Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Central measures on the r-differential version of the Young--Fibonacci graph

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Martin boundary of the r-differential Young–Fibonacci graph consists exactly of the $\mu_{r,v,\beta}$ measures plus a reweighted Plancherel measure, and every one of them is ergodic.

desk verdict A genuine extension of the Young–Fibonacci boundary results to all r≥2, with a solid path-count transfer, but the classification is incomplete because distinctness of the listed measures is promised but never proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16756 v1 pith:XJJ6QN3Y submitted 2024-11-24 math.FA math.CO

Vsevolod Evtushevsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.CO MSC 05A1505E1031C3560J50
keywords centralmeasuresMartinboundaryYoung–Fibonaccigraphr-differentialgradedpathspaceergodicityPlancherelmeasureenumeration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

For each integer $r\ge 2$, the paper gives a complete description of the Martin boundary of the path space of the $r$-differential Young–Fibonacci graph, the natural $r$-parameter generalization of the classical Young–Fibonacci lattice. The boundary consists of the measures $\mu_{r,v,\beta}$, one for every infinite boundary word $v$ with $\pi(v)>0$ and every $\beta\in(0,1]$, together with a single reweighted Plancherel measure $\mu_{r,P}$. Each measure is obtained as a limit of passage probabilities through a finite vertex along sequences of vertices converging to a boundary word, and the limiting value depends only on the finite vertex, the boundary word, and $\beta$. The paper then proves that every measure in this list is ergodic, so the Martin boundary is exactly the ergodic list of Martin limits for the $r$-differential family.

What carries the argument

The machinery is bijective path counting. Theorem 2 expresses the number $d_r(w,v)$ of downward paths between finite vertices as $r^{d(v)-\#w}$ times a finite combination of ordinary Young–Fibonacci path counts $d_1$ after forgetting unit indices: $d_r(w,v)=r^{d(v)-\#w}\bigl(d_1(w,v)+\sum_{l=1}^{e(w,v)}d_1(w\{l\},v\{l\})(r^l-r^{l-1})-\mathbf{1}_{w,v}d_1(w\{e(w,v)+1\},v\{e(w,v)+1\})r^{e(w,v)}\bigr)$. The $g$-function encodes the positions and lengths of the blocks of twos in a word, and the product $\pi(v)$ built from $g$ is the parameter that decides whether a boundary sequence contributes a $\beta$-family or collapses to the Plancherel limit. Assertion 4 converts the path-count formula into the termwise limits used in every Martin-boundary calculation.

What would settle it

Compute both sides of Theorem 2 for a small pair in $YF_2$, for example $w=1_1$ and $v=1_1 2 1_2$, by listing all downward paths directly; any disagreement falsifies the formula. Equivalently, evaluate the Martin ratio $d_2(\varepsilon,w)d_2(w,v_n)/d_2(\varepsilon,v_n)$ along a sequence $v_n$ converging to a boundary word with $\pi(v_n)\to 0$ and check that the limit equals $\mu_P(s(w))/r^{e(w)}$ for every $w$; one counterexample overturns the classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4 together with Remark 7 and Theorem 10. For every $r\ge 2$, fix a boundary word $v$ over the alphabet $\{1_1,\dots,1_r,2\}$ with $\pi(v)=\prod_{g(v,i)>1}\frac{g(v,i)-1}{g(v,i)}>0$ and a parameter $\beta\in(0,1]$. If a sequence of finite vertices $v_n$ converges symbolwise to $v$ and $\pi(v_n)/\pi(v)\to\beta$, then for every finite vertex $w$ the Martin ratio $d_r(\varepsilon,w)d_r(w,v_n)/d_r(\varepsilon,v_n)$ converges to a value $\mu_{r,v,\beta}(w)$ depending only on $w$, $v$, and $\beta$. If instead $\pi(v_n)\to 0$, the same ratio converges independently of $v$ to the Plancherel-type measure $\mu_{r,P}(w)=\mu_P(s(w))/r^{e(w)}$, where $s(w)$ is $w$ with every unit index erased and $\mu_P$ is the ordinary Young–Fibonacci Plancherel weight $d_1(\varepsilon,s(w))^2/|w|!$. Remark 7 states that no other Martin-boundary measures exist, and Theorem 10 states that every measure in this list is ergodic.

