self - affine sets , both deterministic and random , have received substantial attention over the past three decades . far from being an exhausted topic ,
self - affine sets are still not well understood and much progress has been made in recent years .
of special interest are the dimensional and measure theoretic properties of these sets , analysing their geometric scaling properties . generally speaking one would expect the hausdorff , packing and box - counting dimension to coincide with a quantity called the ` affinity dimension ' .
recent research has focussed on conditions under which the dimensions coincide or what is necessary to cause a ` dimension drop ' . in this paper
we establish the almost sure box - counting dimension of two random models of self - affine box - like carpets in the sense of fraser  @xcite . before stating our results in detail , which include homogeneous , random recursive , and fractal percolation of self - affine carpets , we give a brief history of both deterministic and random self - affine sets .
let @xmath2 be a ( complete ) compact metric space .
let @xmath3 be strictly contracting self maps for some finite index set @xmath4 .
the ( deterministic ) attractor @xmath5 of the iterated function system ( ifs ) @xmath6 is the unique compact non - empty set satisfying the invariance ( see hutchinson  @xcite ) , @xmath7 restricting the functions @xmath8 to contracting similitudes , one obtains the class of self - similar sets .
much is known about these and we refer the reader to falconer  @xcite and the many references contained therein . here
we are specifically concerned with the class of self - affine carpets .
these are the attractors of finite ifss where @xmath9 are affine contractions on @xmath10 mapping the two coordinate axes onto themselves .
for a comprehensive survey of deterministic self - affine sets we refer the reader to falconer  @xcite but briefly comment that the study of self - affine carpets started with bedford  @xcite and mcmullen  @xcite who determined , independently , the hausdorff and box - counting dimension of carpets with mappings that map the unit square onto subrectangles obtained by dividing the unit square into an @xmath11 grid , see figure  [ bedfordfengfraserpic ]  ( left - most ) .
several generalisations were considered by lalley and gatzouras  @xcite , baraski  @xcite , and feng and wang  @xcite , analysing their dimensional properties .
fraser  @xcite ,  @xcite extended the class to self - affine carpets with ifss mapping the unit square into rectangles such that any horizontal or vertical lines get mapped to horizontal or vertical lines , see figure  [ bedfordfengfraserpic ] .
several random variants have been considered ; falconer  @xcite considered deterministic self - affine sets with randomly chosen translation vectors and showed that the hausdorff dimension coincides almost surely ( with respect to the chosen translation vectors ) with the ` affinity dimension ' .
the affinity dimension can be considered the ` best guess ' for the hausdorff , packing and box - counting dimension of self - affine sets and it is of major current interest to establish exactly when these notion do , or do not , coincide .
jordan , pollicott and simon  @xcite , and jordan and jurga  @xcite studied limit sets with random perturbations of the translation ( ` noise ' ) at every level of the construction , recovering the same coincidence with the affinity dimension .
fraser and shmerkin  @xcite considered a bedford - mcmullen construction with random translation vectors that keep the column structure intact . under these conditions they showed that the hausdorff dimension is strictly less than the affinity dimension , an observation known as a ` dimension drop ' .
a @xmath0-variable version ( homogeneously random ) of bedford - mcmullen carpets was considered by gui and li  @xcite who showed that the hausdorff and box - counting dimension of @xmath0-variable attractors equals the expectation of the dimension of the individual attractors , when all ifs have the same subdivision parameters @xmath12 and @xmath13 .
we will show in corollary  [ expectationcor ] that this holds in a more general setting for the box dimension , but fails e.g.  by simply choosing different subdivisions @xmath14 and @xmath15 for the bedford - mcmullen type ifss that make up the @xmath0-variable rifs .
gatzouras and lalley  @xcite on the other hand were interested in percolation of bedford - mcmullen carpets , which are @xmath1-variable random ifs , also covered in this article .
jrvenp et al .
@xcite ,  @xcite ,  @xcite also considered a general model ( code - tree fractals ) that overlaps somewhat with the random model in this paper .
however they consider random translations in their construction and recover almost sure coincidence with the affinity dimension .
here we compute the box - counting dimension of random box - like sets without necessarily randomising the translation vectors and thus our results can be used to determine conditions for which there is a ` dimension drop ' where hausdorff and affinity dimension do not coincide almost surely .
one of the key elements of our proofs is a recent result obtained by troscheit  @xcite stating that self - similar @xmath0-variable and @xmath1-variable random graph directed ( rgds ) systems have equal hausdorff and box - counting dimension almost surely .
this is relevant as the projections of random self - affine box - like sets onto the horizontal and vertical axes are self - similar rgdss .
this article is structured as follows ; in section  [ notation ] we introduce most basic notation common to @xmath0-variable and @xmath1-variable carpets .
section  [ 1varsect ] contains our results for random homogeneous ( @xmath0-variable ) attractors and section  [ inftyvarres ] contains our results for random recursive , or @xmath1-variable , carpets .
this is followed by some examples in section  [ sec : examples ] , while all proofs are contained in section  [ proofs ] .
we begin by recalling the definition of the box - counting dimension of a set .
let @xmath16 be a totally bounded subset of a complete metric space @xmath17 . denote by @xmath18 the least number of sets of diameter @xmath19 or less needed to cover @xmath20 .
the upper box counting dimension and lower box counting dimension are defined , respectively , by @xmath21 and @xmath22 if @xmath23 we will refer to the box - counting dimension @xmath24 .
note that the definition does not change if @xmath18 is substituted by @xmath25 , the number of grid squares in a @xmath26-mesh that intersect @xmath20 .
we shall make use of this fact in proving the upper bound later . more equivalent definitions of box - counting dimension , and the definition of the hausdorff dimension can be found in falconer  @xcite .
let @xmath27 be a finite collection of ifss indexed by @xmath28 , where @xmath29 and @xmath30 are strict contractions .
with the collection @xmath31 we associate a probability vector @xmath32 such that @xmath33 for all @xmath34 and @xmath35 .
the affine sets we are considering were introduced by fraser  @xcite and are known as box - like self - affine carpets .    for a given @xmath36 , let @xmath37 be of the form @xmath38 where @xmath39 and @xmath40 , and @xmath41 such that the unit square @xmath42^{2}$ ] is mapped into itself , @xmath43 .
the @xmath44 is a matrix representing an element of the symmetry group of isometries @xmath45 allowing for rotations and reflections such that @xmath46 maps the square onto rectangles that are still aligned with the @xmath47 and @xmath48 axis .
