Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Reduced Random Walks in the Hyperbolic Plane$\hspace{1pt}!\hspace{-3.8pt}?$

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The reduced random walk on a hyperbolic triangle group converges almost surely to a boundary point; in the (2,3,∞) case its distribution is given exactly by the interrobang function.

desk verdict New interrobang construction for the reduced PGL2(Z) walk is clever and the general framework holds up, but the definition of ‽ as printed contradicts the CDF and fails monotonicity, leaving Theorem 8.1 unproven without a fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19367 v1 pith:4TXSD33E submitted 2025-04-27 math.PR math.COmath.GR

Colin Defant , Mitchell Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath.COmath.GR MSC 60B1520F5560J10
keywords reducedrandomwalkhyperbolictrianglegroupsinterrobangfunctionquestion-markDemazureproductboundarylimitdistributionCoxeterPGL2(Z)
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

The paper studies the reduced random walk on a hyperbolic triangle group, where at each step the walker chooses one of three neighboring alcoves uniformly but stays put if the move would recross a line it has already crossed. The central claim is that this walk almost surely converges to a point $\zeta$ on the extended real line, and that the law of $\zeta$ is the unique probability measure satisfying a self-similar equation built from the three one-way reflections. For the group $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ (the $(2,3,\infty)$ triangle group), the paper writes the cumulative distribution function $F_\zeta(x)=\Pr[\zeta\le x]$ explicitly, in seven pieces, in terms of a new recursively defined function called the interrobang function. The interrobang function extends to a continuous, strictly increasing function on $[0,1]$, sends rational numbers to explicitly computable dyadic rationals and quadratic irrationals to explicitly computable rationals, and is conjectured to be differentiable almost everywhere with derivative zero. A reader should care because this yields an exact, computable description of the boundary limit of a natural non-reversible walk and introduces a new function in the same family as the classical question-mark function.

What carries the argument

The geometric mechanism is the one-way reflection $\tau_i$: it reflects across the side $L_i$ when the current point lies on the starting side of $L_i$, and otherwise does nothing. Composing these maps realizes the reduced random walk, because the underlying Demazure product $\star$ on the Coxeter group (defined by $s_i\star w=w$ when $i$ is a left descent of $w$, and $s_i w$ otherwise) records exactly which alcoves can be reached without crossing any line twice. The probability machinery is the distributional equation $\mu=\frac{1}{3}((\tau_1)_*\mu+(\tau_2)_*\mu+(\tau_3)_*\mu)$; uniqueness is proved by coupling two solutions on the boundary circle and showing their expected distance decays geometrically via a contraction estimate for the $\tau_i$. The explicit answer for $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ is carried by the interrobang function, a recursive function on rationals that extends to a continuous strictly increasing function on $[0,1]$; its arithmetic properties make the evaluations of $F_\zeta$ at rational and quadratic-irrational inputs exactly computable.

What would settle it

Produce one trajectory of the reduced random walk (one long sequence of uniform choices $i_1,i_2,\ldots$) in a hyperbolic triangle group in which some arrangement line is crossed more than once; Lemma 4.1 asserts this never happens, and the convergence proof of Theorem 4.2 depends on it. For the explicit formula, compare long-run simulated probabilities $\Pr[\zeta\le q]$ for rational $q$ in the $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ walk with the right-hand side of (23); a persistent discrepancy would refute Theorem 8.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: with simple reflections $s_1,s_2,s_3$ acting on the upper half-plane, define the sequence $z_m$ by composing one-way reflections $\tau_i$ applied to a starting point. Theorem 4.2 states that $z_m$ converges almost surely to a point $\zeta\in\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ on the extended real line, and Theorem 5.1 states that its distribution $\mu$ is the unique probability measure satisfying $\mu=\frac{1}{3}((\tau_1)_*\mu+(\tau_2)_*\mu+(\tau_3)_*\mu)$. For the triangle group generated by $s_1(z)=-1-z$, $s_2(z)=1/z$, $s_3(z)=-z$, which is isomorphic to $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, Theorem 8.1 gives the cumulative distribution function $F_\zeta$ by the explicit piecewise formula (23) in terms of the interrobang function; in particular, $F_\zeta$ is continuous and strictly increasing, it sends rationals to explicitly computable dyadic rationals, and it sends quadratic irrationals to explicitly computable rationals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing geometric premise is Lemma 4.1: the walk never crosses a given line of the hyperbolic arrangement more than once; if a line could be crossed twice, the walk could oscillate between its two sides and the boundary limit $\zeta$ would not be forced to exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every hyperbolic triangle group carries a canonical probability measure on the extended real line: the limit law of the reduced random walk, uniquely determined by the one-way reflections.
  • In $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, the cumulative distribution function of the limit is continuous and strictly increasing, so the limit distribution has no atoms and every individual boundary point has probability zero.
  • Because $F_\zeta$ sends rationals to explicitly computable dyadic rationals and quadratic irrationals to explicitly computable rationals, probabilities such as $\Pr[\zeta\le q]$ can be written down exactly rather than approximated by simulation.
  • The convergence is sure, not merely almost sure, since the walk is almost surely not eventually constant and the compactness argument produces a boundary limit for each such trajectory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the coupling-and-contraction method used for uniqueness should transfer to other hyperbolic triangle groups such as $(3,3,\infty)$ or $(2,4,\infty)$, giving explicit stationary laws once the corresponding recursive functions are worked out.
  • Editorial inference: if Conjecture 7.14 holds, the interrobang function (and with it $F_\zeta$) is a strictly increasing singular function, so the boundary limit would be supported on a Lebesgue-null set despite having no atoms.
  • Editorial inference: a concrete test of Conjectures 7.16 and 7.17 would be to compute the continued-fraction expansion of the inverse interrobang value at $1/8$; an eventually periodic expansion would disprove transcendence, while a certificate from a transcendence criterion could prove it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Lam's reduced random walk in hyperbolic triangle groups, realized geometrically as a random walk in the upper half-plane. The authors prove that the walk converges almost surely to a boundary point (Theorem 4.2), that the limiting distribution is the unique solution of a simple distributional equation (Theorems 4.4 and 5.1), and, in the special case of PGL_2(Z), that the cumulative distribution function of the limit is given by an explicit piecewise formula (Theorem 8.1) in terms of a newly introduced "interrobang function." The paper also develops analytic and arithmetic properties of this function, including strict monotonicity, uniform continuity, rational-to-dyadic and quadratic-irrational-to-rational mapping properties, and several conjectures. The general convergence and uniqueness arguments are clean and well presented. However, the central construction of the interrobang function contains a concrete internal inconsistency that affects the validity of Theorem 8.1 as stated.