Load-bearing premise

The whole boundary classification rests on Theorem 2's path-count formula, which assumes the earlier Young–Fibonacci enumeration and counts every index choice by a power of $r$; if that count omits or double-counts any lifting, the Martin limits and hence the classification collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $r\ge 2$ the Martin boundary of the $r$-differential Young–Fibonacci graph is fully classified; no other Martin-central measures exist.
  • The Plancherel measure on $YF_r$ is the ordinary Young–Fibonacci Plancherel weight divided by $r^{e(w)}$, namely $\mu_{r,P}(w)=\mu_P(s(w))/r^{e(w)}$.
  • Every boundary measure $\mu_{r,v,\beta}$ and $\mu_{r,P}$ is ergodic, so almost every infinite path under such a measure sees the cylinder weights as limiting empirical frequencies.
  • Summing $\mu_{r,v,\beta}$ over all liftings of a Young–Fibonacci vertex under the index-forgetting map gives the corresponding ordinary boundary measure $\mu_{v,\beta}$, as stated in Corollary 4.
  • The explicit path-count formula gives finite-vertex Martin kernels that can be used to compute boundary measures numerically for concrete words and parameters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence not drawn in the paper is that, since the Martin boundary is ergodic, every central measure on $YF_r$ should admit an ergodic decomposition supported on this boundary, not only those that arise directly as Martin limits.
  • The quotient relation of Corollary 4 suggests that the Martin boundary of $YF_r$ is a fibration over the classical Young–Fibonacci boundary, with the parameter $\beta$ and the index choices carried in the fibre; a testable formulation would be a bijection between the two boundary sets with the forgetting map.
  • For $r=2$ one could numerically simulate random walks conditioned to pass through growing vertices and compare the empirical limits with the closed formulas obtained from Theorem 2; this would serve as a computational check of the boundary classification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the r-differential version of the Young–Fibonacci graph YF_r for integers r ≥ 2. It first proves a path-count formula (Theorem 2) that expresses the number of downward paths d_r(w,v) in terms of the ordinary Young–Fibonacci counts d_1 and powers of r, using the map s that forgets the indices of unit symbols. It then uses this formula, together with the known Martin boundary classification for YF, to show that every Martin-boundary measure is a limit of one of the two types μ_{r,v,β} (for infinite boundary words v with π(v)>0 and β∈(0,1]) or μ_{r,P} (the Plancherel measure). The paper further claims that all these measures are ergodic, with proofs for the Plancherel case and for the general case carried out by analogy with earlier works. The central aims are a complete classification of central measures on YF_r and their ergodicity.

