Superharmonic functions on the Lamplighter graph of Thompson’s group F

Let G act amenably on X and let f be a positive superharmonic function. Define P^{(n)} to be the n-fold convolution of P with itself and suppose that \sup\limits_E \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)} {f(E)} \neq 1. Then there exists \varepsilon \in (0,1) such that P^{(n)} f \le \varepsilon^n f. Let g = \sum\limits_{0 \le i \le n-1} \frac{P^{(i)}f}{\varepsilon^i}. Then Pg - \varepsilon g = \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)}{\varepsilon^{n-1}} - \varepsilon f \le 0, which is, by Lemma 4, a contradiction. Hence \sup\limits_E \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)} {f(E)} = 1.

For E \in X, define f_E(x)=\sqrt{\frac{f(xE)}{f(E)}}, where x \in G. f_E^2 is positive superharmonic, since

Since t \rightarrow t^{1/2} is an increasing concave function, by Jensen’s inequality f_E is also positive and superharmonic. Note that

Thus, \sup\limits_E P^{(n)} f_E(e) = 1.

Since, for all E, P^{(n)} f_E(e) is decreasing as a function of n, we can choose E(k) such that, for all n, P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e) \rightarrow 1 as k goes to infinity. Then we have:

1 = \left( f_{E(k)}(e) \right)^2 \ge P^{(n)} [f_{E(k)}]^2(e) \ge [P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e)]^2 \rightarrow 1. Thus:

\sum\limits_x \mu^{(n)} (x) \left(f_{E(k)}(x)-1\right)^2 = P^{(n)} [f_{E(k)}]^2(e) - 2 P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e)+1 \rightarrow 0, k \rightarrow \infty. Since \mu is generating, we have f_{E(k)} \rightarrow 1 pointwise.

To prove the opposite direction, assume that for every positive superharmonic function f there is a sequence \{E_n\} satisfying the condition of the theorem. Then \frac{Pf(E_n)}{f(E_n)} = \sum\limits_x \mu(x) \frac{f(xE_n)}{f(E_n)} \rightarrow 1, which implies amenability by Lemma 4.

If there is a sequence \{E_n\} satisfying the conditions of Theorem 8 and k is a positive integer, then \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| \rightarrow 0 for any g of length at most k. Since there are only finitely many words of length at most k, this implies

It remains to choose a subsequence \{E_{n_i}\}, i \in \mathbb{N} such that

On the other hand, if any word g \in S^* of length not exceeding n satisfies \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \beta(n), then for a word g of length k we have that \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \frac{1}{n} as long as n \ge k. This immediately applies convergence to 0.

We will give a proof for the case of a lazy simple random walk: the generating set S is symmetric, contains the identity element and has d elements in total. We also assume \mu(g) = \frac{1}{d} for any g \in S. The more general case can be proven in a similar but slightly more technical way.

Put \beta(n) = \frac{1}{n}. Without loss of generality, assume \sup h = 1. If the function is constant, the statement is obvious. Otherwise, take a point y_n such that f(y_n)>1-\varepsilon, where \varepsilon = \frac{1}{n d^n}.

If g is a one-letter word, by harmonicity we get h(gy_n)>1-d\varepsilon, because h(gy_n)>1-\varepsilon is the average of d values not exceeding 1. In analogy, if g is a two-letter word, we get h(gy_n)>1-d\cdot d\varepsilon=1-d^2\varepsilon. Continuing by induction, it can be seen that for any word g of length n or less 1 \ge h(gy_n) > 1 - d^n \varepsilon = 1-\frac{1}{n}, which implies that \left| \frac{h(gy_n)}{h(y_n)} -1 \right| < \frac{1}{n}.

If the action is amenable, then for any suitable function f there is a sequence \{E_n\} satisfying the stronger condition from Theorem 8, which implies in particular the statement of this theorem.

The opposite direction is proven using Lemma 4 and the counterexample from the proof of Theorem 8.

The only if part is obvious because any action of an amenable group is extensively amenable.

For the if part, the idea is to construct an embedding F \hookrightarrow \bigoplus\limits_X A \rtimes F of the form g \rightarrow (c(g),g) and apply Theorem 6.