there are only eight possible choices for this matrix and we have @xmath49    if all maps @xmath50 satisfy the criteria above we call the ifs @xmath51 _ box - like _ and its corresponding attractor a _
fraser carpet_. if all ifss @xmath52 are box - like we call the rifs @xmath53 box - like and the random attractor a a _ random fraser carpet _ , see figure  [ randompic1 ] for some examples .
let @xmath31 be box - like as above .
if there exists at least two pairs @xmath54 and @xmath55 with @xmath56 we call @xmath31 and the random attractor _ non - separated_. otherwise we call @xmath31 and the random attractor _ separated_.    many neat results in dimension theory require some assumptions on the amount of overlap and the results in this article are no exception .
we introduce the random analogue of the condition introduced by feng and wang  @xcite .
let @xmath53 be box - like .
we say that @xmath53 and the related attractor @xmath57 satisfy the _
uniform open rectangle condition ( uorc ) _ , if we have , for every @xmath34 , @xmath58 here @xmath59 is the open unit square .    to each map
@xmath46 we associate a unique symbol @xmath60 to enable us to code points in the random attractor .
we adopt the notation of _ arrangement of words _ in @xcite to succinctly write sets of codings .
let @xmath61 , and define the _ prime arrangements _
@xmath62 to be the set of symbols @xmath63 .
clearly both @xmath62 and @xmath64 are finite and non - empty .
define @xmath65 to be the free monoid with generators @xmath64 and identity @xmath66 , and define @xmath67 to be the free commutative monoid with generators @xmath65 and identity @xmath68 .
we define @xmath69 to be left and right multiplicative over @xmath70 , and @xmath68 to annihilate with respect to @xmath69 .
that is , given an element @xmath71 of @xmath65 , we get @xmath72 .
we define @xmath73 be the set of all finite combinations of elements of @xmath62 and operations @xmath70 and @xmath69 . using distributivity
@xmath74 is the non - commutative free semi - ring with ` addition ' @xmath70 and ` multiplication ' @xmath69 and generator @xmath64 and we will call @xmath75 the _ semiring of arrangements of words _ and refer to elements of @xmath73 as _ ( finite ) arrangements of words_.    we use the convention to ` multiply out ' arrangements of words and write them as elements of @xmath65 .
we omit brackets , where appropriate , replace @xmath69 by concatenation to simplify notation , and for each arrangement of words @xmath76 write @xmath77 to refer to the subarrangements @xmath78 that do not contain @xmath70 and are thus elements of @xmath79 .    arrangements of words can be used to describe compact subsets by defining a coding map , mapping elements @xmath80 onto compact subsets @xmath81 recursively .
given an arrangement of words @xmath76 and a compact set @xmath82 , we define @xmath83 recursively to be the compact set in @xmath82 satisfying : @xmath84    to each ifs we associate an arrangement of words .
let @xmath85 be the arrangement of words that are the letters coding the maps of the ifs @xmath86 , @xmath87    this representation now allows us to define sets involving the ifss recursively by right multiplication of @xmath85 to existing codings .
our results depend on the box dimension of the orthogonal projections onto the @xmath47 and @xmath48 axes .
we write @xmath88 and @xmath89 to denote the projections onto the horizontal and vertical , respectively : @xmath90 @xmath91 for @xmath92 let @xmath93 and @xmath94 be the length of the longest and shortest edge , respectively , of the rectangle @xmath95 .
we define @xmath96 to be the upper box dimension of the projection of the random set @xmath5 onto the line parallel to the longest side of @xmath95 , that is @xmath97 let @xmath98 be the lower box dimension of the projection , defined analogously .
if the box dimension exists we write @xmath99 .
let @xmath100 and @xmath101 , with @xmath102 , @xmath103 , @xmath104 , @xmath105 defined in the natural way .
we will write @xmath106 to denote the projection , @xmath88 or @xmath89 , parallel to the long side of the rectangle @xmath95 , choosing arbitrarily if they are equal .
let @xmath107 be the set of all ( infinite ) sequences with entries in @xmath108 ; we refer to these sequences as ( infinite ) words or codings and for @xmath109 we write @xmath110 for the @xmath36-th letter in the sequence , i.e.  the @xmath36-th letter in the word @xmath111 .
we define the distance between @xmath112 to be @xmath113 , where @xmath114 and @xmath115 if @xmath116 is unbounded .
the distance function is a metric and we consider the metric _ coding space _ , @xmath117 .
we sometimes need finite words and set @xmath118 to be the set of words of length @xmath119 .
the set @xmath120 contains only the empty word @xmath66 .
the set of all finite codings is @xmath121 .
for @xmath122 we write @xmath123 to denote the length of the word @xmath111 and we let @xmath124=\{x\in\lambda^{\operatorname{\mathbb{n } } } \mid x_{i}=w_{i}\text { for } 1\leq i\leq\lvert w\rvert\}$ ] be the _ cylinder _ given by the coding @xmath111 . with the given metric ,
the cylinders are clopen sets and are furthermore a basis for the topology on @xmath117 . by the carathodory extension theorem
we can define a measure on these cylinders which extends to a unique borel measure on @xmath107 .
let @xmath125 be the bernoulli probability measure induced by the probability vector @xmath126 , i.e.  for a cylinder @xmath124 $ ] , @xmath122 we set @xmath127)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}p_{i}^{\#\{j \mid w_{j}=i\}}.\ ] ] it can be checked that this is indeed a borel probability measure ; we omit the details .
we now define the @xmath0-variable random iterated function system .
in fact we define a continuum of attractors , associating an attractor to every @xmath128 .
choosing the attractor randomly according to @xmath125 gives us the random attractor @xmath57 .