Significance. If the classification is correct, the paper gives a complete description of the Martin boundary of the path space of YF_r for every r ≥ 2, extending the fundamental results of Goodman–Kerov [4] and the ergodicity results [7,8,9] to the r-differential family. The path-count transfer via the forgetting map s is a natural and clean reduction, and the computations in Theorems 2 and 4 are coherent and well structured; the use of previously established YF results as lemmas is appropriate. The claimed result would be a valuable contribution to the asymptotic theory of graded graphs and central measures. However, as detailed below, the exactness of the classification is not fully established because the distinctness of the listed measures is only announced and never proved.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Remark 7] The classification theorem is incomplete because the distinctness of the listed measures is asserted but not proved. Theorem 4 establishes only exhaustion: every sequence v_n has a subsequence whose limit measure is of the form μ_{r,v,β} or μ_{r,P}. It does not show that different pairs (v,β) give different measures, nor that μ_{r,P} is distinct from the μ_{r,v,β}. Remark 7 states 'Различность этих мер будет доказана позже', but no such proof appears in Sections 3–5. Corollary 4 reduces a hypothetical equality μ_{r,v,β}=μ_{r,v',β'} to the equality μ_{s(v),β}=μ_{s(v'),β'} on YF, which by Theorem 3(3) gives s(v)=s(v') and β=β', but this does not separate words with the same forgetting map but different unit indices. The term 1_{w,v} d_1(w{e(w,v)+1}, v{e(w,v)+1}) r^{e(w,v)} in the formula of Theorem 4 is sensitive to such differences, but no concrete check of injectivity on each fiber of s is provided. Consequently the statement in Remark 7 that the Martin boundary 'состоит только из таких мер' is unsupported as an exact description; at present the paper establishes only that every boundary measure is among the listed ones, not that the list is irredundant.
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 10] The proof of ergodicity of all Martin-boundary measures is delegated: Theorem 10 is stated to be 'fully analogous' to Corollary 11 of [9], and Theorem 5 is likewise attributed to [7] without a detailed adaptation. Since ergodicity is one of the two headline claims, the reader cannot verify these results from the manuscript alone. In particular, Theorem 10 relies on Theorem 9 and on the classification of Theorem 4; if the classification is only one-sided (as noted above), the ergodicity statement may refer to a list with possible redundancies. The author should either write out the adaptation or give a precise dictionary between the parameters v, β, r here and the corresponding parameters in [9].
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, last paragraph] The phrase 'известный естественную r-дифференциальную' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'известную естественную r-дифференциальную'.
  2. [Corollary 4] The statement 'Пусть r ∈ Nn⩾2' contains a typo; it should read 'Пусть r ∈ N, r ⩾ 2'.
  3. [Proof of Theorem 4] In the limit computation, the quantities e(w,v_n) and h(w,v_n) are replaced by e(w,v) and h(w,v) without an explicit note; this is justified by the symbolwise convergence v_n→v, but the stabilization should be stated for clarity.
  4. [References] References [5] and [6] appear to be two versions (journal and arXiv) of the same path-enumeration result; the relationship between them should be clarified or one should be cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the r-differential Martin boundary and ergodicity are derived from a new path-count identity plus the previously established r=1 (Young–Fibonacci) results; the only flagged gap is an unproved distinctness promise in Remark 7.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 2 derives the r-differential path count d_r(w,v) from the r=1 formula of the author's earlier works [5,6] by a bijective factor r^{d(v)-#w} and a telescoping sum; this is a lemma about counting paths, not the Martin-boundary classification itself. Theorem 4 then inserts Theorem 2 into the Martin kernel and evaluates termwise limits using Assertion 4, whose proof uses Goodman–Kerov's Proposition 8.6 [4] and a short product estimate; the limiting measures μ_{r,v,β} and μ_{r,P} are computed from the formula, not assumed. Corollary 4 and Theorems 7 and 9 reduce sums over r-index fibers S_r(u) to the r=1 measures μ_{v,β}, and Theorem 10 then invokes the r=1 ergodicity result of [9]; this is a genuine reduction to a strictly weaker known case, not a circular use of the target classification. There are no fitted parameters presented as predictions: v and β are subsequential limits, and no parameter is tuned to a subset of the data. The self-citations [5,6,8,9] are load-bearing, but they supply independent prior theorems about YF (r=1), not the r>=2 conclusion, so they do not make the argument circular. One completeness gap should be noted, though it is not circularity: Remark 7 states "Различность этих мер будет доказана позже" (distinctness of these measures will be proved later), but no proof of pairwise distinctness of the μ_{r,v,β} appears in Sections 3–5; ergodicity in Theorem 10 does not imply distinctness. Thus the asserted exact classification is not fully established, but the reasoning that is present does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear. The graph family is a mathematical construction from prior literature (Fomin, Stanley); the boundary labels v and beta are part of the claimed classification, not fitted quantities. The central derivation imports known path-count and boundary theorems, including the author's earlier works [5,6,8,9], and then performs new combinatorial and limit arguments for r>=2.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption YF_r as defined in Notation 2 is a modular lattice and an r-differential graded graph.
    Stated without proof in Notation 2; it defines the object under study and underlies the path space.
  • standard math d_1(w,v) = sum_i f(v,i,h(w,v)) prod_j (g(v,j)-i) from [5,6] (Theorem 1).
    Imported path-count formula for r=1; used in Theorem 2 and all Martin-boundary computations.
  • standard math Proposition 8.6 and Theorem 8.7 from Goodman-Kerov [4] describe the Martin boundary of YF (Assertion 3 and Theorem 3).
    The r>1 classification reduces to it via the forgetting map s.
  • standard math Corollary 10 from [9] (Theorem 6) gives vanishing of Young-Fibonacci boundary measures on bad vertex sets.
    Used as the backbone of the ergodicity proof for YF_r.
  • domain assumption Martin boundary of a graded graph coincides with limits of the ratio sequences d_r(eps,w)d_r(w,v_n)/d_r(eps,v_n).
    Section 3 adopts this as the working definition, following Vershik's survey [3] and Goodman-Kerov [4].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Central measures on the r-differential version of the Young--Fibonacci graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJJ6QN3Y