Let A be the group of multiplicative integer powers of 2 and let X be the set \mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}] \cap (0,1) of dyadic numbers. Define c(g) : X \rightarrow A by c(g)(x)=\frac{g_{+}^{'} (x)}{g_{-}^{'} (x)}. It can be checked that the embedding g \rightarrow (c(g),g) is a well-defined cocycle. The kernel of the cocycle is trivial and hence amenable, which proves the amenability of F under the initial assumptions.

We can take arbitrarily long subsequences of hairs as Fø lner sets.

Let G act amenably on X and let f be a positive superharmonic function. Define P^{(n)} to be the n-fold convolution of P with itself and suppose that \sup\limits_E \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)} {f(E)} \neq 1. Then there exists \varepsilon \in (0,1) such that P^{(n)} f \le \varepsilon^n f. Let g = \sum\limits_{0 \le i \le n-1} \frac{P^{(i)}f}{\varepsilon^i}. Then Pg - \varepsilon g = \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)}{\varepsilon^{n-1}} - \varepsilon f \le 0, which is, by Lemma 4, a contradiction. Hence \sup\limits_E \frac{P^{(n)} f(E)} {f(E)} = 1.

For E \in X, define f_E(x)=\sqrt{\frac{f(xE)}{f(E)}}, where x \in G. f_E^2 is positive superharmonic, since

Since t \rightarrow t^{1/2} is an increasing concave function, by Jensen’s inequality f_E is also positive and superharmonic. Note that

Thus, \sup\limits_E P^{(n)} f_E(e) = 1.

Since, for all E, P^{(n)} f_E(e) is decreasing as a function of n, we can choose E(k) such that, for all n, P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e) \rightarrow 1 as k goes to infinity. Then we have:

1 = \left( f_{E(k)}(e) \right)^2 \ge P^{(n)} [f_{E(k)}]^2(e) \ge [P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e)]^2 \rightarrow 1. Thus:

\sum\limits_x \mu^{(n)} (x) \left(f_{E(k)}(x)-1\right)^2 = P^{(n)} [f_{E(k)}]^2(e) - 2 P^{(n)} f_{E(k)}(e)+1 \rightarrow 0, k \rightarrow \infty. Since \mu is aperiodic, we have f_{E(k)} \rightarrow 1 pointwise.

To prove the opposite direction, assume that for every positive superharmonic function f there is a sequence (E_n) satisfying the condition of the theorem. Then \frac{Pf(E_n)}{f(E_n)} = \sum\limits_x \mu(x) \frac{f(xE_n)}{f(E_n)} \rightarrow 1, which implies amenability by Lemma 4.

We will give a proof for the case of a lazy simple random walk: the generating set S is symmetric, contains the identify element and has d elements in total. We also assume each step is a left multiplication by an arbitrary element from the set S chosen with probability \frac{1}{d}. The more general case can be proven similarly.

The statement is equivalent to the following: for each n there is an element x_n \in X such that \left| \frac{h(gx_n)}{h(x_n)} -1 \right| < \frac{1}{n} for any word g of length \le n.

Without loss of generality, assume \sup h = 1. If the function is constant, the statement is obvious. Otherwise, take a point y_n such that f(y_n)>1-\varepsilon, where \varepsilon = \frac{1}{n d^n}.

If g is a one-letter word, by harmonicity we get h(gy_n)>1-d\varepsilon, where d=2k+1 is greater than or equal to the degree of y_n. This happens because h(gy_n)>1-\varepsilon is an average of d values not exceeding 1. Similarly, if g is a two-letter word, we get h(gy_n)>1-d\cdot d\varepsilon=1-d^2\varepsilon. Continuing in the same way, we obtain that for any word g of length n or less 1 \ge h(gy_n) > 1 - d^n \varepsilon = 1-\frac{1}{n}, which implies that \left| \frac{h(gy_n)}{h(y_n)} -1 \right| < \frac{1}{n}.

If the action is amenable, then for any suitable function f there is a sequence E_n satisfying the stronger condition from Theorem 8, which implies in particular the statement of this theorem.

The opposite direction is proven using Lemma 4 in a way similar to Theorem 8.