@xmath119-level coding _ of our random attractor with respect to realisation @xmath128 is given by @xmath129 the set of all finite codings @xmath130 is defined , in the natural way , by @xmath131    the @xmath119-level prefractal @xmath132 and the @xmath0-variable random attractor @xmath57 are @xmath133 for a sufficiently large compact set @xmath134 .
here we are not concerned with what ` sufficiently large ' means and we will take @xmath42^{2}$ ] . for reasons of non - triviality
we assume that each ifs in @xmath31 has at least one map , with at least one ifs containing two maps .
we define a singular value function for each realisation @xmath128 .
let @xmath92 , we define the _ upper ( random ) modified singular value function _ as @xmath135 let @xmath136 be the sum of the modified singular values over all @xmath119-level words , @xmath137 we let @xmath138 be the obvious analogues for the lower and the exact modified singular value function and its sum .
we will now introduce the last component , the pressure , which relates to the topological pressure of the associated dynamical system .
let @xmath139 , the _ @xmath140-pressure _ is given by the @xmath125-almost sure limit @xmath141 the upper and lower pressure @xmath142 and @xmath143 are defined in the natural way . however , as we will show below , they always coincide with the @xmath140-pressure .    the @xmath140-pressure exists and coincides with the upper and lower pressure .
furthermore @xmath144 is continuous and strictly decreasing and there exist unique @xmath145 satisfying , @xmath146    section  [ proofs ] contains the proof of above lemma and our main result for the box - counting dimension of @xmath0-variable random box - like self - affine carpets .
[ thm : maintheo ] let @xmath57 be a random @xmath0-variable box - like carpet that satisfies the uniform rectangular open set condition . for almost every @xmath147 we have @xmath148 where @xmath145 is the unique solution to @xmath149 .
we get the following interesting corollary .
let @xmath53 be of the separated type , with @xmath150 for all @xmath151 .
applying lemma  [ lma : stochadditivity ] we immediately deduce that @xmath152 is ( stochastically ) additive and the box dimension of @xmath57 is almost surely given by the unique @xmath145 such that , for @xmath125-generic @xmath147 , @xmath153    introducing further conditions we can express the box dimension in terms of the individual attractors .
the following corollary extends the box - counting dimension results from gui and li  @xcite .
note that the only additional condition is on the size of @xmath154 and independent of @xmath155 .
[ expectationcor ] let @xmath53 be of the separated type , with @xmath150 for all @xmath151 and assume that @xmath156 for all @xmath34 and @xmath157 .
then , almost surely , @xmath158    we succinctly write @xmath159 by our assumptions we have @xmath160 .
note that , due to subadditivity , we have in the deterministic case @xmath161 ( see  ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 2.7 ) ) and so @xmath162    observe that by theorem  [ thm : maintheo ] and additivity we have for almost every @xmath128 , @xmath163 equivalently , @xmath164 let @xmath165 , then for every @xmath119 we have @xmath166 thus we get the required @xmath167 .
note however that letting @xmath168 for every @xmath169 is no longer sufficient for the dimension to be the expectation of the individual dimensions as example  [ simpleextensionexample ] in section  [ sec : examples ] shows .
another interesting consequence of theorem  [ thm : maintheo ] is the following corollary for rifss such that the modified singular value function is not stochastically additive .
let @xmath57 be the attractor of a @xmath0-variable rifs such that @xmath170 is not stochastically additive .
then the almost sure box - counting dimension of the attractor can drop below the least box - counting dimension of the individual attractors , that is there exists @xmath53 such that , almost surely , @xmath171    see example  [ weirdlyconvergingexample ] in section  [ sec : examples ] .
we end this section by commenting that if @xmath172 the modified singular value function coincides with the singular value function and @xmath173 and @xmath174 coincide with the natural affinity dimension . for the non - separated case with greatest contraction in the vertical it is sufficient to have @xmath175 .
conversely , if @xmath176 the almost sure box - counting dimension ( and therefore the almost sure hausdorff dimension ) of @xmath177 and @xmath57 will be strictly less than the associated affinity dimension .
in this section we will briefly define an infinite code tree and define the random attractor of an @xmath1-variable random iterated functions system ( rifs ) .
we set @xmath178 and define the full , randomly labelled , infinite tree to be the tree starting at a single root node and branching into @xmath179 subbranches .
we label each node with a single @xmath34 , chosen independently , according to probability vector @xmath126 .
there exists a natural probability measure on the space of all tree codings , which we will not explicitly state .
we denote the space of all randomly labelled trees by @xmath180 and refer to individual realisations picked according to the induced probability measure by @xmath181 . in this full tree
we address vertices by which branch was taken ; if @xmath182 is a node at level @xmath119 we write @xmath183 , with @xmath184 and root node @xmath185 .
the levels of the tree are then : @xmath186 we write @xmath187 to denote the random letter for node @xmath182 and realisation @xmath188 . given a node @xmath182 we define @xmath189 to be the full subtree starting at vertex @xmath182 , with @xmath190 . by definition @xmath191
is independent of @xmath192 for @xmath193 and either node not being contained in the other .
we note that in this section we relax the requirement that every ifs @xmath86 must contain at least one map , with a single ifs consisting of two maps .
we now allow an ifs to have no maps , i.e.  @xmath194 with positive probability , but we require a non - extinction condition .
we call a @xmath1-variable rifs _ non - extinguishing _ if @xmath195 note that this implies that there exists positive probability that the associated attractor ( defined below ) is non - empty
.    allowing for extinction we will have to extend the definition of the modified singular value function .
let @xmath92 , we define the _ upper ( random ) modified singular value function _ as @xmath196 again , @xmath197 and @xmath198 are defined analogously .    for each full tree @xmath188 that is randomly labelled by entries in @xmath108
, we associate another labelled tree @xmath199 , where each node is labelled by an arrangement of words that describes the ` coding ' of the associated cylinder .
[ infinitydef1 ] let @xmath199 be a labelled tree , we write @xmath200 for the label of node @xmath182 of the tree @xmath199 .
the coding tree @xmath199 is then defined inductively : @xmath201 should @xmath202 not exist , because @xmath203 we set @xmath204 .
this essentially ` deletes ' this subbranch as @xmath68 annihilates under multiplication .
we refer to the arrangement of all labels at the @xmath119-th level by @xmath205    we remark that the resulting tree will almost surely , conditioned on non - extinction , have an exponentially increasing number of vertices at level @xmath119 as @xmath119 increases .
we can now define the random recursive , or @xmath1-variable , attractor .
[ infinitydef2 ] let @xmath31 be a collection of ifss with non - trivial probability vector @xmath126 , i.e.  @xmath33 for all @xmath36 .
let @xmath181 , we define the _
@xmath1-variable attractor _
@xmath177 to be the compact set satisfying @xmath206    we write @xmath207 and @xmath208 to mean the almost sure box dimension of the projection onto the horizontal and vertical line . in this case
the projections are @xmath1-variable rifss or rgdss in the sense of troscheit  @xcite ( see definition  [ rgds ] ) and in the non - separated case both projections almost surely have the same dimension .
