x), x\in \widehat{Q}\}$$

How to understand $T(x)$ and $Q$? I am confused about why $T(x)$ is a disjoint tiling of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ and what is $Q$?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

You have made a few copying errors ($T$ for $T^+$, for instance).

For the tiling, my guess is that the claim is not that $\{ T(x) \, : \, x \in \mathbb{Z}^d \}$ is a tiling (that would be false), but rather one just takes enough $x$'s to get a tiling, for instance $\{ T(x) \, : \, x \in k\mathbb{Z}^d \}$.

For the $Q$ vs. $\hat{Q}$ (Barlow uses $\tilde{Q}$, and I'm not sure why you changed this), note from Definition 2.1 that $T^+(x) = \mathbb{Z}^d \cap A_1$ where $A_1$ is the cube with the same center as $T(x)$ but side length $3k/2$. The centers of the cubes $T^+(x)$, for $x \in \tilde{Q}$, then form a cube inside $\tilde{Q}$ with $2m/3k$ cube centers per edge. In particular, this is smaller than $m$, which is why this is called microscopic. My guess is that this has something to do with the overall renormalization argument.

If this doesn't clear things up, I recommend emailing Barlow about it. I'm definitely not an expert in this area.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.