Let \varphi(x) = f(\{x\}) be the restriction of f to the class of one-element sets. Since f is superharmonic and switch-invariant, so is \varphi_0 with respect to the simple random walk generated by \{a,b,a^{-1},b^{-1}\}. The amenability of the action of F on X (Theorem Proof) implies that there is a sequence \{x_n\} \subset X such that \frac{P\varphi(x_n)}{\varphi(x_n)} \rightarrow 1. On the other hand, P\varphi(x_n) = Pf(\{x_n\}) and \varphi(x_n)=f(\{x_n\}) by definition and properties of f. This, in turn, gives an approximation in a weak sense for f.

Define

• T_1f(E)=\frac{1}{4} (f(aE)+f(bE)+f(a^{-1}E)+f(b^{-1}E))

• T_2f(E)=f(E \Delta p)

• Tf(E)=\alpha T_1f(E)+(1-\alpha) T_2f(E), \alpha \in (0,1).

Let E be a non-empty finite subset of X and let x be the point in E minimizing \varphi. Then by definition:

f(aE) \le \varphi(a.x);

f(bE) \le \varphi(b.x);

f(a^{-1}E) \le \varphi(a^{-1}.x);

f(b^{-1}E) \le \varphi(b^{-1}.x);

T_1f(E)=\frac{1}{4}(f(aE)+f(bE)+f(a^{-1}E)+f(b^{-1}E)) \le \frac{1}{4}(\varphi(a.x)+\varphi(b.x)+\varphi(a^{-1}.x)+ \varphi(b^{-1}.x)) =P\varphi(x) \le \varphi(x) = f(E)

T_2f(E) = f(E) since by definition \varphi(p) \ge \varphi(x).

Hence, Tf(E) \le f(E) for any non-empty E. For the empty set the statement is easily checked by hand.

Let q be a point where \varphi is not superharmonic, i.e. \varphi(q)<P\varphi(q). Clearly q \neq p. Let r_i, i=\overline{1,4}, be the neighbors of q (possibly multiple or coinciding with q). Then 4\varphi(q)<\varphi(r_1)+\varphi(r_2)+\varphi(r_3)+\varphi(r_4).

Now assume that f is superharmonic. Rewriting the superharmonicity condition for the set \{q\}, we get

In terms of \varphi, this is equivalent to

or

which contradicts the above.

Therefore, f is not superharmonic at the point \{q\}.

Apply the superharmonicity of \varphi to z^{(+ m)}, where m \ge 1:

Indeed, from z^{(+ m)} by the distribution law we can get to z^{(+ m-1)}, z^{(+ m+1)} and z^{(+ m)} itself with probabilities \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{4} and \frac{1}{2} respectively. Multiplying the expression by 4 and simplifying gives

which is equivalent to

Let q be a point on the skeleton. Assume that there is m \ge 0 such that \varphi(z^{(+ m)}) > \varphi(z^{(+ m+1)}). By Lemma 1 \varphi(z^{(+ m)}) is concave, therefore

and

This implies that for a sufficiently large k the value \varphi(z^{(+ m+k)}) is negative, which contradicts the positivity assumption.

By superharmonicity, z has four neighbors z_1, z_2, z_3 and z^{(+1)}, so \varphi(z) = \frac{1}{4}(\varphi(z_1)+\varphi(z_2)+\varphi(z_3)+\varphi(z^{(+1)})) \ge \frac{1}{4}\varphi(z^{(+ 1)}) and \varphi(z^{(+ 1)}) \le 4\varphi(z). The rest follows from Proposition 1 and Jensen’s inequality:

Assume that r_n is achieved at some point z above the (n+1)-st level. Then, by superharmonicity and Proposition 2, all neighbors z_0 of z satisfy \varphi(z_0) =r_n. Now we can take the neighbor of z which is one level down and apply the same argument to it. Repeating the same procedure until we reach the (n+1)-st level, we obtain the desired conclusion.

Put a_i=\min(a_1, \ldots, a_n) and b_j=\min(b_1, \ldots, b_n). Then:

\frac{\min(a_1, \ldots, a_n)}{\min(b_1, \ldots, b_n)}=\frac{a_i}{b_j} \in [\frac{a_i}{b_i}, \frac{a_j}{b_j}] \subset (\alpha, \beta).

Without loss of generality it can be assumed that \lambda_i=1 since the conditions of Theorem 11 are invariant under scaling by a positive number.

Let \varphi_i : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} be the functions producing f_i. As in the previous proof, we can assume \inf \varphi_i = 0 for all i.