[ maininfinityresult ] let @xmath177 be the attractor of a random recursive self - affine box - like iterated function system .
the box dimension of @xmath177 , conditioned on non - extinction , is almost surely given by the unique @xmath145 satisfying @xmath209 if the attractor is such that the modified singular value function is additive , e.g.   if @xmath210 , we have , conditioned on non - extinction , @xmath211 almost surely , where @xmath212    similarly to the @xmath0-variable rifss we can get a dimension drop for @xmath1-variable attractors .
let @xmath177 be the attractor of an @xmath1-variable rifs that is not additive .
then the almost sure box - counting dimension of the attractor can drop below the least box - counting dimension of the individual attractors , that is there exists @xmath53 such that , almost surely , @xmath171    see example  [ weirdlyconvergingexample ] in section  [ sec : examples ] .
finally , we remark that the the box - counting dimension of @xmath1-variable ( self - affine ) attractors is always an upper bound to the box - counting dimension of @xmath0-variable ( self - affine ) attractors .
when @xmath213 is additive this can be easily seen by jensen s inequality , noting that ( [ shortenedeq ] ) is a geometric and ( [ additiveinfty ] ) an arithmetic average .
let @xmath214 be the ifs for a bedford - mcmullen carpet @xmath215 with subdivision @xmath216 and @xmath217 , consisting of two maps ; one maps the unit square to a rectangle in the left column and one maps the unit square into a rectangle of the right column . take @xmath218 to be the ifs for a bedford - mcmullen carpet @xmath219 with subdivision @xmath220 and @xmath221 , consisting of three maps , two mapping into the left column and one mapping into the right column , see figure  [ bmcarpetexample ] .
note that for both ifss the box dimension of the projection onto the horizontal is @xmath0 .
the modified singular value function takes the value @xmath222 for all elements @xmath223 and @xmath224 for all @xmath225 .
solving @xmath226 and @xmath227 for @xmath228 we get @xmath229 and @xmath230 . however , if @xmath125 is the @xmath231-bernoulli measure and substituting into  ( [ shortenedeq ] ) and solving for @xmath145 we get that almost surely @xmath232 and since @xmath233 equation  ( [ expectationofindivid ] ) fails even in the simple setting of bedford - mcmullen carpets with mixed subdivisions .
let @xmath214 be the ifs for a bedford - mcmullen carpet as in the previous example and let @xmath218 be another bedford - mcmullen carpet but with major contraction in the horizontal , see figure  [ bmcarpetexample2 ] .
note that the periodic word @xmath234 describes a self - similar set with hausdorff and box - counting dimension @xmath235 .
it is easy to check that the individual bedford - mcmullen carpets have box counting dimension @xmath0 .
again , @xmath53 is not of separated type and we can calculate the box - counting dimension for the @xmath0-variable model explicitly , assuming the @xmath231-bernoulli measure . first note that both projections have , by symmetry , the same dimension @xmath236 , which is the unique real satisfying @xmath237 , and so , almost surely @xmath238
. the box counting dimension of the carpet then becomes the unique @xmath228 satisfying @xmath239 a.s .  where @xmath119 is the maximum number of @xmath0s or @xmath240s in a randomly picked string @xmath241 .
since @xmath242 a.s .
we deduce @xmath243 and , almost surely , the box counting dimension of the @xmath0-variable carpet agrees with the rational word and is strictly less than the box - dimensions of the individual attractors .
taking the same @xmath214 , @xmath218 and @xmath244 but the @xmath1-variable construction , we can calculate the almost sure hausdorff dimension of the projection to be the unique @xmath245 satisfying @xmath246 . for tree levels that are odd
, the maximal singular value @xmath155 can not be equal to a power of two .
we can explicitly state the expectation of the tree at level @xmath247 for @xmath248 @xmath249 and so , as @xmath250 , we get for @xmath251 satisfying @xmath252 , @xmath253 again this is a dimension drop when compared to the original attractors , but not as substantial as for @xmath0-variable attractors .
this is , heuristically , due to the fact that , while on average the contractions would cancel out , many branches that contain an imbalance do not die out and continue to keep the imbalance .
this section is divided into two parts ; we prove the results in section  [ 1varsect ] in the first , followed by the proofs for section  [ inftyvarres ] .
first , however , we recall the definition of random graph directed systems introduced in  @xcite and then state and prove lemmas [ lma : constructionofprojections ] and [ lma : almostsureprojections ] , which apply to both @xmath0-variable and @xmath1-variable constructions .
[ rgds ] let @xmath254 be a finite collection of graphs sharing vertex set @xmath255 and associate to each graph a probability @xmath33 such that @xmath35 .
we represent each edge @xmath256 by a unique prime arrangement of words @xmath257 that codes an associated similitude @xmath258 . for @xmath259 write @xmath260{e}{_{w}}(i)=e_{1}\oplus\dots\oplus e_{n}$ ] ,
where the edges associated with the prime arrangements @xmath261 have initial vertex @xmath182 and terminal vertex @xmath111 .
we set @xmath260{e}{_{w}}(i)=\varnothing$ ] if no such edge exists .
let @xmath262{e}{_{1}}(i ) & \tensor*[_{1}]{e}{_{2}}(i ) & \dots & \tensor*[_{1}]{e}{_{m}}(i)\\ \tensor*[_{2}]{e}{_{1}}(i ) & \ddots &   & \tensor*[_{1}]{e}{_{m}}(i)\\ \vdots&&\ddots&\vdots\\ \tensor*[_{m}]{e}{_{1}}(i ) & \tensor*[_{m}]{e}{_{2}}(i ) & \dots & \tensor*[_{m}]{e}{_{m}}(i ) \end{pmatrix}\ ] ] and @xmath263 be a vector of length @xmath264 such that @xmath265 if @xmath266 and @xmath267 otherwise .
we define matrix multiplication of matrices over finite words in the obvious way , c.f .
( [ matrixmult ] ) .
let @xmath268 be the _
@xmath119-level sets _ for vertex @xmath269 .
@xmath0-variable random graph directed self similar set _
@xmath270 associated to @xmath271 and realisation @xmath128 is given by @xmath272 the @xmath1-variable random graph directed system is defined analogous to @xmath1-variable rifs ( see definitions  [ infinitydef1 ] and [ infinitydef2 ] ) , replacing @xmath202 by an appropriately chosen matrix @xmath273 and taking the sum of arrangements over the @xmath182-th column .      1 .   [ nontrivialgraph ]
we say that the collection @xmath276 is a _ non - trivial collection of graphs _ if for every @xmath34 and @xmath271 we have @xmath277{e(i)}{_{w}}\neq\varnothing.\ ] ] furthermore we require that there exist @xmath278 and @xmath279 such that @xmath280 .