@misc{pith2026241116756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Central measures on the r-differential version of the Young--Fibonacci graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJJ6QN3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16756}
}
abstract

We describe Martin boundary of the path space of $r$-differential version of Young--Fibonacci graph. Also we establish ergodicity of the corresponding measures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    В этом случае данное выражение равняется следующему: Y j∈a,d(v): g(v,j)⩽i g (v, j) − i g (v, j) · Y j∈1,a−1: g(v,j)>i g (v, j) g (v, j) − i · lim n→∞ πi(vn) = = Y j∈a,d(v): g(v,j)⩽i g (v, j) − i g (v, j) · Y j∈1,a−1: g(v,j)>i g (v, j) g (v, j) − i · βi · πi(v) = = βi· Y j∈a,d(v): g(v,j)⩽i g (v, j) − i g (v, j) · Y j∈1,a−1: g(v,j)>i g (v, j) g (v, j) − i ·...

    work page

  2. [4]

    бесконечно удалённую вершину

    заменить любую двойку, расположенную левее самой левой еди- ницы, на единицу c любым индексом. Обозначение 3. Граф YF1 будем отождествлять с графом YF путём отождествления символов 11 в графе YF1 и 1 в графе YF. Определение 1. Пусть r ∈ N, {αi}∞ i=1 ∈ {Sr i=1 1i, 2}∞ – бесконечная по- следовательность из единиц с индексами и двоек. Этой последовательно- с...

    work page

  3. [7]

    Тогда ∀a ∈ 1, d(v), i∈ N : lim n→∞ d(vn)Y j=a g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) = βi · d(v)Y j=a g (v, j) − i g (v, j)

    Пусть r ∈ N, {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YFr)∞ , v∈ YFr,+ ∞ , β∈ (0, 1] : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →β · π(v). Тогда ∀a ∈ 1, d(v), i∈ N : lim n→∞ d(vn)Y j=a g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) = βi · d(v)Y j=a g (v, j) − i g (v, j)

    work page

  4. [1]

    заменить самую левую единицу на двойку

    work page

  5. [2]

    Этот граф помимо модулярности является 1-дифференциальным, то есть для каждой вершины исходящая степень на1 превосходит входящую степень

    вставить единицу левее чем самая левая единица. Этот граф помимо модулярности является 1-дифференциальным, то есть для каждой вершины исходящая степень на1 превосходит входящую степень. Изучение градуированного графа Юнга – Фибоначчи было иницииро- вано в 1988 году одновременно и независимо такими математиками, как Сергей Владимирович Фомин [1] и Ричард С...