Denote by \mathcal{B}_n the set of all points in X at a distance at most n from p and put \varepsilon= \min\limits_{i=\overline{1,k}} f_i(\mathcal{B}_n) = \min\limits_{i=\overline{1,k}, \ x \in \mathcal{B}_n} \varphi_i(x).

Now for each i=\overline{1,k} let x_i be an arbitrary point on X_{sk} satisfying \varphi_i(x_i)<\frac{\varepsilon}{4n^2}. We claim the set E_n = \{x_1^{(+n^2)}, \ldots, x_k^{(+n^2)}\} satisfies \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \frac{1}{n} for words g of length \le n.

As in the previous proof, assume first that the instruction given by g contains only moves by a, b and their inverses. Then gE_n = \{x_1^{(+n^2+s_1)}, \ldots, x_k^{(+n^2+s_k)}\}, where -n \le s_i \le n (in fact, there are only two possible values of s_i depending on whether x_i is a left or right child on the binary tree). For convenience, denote y_{i}=x_i^{(+n^2)} and z_{i}=x_i^{(+n^2+s_i)}.

By definition, f_i(E_n) = \min\limits_{1 \le j \le n} \varphi_i(y_j) and

Using the concavity analogously to the proof of Theorem 11, we have that

By Lemma 8 we conclude that

Taking the sum over all i, we get

which is equivalent to \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \frac{1}{n}.

Again, if g contains at least one switch, it means that in the process of applying the word’s instruction to E_n we might add some new points and, possibly, move them along tree edges. In this case, gE_n= F_1 \cup F_2, where F_1 = \{x_1^{(+n^2+s_1)}, \ldots, x_k^{(+n^2+s_k)}\} as defined previously and F_2 \subset \mathcal{B}_n.

For all n \ge 4 we can estimate that

where the last inequality follows from the definition of f_i as the minimum over a set. Finally, we conclude that

From the proof of the first case we know that \left|\frac{f(F_1)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \frac{1}{n}, which completes the proof.

Note that Pf(E)=\frac{1}{5}(f(aE)+f(bE)+f(a^{-1}E)+f(b^{-1}E)+f(E \Delta \{p\})).

Let g be an arbitrary word. Then

From the properties of E_n, we have that \frac{f(agE_n)}{f(aE_n)} = \frac{f(agE_n)/f(E_n)}{f(aE_n)/f(E_n)} \rightarrow 1, \ n \rightarrow \infty, or f(agE_n) \sim f(aE_n), \ n \rightarrow \infty. Summing up the equivalences for all five generators, we obtain the desired conclusion.

First we show that for each n \ge 4 there is a finite set E_n such that for each i=\overline{1,k} and for any word g of length \le n the following two estimates hold:

• \left| \frac{f_i(s_igE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1 \right| < \frac{1}{n};

• \left| \frac{f_i(s_iE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right| < \frac{1}{n}.

This holds because according to the proof of Theorem 12, there exists a finite set E such that for all elements g such that |g|\le m = n+\max\limits_{i=\overline{1,k}} |s_i| and for all i=\overline{1,k} we have that |\frac{f_i(gE)}{f_i(E)} -1| < \frac{1}{m} < \frac{1}{n}. Since the lengths of s_ig and s_i do not exceed m, both inequalities are true for E_n:=E. Thus, for any g and all i=\overline{1,k}:

Fix \varepsilon > 0. From the convergence above, there is a number N \in \mathbb{N} such that for all n \ge N:

Summing up the inequalities above with corresponding weights, we get

which implies

The latter is equivalent to convergence to 1.

Note that P^{(n_1)}f_1(E_n) = \sum\limits_s \mu^{(n)}(s) f_1(sE_n), where \mu^{(n)} is the n-th convolution of the uniform measure and the summation is taken over its support. Now it can be seen that

which converges to 1 by Lemma 9.

As in the proof of Theorem 12, denote by \mathcal{B}_n the set of all points in X at a distance at most n from p. Put \varepsilon_i = \min\limits_{x \in \mathcal{B}_n} f_i(x).

Put t_i = \varphi_i(p). Without loss of generality, we can assume \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty t_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \varphi_n(p) = 1.