[ strongconnected ] if for every @xmath259 there exists @xmath281 such that @xmath282{e}{_{w}}(\omega^{v , w})\neq\varnothing$ ] and @xmath283)>0 $ ] , we call @xmath276 _ stochastically strongly connected_. 3 .
[ contractingssrgds ] we call the _ random graph directed system ( rgds ) _ associated with @xmath276 a _ contracting self - similar rgds _ if for every @xmath284 , @xmath285 is a contracting similitude .
[ replacementcondition ] let @xmath274 be a finite collection of graphs , sharing the same vertex set @xmath275 .
we say that the collection @xmath276 is a _ non - trivial surviving collection of graphs _ if for every @xmath271 we have @xmath286{e(i)}{_{w}}\mid w\in v)>1 $ ] .
furthermore we require that there exist @xmath278 and @xmath279 such that @xmath280 .
[ lma : constructionofprojections ] the projections @xmath287 and @xmath288 , and @xmath289 and @xmath290 are , in the separated case , random self - similar and , in the non - separated case , random graph - directed self - similar sets in the sense of troscheit  @xcite .
the @xmath0-variable rgds satisfies all conditions in definition  [ graphdefs ] and the @xmath1-variable rgds satisfies all conditions in definition  [ graphdefs ] with condition  [ replacementcondition ] replacing [ nontrivialgraph ] .
assume that @xmath53 is separated ; without loss of generality ( considering all possible concatenations of two @xmath46 if necessary ) for every @xmath34 and @xmath291 the matrix @xmath44 does not have off - diagonal entries and for some @xmath292 each map @xmath46 can be rewritten as @xmath293 we define the two induced maps @xmath294 and @xmath295 by @xmath296 for every @xmath297 @xmath298 where @xmath299 .
so the attractor @xmath300 of the iterated function system @xmath301 , with @xmath302 satisfies @xmath303 .
a similar argument holds for the projection onto the vertical axis and thus the projections of @xmath57 onto the @xmath47 and @xmath48 axes are the attractors of the rifss @xmath304 and @xmath305 . finally note that the projections are similitudes and hence the projections of @xmath57 onto the horizontal and vertical axes are self - similar rifs .    the argument for the graph
directed construction in the non - separated case is similar . for each @xmath34
we define a graph @xmath306 , where all graphs @xmath307 share the same vertex set @xmath308 .
we define a new set of prime arrangements @xmath309 for the rgds , where for every @xmath60 we obtain to new unique words : @xmath310 and @xmath311 .
let @xmath46 be of the same form as  ( [ matrixformsep ] ) , we define @xmath312 for @xmath46 that map vertical lines to horizontal and vice versa , i.e. are of form @xmath313 we define @xmath314    fix @xmath34 , and define , for @xmath259 the edge set @xmath260{e}{_{w}}(i)$ ] by @xmath315{e}{_{v_{h}}}(i)=\bigoplus\{e^{x}_{i , j } \mid f_{i}^{j}\text { is of form ( \ref{matrixformsep})}\ } , \;\
; \tensor*[_{v_{v}}]{e}{_{v_{v}}}(i)=\bigoplus\{e^{y}_{i , j } \mid f_{i}^{j}\text { is of form ( \ref{matrixformsep})}\},\ ] ] @xmath315{e}{_{v_{v}}}(i)=\bigoplus\{e^{x}_{i , j } \mid f_{i}^{j}\text { is of form ( \ref{matrixformnonsep})}\ } , \;\ ; \tensor*[_{v_{v}}]{e}{_{v_{h}}}(i)=\bigoplus\{e^{y}_{i , j } \mid f_{i}^{j}\text { is of form ( \ref{matrixformnonsep})}\}.\ ] ]    it remains to check that @xmath316 and @xmath317 , for which it is sufficient to show that , given any finite arrangement of words in @xmath318 , @xmath319)\;\;\text{and}\;\ ; \pi_{y}f(e,\delta)=f(e^{y},[0,1])\ ] ] is satisfied , where @xmath320 and @xmath321 are the two induced paths , starting at @xmath322 and @xmath322 , respectively .
if @xmath323 , then @xmath324 and if @xmath325 , then @xmath326 and in both cases  ( [ projisthesame ] ) holds trivially . let @xmath327 with @xmath328 and write @xmath329 and @xmath330 for the induced paths .
assume that @xmath331)$ ] and @xmath332)$ ] .
consider the map @xmath46 and assume it is of the form  ( [ matrixformsep ] ) .
the map @xmath333 can be written as @xmath334 analogously , if @xmath46 is of form  ( [ matrixformnonsep ] ) , @xmath335 where we have used that @xmath336{e}{_{v_{v}}}(\omega_{1})$ ] and @xmath337{e}{_{v_{h}}}(\omega_{1})$ ] in  ( [ graphsignchange ] ) .
therefore , by induction on word length , @xmath338 and @xmath339 .
we conclude that @xmath316 and @xmath317 , where @xmath340 is the @xmath0-variable random graph directed system described in troscheit  @xcite , as all maps are similitudes .
finally we check the conditions .
non - triviality arises from the fact that @xmath33 for all @xmath34 , each map @xmath46 induces exactly one map starting at each of the two vertices and that we assume at least two maps to be distinct .
lastly , the stochastically strongly connected condition is satisfied since at least one of the maps is separated and there exists at least one pair @xmath54 such that horizontal get mapped to vertical lines .
[ lma : almostsureprojections ] let @xmath318 ( @xmath341 ) , then @xmath342 ( @xmath343 ) is constant almost surely and coincides with @xmath207 or @xmath208 , the almost sure box dimension of the projection of @xmath57 ( @xmath177 ) onto the horizontal or vertical , respectively .
if @xmath53 is non - separated , then additionally @xmath344 .
basic dimensional properties give that the box - counting dimension of a set @xmath17 is bounded above by @xmath345 so , almost surely the box dimension for @xmath0-variable and @xmath1-variable box - like carpets can not exceed @xmath346 . in the proofs below we will however also consider @xmath347 to show that our results are exactly the unique values @xmath145 such that ( [ maineq ] ) and ( [ additiveinfty ] ) hold , rather than @xmath348 .
the modified singular value function is in certain cases either stochastically subadditive , additive or superadditive .
the proof shares many similarities with ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.1 ) , although differs in some points because @xmath349 and @xmath350 do not surely coincide .