    work page 2000

  6. [3]

    удалить самую левую единицу

    work page

  7. [5]

    Если 1 w,v = 1, то dr(w, v) = h(w,v)X l=0 (d1 (w[l], v[l]) − d1(w[l + 1], v[l + 1]))· r#v−#w−e(v[l])

    work page

  8. [6]

    бесконечно удалённой вершине

    Если 1 w,v = 0, то dr(w, v) = h(w,v)−1X l=0 (d1(w[l], v[l]) − d1(w[l + 1], v[l + 1]))·r#v−#w−e(v[l])+d1 wv, vw ·r#v−#w−e(vw). Замечание 4. Пусть r ∈ N⩾2, w, v∈ YFr : 1 w,v = 1. Тогда d1(w[h(w, v)+1], v[h(w, v)+1]) =d1 (w{e(w, v) + 1}, v{e(w, v) + 1}) =d1 wv[1], vw[1] . Т еорема 2. Пусть r ∈ N, w, v∈ YFr. Тогда dr(w, v) =rd(v)−#w · d1(w, v) + e(w,v)X l=1 d...

    work page

Show all 26 references
  1. [8]

    Тогда ∀a ∈ 1, d(v), i∈ N : lim n→∞ d(vn)Y j=a g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) = 0

    Пусть r ∈ N, {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YFr)∞ , v∈ YFr ∞ : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →0. Тогда ∀a ∈ 1, d(v), i∈ N : lim n→∞ d(vn)Y j=a g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) = 0. Доказательство. lim n→∞ d(vn)Y j=a g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) = = lim n→∞ Y j∈a,d(vn): g(vn,j)⩽i g (vn, j) − i g (vn, ...

  2. [10]

    Заметим, что выражение под ним всегда неотрицательное

    В этом случае рассмотрим только предел. Заметим, что выражение под ним всегда неотрицательное. lim n→∞ Y j∈1,d(vn): g(vn,j)>i g (vn, j) − i g (vn, j) ⩽ lim n→∞ Y j∈1,d(vn): g(vn,j)>i g (vn, j) − 1 g (vn, j) ⩽ lim n→∞ π(vn) = 0. Т еорема 3 (Theorem 8.7[4])

  3. [11]

    Тогда ∀w ∈ YF ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ d1(ε, w) d1(w, vn) d1(ε, vn) , причём значение этого предела зависит только отw, vи β

    Пусть {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YF)∞ , v∈ YF1,+ ∞ , β∈ (0, 1] : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →β · π(v). Тогда ∀w ∈ YF ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ d1(ε, w) d1(w, vn) d1(ε, vn) , причём значение этого предела зависит только отw, vи β

  4. [12]

    Тогда ∀w ∈ YF ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ d1(ε, w) d1(w, vn) d1(ε, vn) = d1(ε, w)2 |w|! , то есть значение этого предела зависит только отw

    Пусть {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YF)∞ , v∈ YF1 ∞ : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →0. Тогда ∀w ∈ YF ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ d1(ε, w) d1(w, vn) d1(ε, vn) = d1(ε, w)2 |w|! , то есть значение этого предела зависит только отw

  5. [13]

    15 Определение 3

    Все вышеперечисленные меры различны. 15 Определение 3. Мера из второго пункта данной теоремы называется мерой Планшереля и обозначается как µP (w). Меры из первого пункта обозначаются как µv,β (w). Т еорема 4

  6. [14]

    Тогда ∀w ∈ YFr ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ dr(ε, w) dr(w, vn) dr(ε, vn) , причём значение этого предела зависит только отw, vи β