As before, we are trying to construct a sequence of sets E_n such that for all words g of length not exceeding n, we have \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)}-1\right|<\frac{1}{n}.

Fix n \in \mathbb{N}. First, we take a point z_1 in the skeleton of the tree such that \delta := \varphi_1(z_1) < \frac{\varepsilon_1}{16n^2} and define y_1=z_1^{(+ 4n^2)}. We can verify that if |g| \le n, then \frac{f_1(g\{y_1\})}{f_1(\{y_1\})} \in (1-\frac{1}{2n}, 1+\frac{1}{2n}), because if f(g\{y_1\}) has any points outside the hair, they are in \mathcal{B}_n and hence do not influence the value of f as

Outside \mathcal{B}_n, the only point g(\{y_n\}) can contain is z_1^{(+ 4n^2+s)}, \ |s| \le n, for which the proof is analogous to that in Theorem 11.

Let N be an integer index such that \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^{\infty} t_i < \frac{\delta}{3n}. For each 2 \le i \le N, we can find a point y_i such that \frac{f_i(g\{y_i\}) } {f_i(\{y_i\})} \in (1-\frac{1}{2n}, 1+\frac{1}{2n}).

In order to do it, we choose z_i on the skeleton such that f_i(z_i) < \frac{\varepsilon_i}{16n^2} and then define y_i=z_i^{(+ 4n^2)}. The proof that \frac{f_i(g\{z_i\})}{f_i(\{z_i\})} \in (1-\frac{1}{2n}, 1+\frac{1}{2n}) is equivalent to the case n=1.

Finally, define E_n = \{y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_N\}. From the construction it follows that \frac{f_i(gE_n)}{f_i(E_n)} \in (1-\frac{1}{2n}, 1+\frac{1}{2n}) for all 1 \le i \le n. This is true because gE_n consists of two subsets: a subset of \mathcal{B}_n and a set of the form \{z_1^{(+ 4n^2+s_1)}, \ldots, z_N^{(+ 4n^2+s_N)}\}. The subset of \mathcal{B}_n does not influence the values of f_i, and hence f (by construction). For the latter set, we use the argument from Theorem 12. This statement also implies \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}f_i(gE_n)}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}f_i(E_n)} \in (1-\frac{1}{2n}, 1+\frac{1}{2n}).

It remains to notice that \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^\infty f_i(gE_n) < \frac{\delta}{3n} and \sum\limits_{i=N+1}^\infty f_i(E_n) < \frac{\delta}{3n}. Define S_1 = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N} f_i(E_n) = \delta + r, where r>0. Then f(E_n) \in [\delta+r, \delta(1+\frac{1}{3n})+r].

Now we can see that

The central inequality is equivalent to \frac{\delta}{3n} \le \frac{\delta+r}{2n}, which is natually true.

Similarly,

where the central inequality comes from \frac{\delta+r}{2n} > \frac{\delta}{2n} > \frac{\delta}{3n}(1-\frac{1}{n}). The proof is complete.

Fix n \ge 2. Let us assume that for some i, 0 \le i \le n-2, E_n contains no points in T_i. Then it is possible to find a word g, |g| \le i+2, such that:

f_i(gE_n) \le f_i(E_n)-\frac{1}{2^{i+1}}

f_k(gE_n) \le f_k(E_n), k \neq i.

Let us construct this word g for a given i. Define the golden path as the set of points {p, a.p, a^2.p, …, a^i.p, ba^i.p}.

If E_n has no points on the golden path, we add one using the switcher \sigma at p and using a and b push it down the golden path. In this case, g=ba^i\sigma. Otherwise, we take g \in \{a,b\}^* which pushes the nearest point of the path to ba^i.p. Note that \varphi_i is equal to \frac{1}{2^i} on all points of the golden path except ba^i.p where it is \frac{1}{2^{i+1}}. In this way, if E_n contains no points in T_i, we have that f(E_n) = \frac{1}{2^i}, however, with our construction of g, f(gE_n) \le \frac{1}{2^{i+1}}. Also, if g \in \{a,b\}^* or g \in \{a,b\}^*\sigma, as in our case, then f_k(gE_n) \le f_k(E_n). This happens because applying \sigma does not change the value of any f_k, and applying a and b can only make it smaller.