[ lma : stochadditivity ] let @xmath318 and @xmath351 be such that @xmath352 . writing @xmath353 and @xmath354 for some quantities that will arise in the proof but are almost surely equal to one , the following statements hold      we first prove the results concerning the modified singular value function and deal with the separated case , which implies that @xmath359 can only take the value of @xmath360 or @xmath361 , where @xmath362 and @xmath363 are the height and width of the rectangle @xmath364 . without loss of generality
we can assume that @xmath365 i.e.  @xmath366 .
we therefore have the following cases to check              the required cases then follow by letting @xmath228 take the appropriate values . +   + for the non - separated case we have almost surely @xmath376 .
however we need to bound the inequality surely and let @xmath377 note that @xmath378 .
equivalently @xmath379 for some @xmath380 and so we have for all @xmath128 , @xmath381 for some @xmath382 $ ] .
the required inequalities follow again by letting @xmath228 take appropriate values . note
that , while @xmath383 holds for all @xmath147 in the separated case , the equality holds only for @xmath384 .
as it turns out this does not make a difference to the convergence of @xmath385 .
+   + we now move on to proving the inequalities involving @xmath386 .
we have for @xmath387 and @xmath388 such that @xmath389 and @xmath390 $ ] , @xmath391 the other inequality follow by a similar argument , again noting that @xmath392 for all @xmath147 in the separated case and for all @xmath384 in the non - separated case .
[ kingmanprop ] let @xmath393 be a ( measurable ) random variable on a probability space @xmath394 and let @xmath395 be an invariant map .
if the expectation of the subadditive defects is bounded by a sequence of reals numbers @xmath396 , i.e.   @xmath397 where @xmath398 satisfies @xmath399 , and @xmath400 is bounded from below , then @xmath401 converges almost surely to some random variable @xmath402 .
if @xmath395 is ergodic with respect to @xmath125 , then @xmath403 is constant for almost every @xmath404 and @xmath405 almost surely .
let @xmath355 $ ] , and consider @xmath410 .
we first note that @xmath410 is a ( measurable ) random variable .
since there exists @xmath411 such that @xmath412 for all @xmath36 and @xmath413 , we can write @xmath414 hence the condition on bounded infimum is satisfied .
obviously the shift map @xmath415 is an invariant transformation on @xmath416 and the expectation of the subadditive defects is @xmath417 applying  ( [ pressubmult ] ) we get @xmath418 and therefore @xmath419 converges to the same value for almost every @xmath404 with the limit given by @xmath420 the case for @xmath421 follows by considering the random variable @xmath422 and we will omit details here . we simply comment that the limit is then equal to @xmath423 the equality @xmath424 follows by observing @xmath425 and then substituting in ( [ infimumpressure ] ) and ( [ supremumpressure ] ) .
let @xmath427 and @xmath428 .
we have for @xmath429 , @xmath430 and similarly we can establish the lower bound to get @xmath431 it immediately follows that @xmath385 is continuous and strictly decreasing . furthermore , letting @xmath432 we can see that @xmath433 as @xmath434 . finally consider @xmath435 the last inequality follows by our assumption that at least one of out ifss contains two maps .
we can therefore conclude that @xmath145 in  ( [ unitypressure ] ) is unique , which concludes the proof .
[ upperboundlemma ] let @xmath19 and let @xmath57 be the attractor of a box - like self - affine random iterated function system .
irrespective of overlaps , almost surely , @xmath440 therefore @xmath145 is an almost sure upper bound to the box counting dimension of @xmath57 .    for @xmath318
define @xmath441 thus we can , for any stopping @xmath442 , rewrite @xmath57 as the union of these sets , that is @xmath443 let @xmath429 be arbitrary and let @xmath444 be a minimal @xmath26-cover of @xmath445 ; we have @xmath446 recall that @xmath106 is the projection onto the axes parallel to the longest side of @xmath95 . using  [ coveringestimate ]
we get @xmath447 since the rectangles have shortest length equal to @xmath448 or less . now notice that for @xmath429 there exists @xmath449 such that @xmath450 with @xmath451 holding almost surely .
we thus get @xmath452 and as @xmath453 for all @xmath454 we deduce , for some @xmath455 , @xmath456 but since @xmath457 there exists @xmath458 for almost every @xmath404 such that @xmath459 we therefore get the almost sure inequality @xmath460 and hence @xmath461 as required .
[ complicatedlowerlemma ] let @xmath462 , @xmath463 $ ] and assume that the rifs @xmath31 satisfies the rectangular open set condition .
we define @xmath464 then , for sufficiently small @xmath26 , @xmath465 is negative if and only if @xmath466 , and positive if and only if @xmath467 . for @xmath468
, we obtain @xmath469 as @xmath470 .
we start by introducing the same notation as in  @xcite and write the stopping @xmath471 in an infinite matrix fashion
. let @xmath472 we define the vector @xmath473 matrix multiplication @xmath474 and addition @xmath70 for such matrices and vectors is defined in the natural way : @xmath475 @xmath476    given @xmath477 , for every @xmath478 there exists a unique @xmath248 such that @xmath479 , for @xmath480 .
fix such a @xmath481 , we start by showing that @xmath482 where we write @xmath483 to indicate @xmath484 and @xmath485 are bounded uniformly away from @xmath486 .
the first equality in  ( [ thelasymp ] ) is immediate as @xmath487 for the asymptotic equality note that there exists @xmath488 so that for any @xmath489 and @xmath490 such that @xmath491 with @xmath492 we have @xmath493 now also note that for every @xmath494 there exists unique @xmath495 and @xmath496 such that @xmath497\subseteq[e]\subseteq[e^{\dagger}].\ ] ] there also exists @xmath498 , independent of @xmath147 , such that for all @xmath499 we have @xmath500 as all maps are contractions .
we find the following bounds , where , for @xmath501 , the @xmath490 is such that @xmath502 , @xmath503 and @xmath504 hence the asymptotic equation in  ( [ thelasymp ] ) holds .