    Пусть r ∈ N, {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YFr)∞ , v∈ YFr,+ ∞ , β∈ (0, 1] : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →β · π(v). Тогда ∀w ∈ YFr ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ dr(ε, w) dr(w, vn) dr(ε, vn) , причём значение этого предела зависит только отw, vи β

  7. [15]

    Тогда ∀w ∈ YFr ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ dr(ε, w) dr(w, vn) dr(ε, vn) = d1(ε, w)2 |w|! · re(w) = µP (w) re(w) , то есть значение этого предела зависит только отw

    Пусть r ∈ N, {vn}∞ n=1 ∈ (YFr)∞ , v∈ YFr ∞ : vn n→∞ − − − − →v, π (vn) n→∞ − − − − →0. Тогда ∀w ∈ YFr ∃µ{vn}(w) = lim n→∞ dr(ε, w) dr(w, vn) dr(ε, vn) = d1(ε, w)2 |w|! · re(w) = µP (w) re(w) , то есть значение этого предела зависит только отw. Доказательство. lim n→∞ dr(ε, w) ...

  8. [16]

    • lim n→∞ d1 w, vn d1 ε, vn = lim n→∞ |w|X i=0  f w, i, h w, vn d(vn)Y j=1 (g (vn, j) − i)   d(vn)Y j=1 g (vn, j) = = |w|X i=0  f (w, i, h(w, v)) · βi · d(v)Y j=1 g (v, j) − i g (v, j)   ; • ∀l ∈ 1, e(w, v) + 1 lim n→∞ d1 w{l}, vn{l} d1 ε, vn = = lim n→∞ |w|X i=0  f ...

  9. [17]

    вниз” изv1ju в w1iu. Ясно, что он име- ет вид v1ju → . . .→ 2d1ju → 2du → . . .→ w1iu при каком-то d ∈ d(v). Сопоставим ему путь “вниз

    • lim n→∞ d1 w, vn d1 ε, vn = lim n→∞ |w|X i=0  f w, i, h(w, vn) d(vn)Y j=1 (g (vn, j) − i)   d(vn)Y j=1 g (vn, j) = f (w, 0, h(w, v)) = d1(ε, w) |w|! ; • ∀l ∈ 1, e(w, v) + 1 lim n→∞ d1 w{l}, vn{l} d1 ε, vn = = lim n→∞ |w|X i=0  f w{l}, i, h w{l}, vn{l} d(vn)Y j=d(vn⟨l⟩)...

  10. [18]

    С. В. Фомин.Обобщенное соответствие Робинсона – Шенстеда – Кну- та. Зап. научн. сем. ЛОМИ, 155 (1986), 156-175

    1986

  11. [19]

    R. P. Stanley.Differential posets. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1988), 919-961

    1988

  12. [20]

    A. M. Vershik.Asymptotic theory of path spaces of graded graphs and its applications. Japanese J. Math. 11 (2016), no. 2, 151-218

    2016

  13. [21]

    F. M. Goodman, S. V. Kerov.The Martin Boundary of the Young–Fibonacci Lattice. J. Algebr. Comb. 11 (2000), no. 1, 17-48

    2000

  14. [22]

    В. Ю. Евтушевский. Перечисление путей в графе Юнга–Фибоначчи. Зап. научн. сем. ПОМИ, 481 (2019), 39-62

    2019

  15. [23]

    В. Ю. Евтушевский. Перечисление путей в графе Юнга–Фибоначчи, arXiv:2012.06379 (2020), 1-105

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gnedin and S

    A. Gnedin and S. Kerov.The Plancherel measure of the Young-Fibonacci graph. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 129 (2000), 433-446

    2000

  17. [25]

    И. А. Бочков, В. Ю. Евтушевский. Эргодичность границы Мартина графа Юнга–Фибоначчи. I, arXiv:2012.07447 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    В. Ю. Евтушевский. Эргодичность границы Мартина графа Юн- га–Фибоначчи. II, arXiv:2012.08107 (2020) 23

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.