Therefore, \left|\frac{f(gE_n)}{f(E_n)} -1 \right| \ge \frac{1/2^{i+1}}{f(E_n)} \ge \frac{1}{2^{i+2}} \ge \frac{1}{2^n}, which contradicts the assumption. Hence, E_n must contain at least one point in each of the sets T_0, T_1, …, T_{n-2} and |E_n| \ge n-1. This immediately implies the statement of the lemma.

Since 0 \le r(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \le r(1, \ldots, 1), r is bounded.

Assume the converse. Let (x_1, \ldots, x_n) be a point of discontinuity and put t = r(x_1, \ldots, x_n). Denote R(\varepsilon)=r(x_1+\varepsilon, \ldots, x_n+\varepsilon) for all values \varepsilon where it is well-defined, including some open interval around 0. The assumption and the fact that r is non-decreasing imply that R is discontinuous at 0. On the other hand, R is bounded, non-decreasing and concave. Let R(-a)=t-b \le 0, where -a is an arbitrary negative number for which R is defined. Now it follows that t \le R(z) \le t+\frac{zb}{a} for z \ge 0 and t-\frac{zb}{a} \le R(z) \le t for z \le 0, meaning that R is continuous at 0. Contradiction.

Let r = r(x_1, \ldots, x_m) and \varphi be the function from the definition of a generalized min-function. As before, without loss of generality we assume \inf \varphi = 0.

The properties of r imply that it is also uniformly continuous. By the uniform continuity theorem for metric spaces, we can continuously extend it to a function defined on the closed hypercube [0,1]^m, which for convenience we will also call r.

Now, fix n \in \mathbb{N} in order to construct a set E_n satisfying |\frac{f(sE_n)}{f(E_n)} - 1| < \frac{1}{n}. The idea is to construct E_n as a set of m points located on hairs away from p and at a distance >n from the binary skeleton. In this case sE_n will consist of m points located on the same hairs and, possibly, some points at a distance \le n from p.

Let \varepsilon = \min\limits_{q \in \mathcal{B}_n} \varphi(q), where \mathcal{B}_n is defined as in the proof of Theorem 12. Then our goal is to take E_n so deep in the tree that \varphi(q)<\varepsilon for all q \in sE_n.

There are two possible cases which define the way we are going to construct the approximation. The first case is when X has at least m hairs where the supremum of \varphi is less than \varepsilon; the second case is when it has at most m-1 hairs with this property.

Case 1. X has at least m hairs where the supremum of \varphi is less than \varepsilon.

In this case, we are constructing E_n as a set consisting of m points, one on each hair. The idea is to choose them far enough from the skeleton so the value of \varphi wouldn’t change much by perturbing the points.

Denote y_i = \sup\limits_{x \in H_i} \varphi(x), where H_i is the corresponding hair for i=\overline{1,m} satisfying the above property. Let z_i \in H_i be such a point that \varphi(z_i) \ge \frac{n}{n-1} y_1. Then it follows from the concavity properties of \varphi on hairs that the set E_n = \{z_1^{(+n)}, \ldots, z_m^{(+n)}\} satisfies |\frac{f(sE_n)}{f(E_n)} - 1| < \frac{1}{n}.

Case 2. We make the following claim which directly follows from the continuity of r:

There is a number \alpha>0 and a tuple (y_1, \ldots, y_m) such that:

• 0 < y_i < \varepsilon - \alpha for all i

• \frac{r(y_1+\alpha, \ldots, y_n+\alpha)}{r(y_1, \ldots, y_n)} < 1+\frac{1}{n}

If X has only finitely many hairs where the supremum of \varphi is less than \varepsilon, we can pick m points \{ z_1, \ldots, z_m \} \subset X_sk such that \varphi(z_i)<\frac{\alpha}{10n} and \lim\limits_{l \rightarrow \infty} \varphi(z_i^{+l}) > \varepsilon. According to the proof of Theorem 11, 0 \le z_i^{(k+1)}-z_i^{(k)} < \frac{\alpha}{3n}. Hence, we can pick points z_1^{(k_1)}, \ldots, z_m^{(k_m)} such that z_i^{(k_i)} \in (y_i+\frac{\alpha}{3} , y_i + \frac{2\alpha}{3}). After applying the word s, z_i^{(k_i)} moves to z_i^{(k_i+q)}, with -n \le q \le n. This implies that z_i^{(k_i+q)} \in (y_i, y_i+\alpha) and f(sE_n) \in (r(y_1, \ldots, y_n), r(y_1+\alpha, \ldots, y_n+\alpha)), however, by construction f(E_n) lies in the same range. As a conclusion, a simple calculation shows that |\frac{f(sE_n)}{f(E_n)} - 1| < \frac{1}{n}.