now , by ( [ boundedsingular ] ) and ( [ cylinderinclusions ] ) we have for some @xmath505 that @xmath506 is related to the sum of the modified singular value function over the @xmath481 approximation codings by @xmath507{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}}}\psi_{\omega}^{t}(e ) \text { and } \ ; \tensor*[_{k}]{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}}=\mathds{1}^{k}_{{\varepsilon}_{0}}\underbrace{\widehat\xi_{\omega}^{\xi}\dots\widehat\xi_{\omega}^{\xi}}_{k\text { times}}.\ ] ] now consider the infinite matrix @xmath508 that is defined by @xmath509{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}})_{j}}\psi_{\omega}^{t}(e)\ ] ] by definition the sum over all entries in the @xmath36-th row is @xmath510 and we now show that the sums of the @xmath36-th column is related to @xmath511 , in fact it is easy to see that every entry of the @xmath119-th column of @xmath512 is a lower bound to @xmath511 as every such entry is given by a word of length @xmath119 .
but as the number of column entries grows at most at a rate of @xmath513 , and combining this with ( [ boundedsingular ] ) and ( [ cylinderinclusions ] ) we get for some @xmath514 @xmath515 similarly for every @xmath516 there exists @xmath517{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}})$ ] for some @xmath518 such that @xmath519\subseteq[g]$ ] and using ( [ cylinderinclusions ] ) and ( [ boundedsingular ] ) again we get for some @xmath520 that @xmath521 we call @xmath522 the _ @xmath523-corridor at @xmath119 _ and denote by @xmath524 all pairs @xmath525 such that @xmath526 .
that is the pairs in @xmath524 are the coordinates of the @xmath523-corridor at @xmath527 .
the final ingredient is to compare the rate of growth of the columns with the rate of growth of the rows .
first notice that the rate of growth of the rows is related to the maximal element in the row by @xmath528 note that elements in the matrix can not increase arbitrarily from row to row , that is we have for some @xmath529 , @xmath530 combining this with the fact that at least one of @xmath531 is positive , the maximal element can not move arbitrarily and for every column @xmath119 there exists a row @xmath532 such that @xmath533 but using the existence of @xmath523 and that the @xmath534 do not contain the empty word , we also have @xmath535 for @xmath536 and @xmath537 .
we deduce that @xmath538{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}}}\psi_{\omega}^{t}(e)&&\text{by ( \ref{approxcodingbounds})}\nonumber\\ & = c_{2}^{k}\sum_{j}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{k , j}\nonumber\\ & \leq c_{2}^{k}n(\xi)k(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{k , j_{\max}}&&\text { for some } j_{\max}\in\{k,\dots , n(\xi)k\}\nonumber\\ & \leq c_{2}^{k}n(\xi)k\sum_{l=0}^{n(\xi)-1}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{i , l+j_{\max}}\nonumber\\ & \leq c_{2}^{k}c_{3}c_{1}^{n(\xi)}n(\xi)^{2}k\psi_{\omega}^{j_{\max}}(t)&&\text{by ( \ref{psiupperbound})}.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly , we can derive the lower bound , @xmath539{\widehat\xi}{_{\omega}^{\xi}}}\psi_{\omega}^{t}(e)&&\text{by ( \ref{approxcodingbounds})}\nonumber\\ & = c_{2}^{-k}\sum_{j}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{k , j}\nonumber\\ & \geq c_{2}^{-k}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{k , j_{\max}}&&\text { for maximising } j_{\max}\in\{k,\dots , n(\xi)k\}\nonumber\\ & \geq c_{2}^{-k}c_{5}^{-k - j_{\max}-n(\xi)}\max_{(i , j)\in\mathfrak{c}_{\xi}(j_{\max})}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{i , j}\label{complicatedderivation}\\ & \geq \frac{c_{2}^{-k}c_{5}^{-k - n(\xi)k - n(\xi)}}{n(\xi)(j_{\max}+n(\xi))}\sum_{j=0}^{n(\xi)-1}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}(\mathcal{m}_{\omega}^{\xi}(t))_{i , j+j_{\max}}\nonumber\\ & \geq \frac{c_{2}^{-k}c_{5}^{-k - n(\xi)k - n(\xi ) } } { c_{4}c_{1}^{n(\xi)}n(\xi)(j_{\max}+n(\xi))}\psi_{\omega}^{j_{\max}}(t)\nonumber.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the inequality in ( [ complicatedderivation ] ) arises as the maximal element in the @xmath523-corridor at @xmath540 must be in one of @xmath541 rows and the maximal element can be no larger than @xmath542 times the maximal in any of the preceding rows by  ( [ arbitraryincrease ] ) .
thus we get upper and lower bounds to @xmath506 and we find for some @xmath543 such that @xmath544 thus , for arbitrary @xmath429 , we can pick @xmath481 small enough such that @xmath545 similarly , for some @xmath546 and small enough @xmath481 , @xmath547 observe now that almost surely @xmath548 similarly , almost surely , @xmath549 now as @xmath448 was arbitrary we conclude that for small enough @xmath26 that @xmath550 is greater than @xmath0 if and only if @xmath467 , and @xmath551 if and
only if @xmath466 . by a continuity argument similar to lemma  [ continuitylemma ] we obtain @xmath552 if and only if @xmath468 .
let @xmath19 and consider the @xmath26-mesh on @xmath134 , denoted by @xmath554 . since we assume the uniform open rectangle condition , the open rectangles @xmath555 are pairwise disjoint .
furthermore the side lengths of the rectangles @xmath556 are bounded below by @xmath557 by definition and thus the number of rectangles of @xmath558 each square in the grid of @xmath554 can intersect is at most @xmath559 .
thus @xmath560 in a similar fashion to the upper bound proof , lemma  [ upperboundlemma ] , we find @xmath561 using  ( [ alphaboundseq ] ) we have @xmath562 thus , for some @xmath455 , @xmath563 this in turn gives @xmath564 the upped bound follows almost surely because the first term , and by lemma  [ complicatedlowerlemma ] , the last term is positive for small enough @xmath26 .
in this section we prove the remaining results .
we define a random variable @xmath565 and show that it behaves similarly to a martingale . for @xmath566
we have @xmath567 a.s .  and
@xmath228 is an almost sure lower bound to the box - counting dimension of @xmath177 .
we define a new random variable @xmath568 , that behaves similarly to @xmath565 and prove that @xmath462 implies @xmath569 exponentially ( a.s . ) .
this will then imply @xmath228 is a lower bound .
[ itsamartingale ] let @xmath565 be the random variable given by @xmath570 for any @xmath571 and @xmath572 and some random variable @xmath573 defined in  ( [ approximateconstant ] ) , the sequence of random variables satisfies @xmath574 here @xmath575 refers to the filtration corresponding to the ` knowledge of outcomes up to the @xmath119-th level ' and we note that @xmath573 does not depend on @xmath527 . for @xmath576
$ ] we furthermore have @xmath577 and the sequence @xmath578 forms a supermartingale if @xmath579 .
let @xmath580 and @xmath581 , then there exists a constant @xmath582 such that @xmath583 we define the dual of the modified singular value function @xmath584where @xmath585 is the box dimension of the projection of @xmath177 onto the _
shorter _ side of @xmath95 .
we find that @xmath582 takes only a few possible values , depending on @xmath71 and @xmath490 .
case ( 1a ) . since the rifs is of
non - separated type , for almost all @xmath181 , we have @xmath589 .
furthermore , almost surely , @xmath590 and so @xmath591 a.s .. +   + case ( 1b ) . as the rifs is of non - separated type and the directions of the maximal modified singular value coincide we can apply  ( [ separatedratiodecomposes ] ) and get @xmath591 , for all @xmath181 .
+   + case ( 2 ) .
we can write , for almost every @xmath181 , @xmath592 and so @xmath593 . +   + case ( 3 ) .
similarly we can write , for almost every @xmath181 , @xmath594 and so @xmath595 .    therefore @xmath596 where @xmath597 we will analyse @xmath598 in lemma  [ martingalefactorconvergesto1 ] and here only comment that by inspection we deduce @xmath599 for @xmath576 $ ] and so ( [ lastmartingaleline ] ) becomes @xmath600 and the sequence of random variables @xmath578 forms a supermartingale if @xmath601 .
[ upperboundproof ] let @xmath576 $ ] and @xmath602 .
then the sequence @xmath603 converges to @xmath486 exponentially fast ( a.s . ) and @xmath140 is an almost sure upper bound to the box - counting dimension of @xmath177 , so @xmath604    if @xmath602 there exists @xmath527 such that @xmath605 by definition , see ( [ subadditiveexpecationequi ] ) .
therefore , by lemma  [ itsamartingale ] , @xmath578 is a strict supermartingale .
hence @xmath606 as @xmath607 and since @xmath608 , we get @xmath609 as @xmath610 , almost surely .
one can further show that this happens at an exponential rate and there exists @xmath611 and @xmath612 such that @xmath613 ; we omit details .
we now define a stopping set @xmath614 analogously to before @xmath615 and we can modify the argument in lemma  [ upperboundlemma ] accordingly to get , for @xmath616 , @xmath617 almost surely . we conclude that @xmath145 is an almost sure upper bound to the box - counting dimension of @xmath177
.      we first decompose ( [ martingaleexpansionline ] ) into @xmath620 without loss of generality we can assume that the rifs is strictly self - affine , that is there exists at least one @xmath46 such that @xmath621 , since otherwise we trivially have @xmath591 and so @xmath622 . we recall that @xmath527 is fixed and thus there exists a maximal extremity @xmath623 . now consider a word @xmath580 for large @xmath119 and consider the case of @xmath588 .
we must , by the bounded length of @xmath490 , have @xmath624 as @xmath610 , but then @xmath625 as @xmath610 .
finally consider @xmath587 . since @xmath119 is large ,
@xmath359 is substantially smaller than @xmath586 and @xmath626 and as @xmath213 behaves exponentially to changes in @xmath155 the boundedness of @xmath627 gives that @xmath628 behaves as @xmath629 for large @xmath119 and hence @xmath630 and thus @xmath631 , irrespective of @xmath188 .
we remark at this stage that the result in lemma  [ martingalefactorconvergesto1 ] shows that the sequence @xmath632 looks like a martingale ` in the limit ' . in the additive case
, @xmath633 ( surely ) and one can show that @xmath632 is a @xmath634-bounded martingale , but to work in greater generality we will not employ this fact here and prove the lower bound by a branching argument .
[ lowerboundproof ] for @xmath635 , the sequence of random variables @xmath603 diverges to @xmath636 almost surely and hence the box dimension of @xmath177 is bounded below by s. we conclude @xmath637 almost surely .    using the definition for the new @xmath1-variable stopping set @xmath614 and using an argument identical to lemma  [ lma : mainlower ] we can write for @xmath638 and some @xmath455 and some almost surely positive @xmath639 , @xmath640 but one can easily see that for any @xmath641 , the random variable @xmath642 is also an approximate martingale , c.f .
( [ infinityquasimartingale ] ) , for some constant @xmath573 that behaves as in lemma  [ martingalefactorconvergesto1 ] , @xmath643 now , for @xmath635 let @xmath119 be large enough such that @xmath644 choose @xmath641 such that @xmath645 .
then @xmath646 for all @xmath527 .
now choose @xmath647 large enough such that @xmath648 .
using  ( [ anotherboundbitesthedust ] ) , we conclude that @xmath649 increases exponentially as @xmath650 grows . similarly , since @xmath651 , there exists some @xmath652 and constant @xmath653 such that @xmath654 .
consider the stopping trees @xmath655 .
since we are conditioning on non - extinction , a simple borel - cantelli argument shows that , almost surely , in every surviving branch there are infinitely many nodes where the branch splits into two or more subbranches . for definiteness let @xmath656 be the least integer such that @xmath657 . we know that @xmath658 are independent and identical in distribution and hence , for @xmath659 , @xmath660 note that the measure @xmath125 in ( [ eqn : conditionalmeasure2 ] ) and ( [ eqn : conditionalmeasure2 ] )
is conditioned on @xmath661 . however , since @xmath662 for all such nodes , ( [ eqn : unconditional ] ) holds unconditionally . for @xmath663
$ ] , the only solutions to @xmath664 are @xmath486 and @xmath0 , and we conclude that the probability that @xmath665 ( eventually ) increases at least at exponential rate @xmath666 and at most at rate @xmath667 is @xmath486 or @xmath0 . letting @xmath668 and @xmath669 , it is easy to see that the probability must be @xmath0 by noticing that @xmath670 and @xmath671 for sufficiently small @xmath429 .
this , and the arbitrariness of @xmath672 imply that there exists @xmath673 and a random constant @xmath674 such that @xmath675 almost surely .
using the same idea one can extend lemma  [ upperboundproof ] and drop the @xmath681 condition by picking @xmath647 large enough such that @xmath682 , we omit details . combining lemmas [ upperboundproof ] and [ upperboundproof ]
we conclude that theorem [ maininfinityresult ] holds .