For any point x, denote by u(x) the distance between p and the point of the binary tree closest to x (i.e. u(x) says how many levels down from p the point is located). It is easy to check that the function f(x)=2^{2-u(x)} satisfies f-Pf=\delta_p and converges to 0 on any Poisson boundary of the tree. Thus, the harmonic component in its Riesz decomposition (see Section ? for definitions) is 0 and f is a potential. From the fact that f-Pf=\delta_p it follows that this potential is equal to Green’s function G(\cdot,p). It remains to notice that f(p)=2^2=4.

Since \varphi is superharmonic, the sequence \varphi(q_n) can be seen as a supermartingale. Hence, the expectation \mathbb{E} \varphi(q_n) is non-increasing and \mathbb{E} \varphi(q_n) \le \varphi(q_0) for all n. Then \lim \limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}\varphi(q_n) exists almost surely by the supermartingale convergence theorem and \mathbb{E}(\lim \limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}\varphi(q_n)) \le \varphi(q_0) by Fatou’s lemma. This immediately implies the statement.

Let r be a point on the binary skeleton of X with \varphi(r) < \varepsilon (it exists by the assumption on \varphi). Denote by X_r the binary tree rooted in r. There is a non-zero probability that for some number N we have that q_n \in X_r, \ n \ge N and q_N = r. Applying the proof of Lemma 11 to X_r and \tilde{q}_n=q_{N+n}, we get that \lim \varphi(q_n) \le \varphi(r) < \varepsilon with positive probability.

We will prove the theorem by simulating a random walk E_n \in \mathcal{P}_f(X) starting at an arbitrary subset E_0. The idea is to prove that \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(E_n) = 0 almost surely.

We can regard the sequence E_n from the following prospective: each E_n is a subset of points (objects) of X. Each time we make a move from E_n to E_{n+1}, we either move each \textit{object} by a letter (a, b, a^{-1} or b^{-1}), add an \textit{object} at p to the set (if there is none) or remove an \textit{object} from p from it (if there is one).

According to the Borel-Cantelli lemma, since the probability of invoking the generator \sigma in one move is \frac{1}{5} and we make infinitely many moves, with probability 1 we will add or remove a new \textit{object} infinitely many times. Since initially we have finitely many \textit{objects} and we cannot remove an \textit{object} without adding it first, this implies that as we go onwards from E_0 we will almost surely add a new \textit{object} infinitely many times.

The trajectory of any \textit{object} can be described as a (possibly terminated) simple random walk on the graph X. By Lemma 10 its Green’s function G satisfies G(p,p)=4, meaning that a random walk starting at p visits p four times on average, including the starting position. From Lemma 1.13 (a) in [woess] it follows that an \textit{object} has a \frac{1}{4} chance of never returning back to p. Applying the Borel-Cantelli argument again, we see that an infinite number of \textit{objects} will never be removed.

Since each hair of X is recurrent, any \textit{object} will converge to some end of the binary skeleton. Lemma 12 together with the Borel-Cantelli lemma (again!) show that for any \varepsilon > 0 sooner or later some \textit{object} will converge to an end of the graph such that its trajectory \{q_n\} will satisfy \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} \varphi(q_n) < \varepsilon. In this case, \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(E_n) < \varepsilon and, since \varepsilon is arbitrary, \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(E_n) = 0.

Now assume f is not a potential. Then let f(E)=g(E)+h(E) be the Riesz decomposition of f, where g is a potential and h is a positive bounded harmonic function. Since g is non-negative, by the squeeze theorem \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} h(E_n) = 0. On the other hand, by harmonicity of h, \mathbb{E} h(E_n) = h(E_0)>0 and by dominated convergence theorem \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} h(E_n) exists and satisfies \mathbb{E}(\lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} h(E_n)) = \lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}h(E_n) = h(E_0) > 0. Contradiction.