Significance. If the interrobang construction is corrected, the paper would make a substantial contribution by providing an explicit, parameter-free description of the limit distribution of a natural random walk on PGL_2(Z), in the spirit of Letac and Piccioni's work with Minkowski's question-mark function. The coupling proof of uniqueness in Theorem 5.1 is elegant, and the plan to encode the distribution through a function with arithmetic properties is original and likely of independent interest. The paper also honestly identifies several open conjectures, which is a strength. However, the current inconsistency in the definition of the interrobang function is load-bearing: it directly undermines Theorem 8.1, the paper's central explicit result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Definition 7.4, Lemma 7.5, Lemma 7.6, and Theorem 8.1] There is an internal inconsistency in the definition of the interrobang function. As printed, the first branch of (15) gives ‽(1/2) = 1/(4·2) = 1/8, and Lemma 7.5 states ‽(1/n) = 1/(4n). However, the piecewise formula (23) in Theorem 8.1 is continuous at x = -2 only if ‽(1/2) = 1/16, and the worked verification for x in [-3,-2] uses Lemma 7.6 with coefficient 1/16 rather than the printed 1/8. Moreover, the printed recursion violates monotonicity: ‽(1/3) = 1/12, while an exact computation from (15) gives ‽(51/100) = 2019/51200 < 1/12, contradicting Proposition 7.8 and hence Theorem 7.13. The likely repair is to make the denominator in the first branch exponential, for example 4 raised to the power ⌊1/x⌋, which would make the boundary identities and the 1/16 coefficient in the proof of Theorem 8.1 consistent. As written, however, Theorem 8.1 is not supported by the preceding definitions, and every lemma in Section 7 that relies on the printed denominator needs to be rechecked after the correction.
  2. [Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.2] Lemma 4.1, the assertion that the reduced random walk never crosses a given line more than once, is stated informally and then used essentially in the proof of Theorem 4.2 to conclude that any two subsequential limits lie in the closure of a single region in a finite line arrangement. No proof of Lemma 4.1 is supplied, despite the fact that it is the key geometric input for the existence of the boundary limit zeta. Since Theorem 4.2 is the basis for the distributional equation (5) and for everything that follows, a rigorous proof of Lemma 4.1 (or a precise reference) should be included.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 6] The plot of the cumulative distribution function F_zeta would benefit from labeled axes and tick marks; currently the vertical scale is not readable.
  2. [Conjectures 7.16 and 7.17] The numerical values ‽^{-1}(1/8) = 0.61242994... and ‽^{-1}(1/4) = 0.61834758... are reported without a description of the algorithm used to compute them; a brief reproducibility note would be helpful.
  3. [Equation (15)] The notation 4⌊1/x⌋ is ambiguous as typeset; the authors should clearly indicate whether it is a product or a superscript, and the notation should be consistent with the corrected definition used in Section 7.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CDF is an explicit guess-and-verify solution of a fixed-point equation whose uniqueness is proved in-paper, with no fitted input and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 4.2's convergence proof uses Lemma 4.1, which is an immediate consequence of the defining 'never crosses a line more than once' rule, not a renamed target. The distributional equation (5) is derived from the Markovian one-step law in Theorem 4.4, and Theorem 5.1 proves uniqueness in-paper via a contraction argument (Lemmas 5.2--5.3), with no imported uniqueness theorem. For PGL2(Z), the paper does not fit any parameter to the target CDF: Theorem 8.1 proposes an explicit piecewise function f built from the recursively defined interrobang function, then verifies that f satisfies the fixed-point equation (24); since Theorem 5.1 guarantees at most one solution, this verification, if carried out, forces f = F_zeta. The interrobang function is defined independently of mu (Definition 7.4) and all constants are explicit; the cited Minkowski question-mark facts ([29]) are external background for arithmetic properties, not inputs to the fixed-point verification. No load-bearing self-citation occurs. Separately, the printed manuscript appears to contain a genuine internal inconsistency: Definition 7.4 and Lemma 7.5 give interrobang(1/2) = 1/8, while Lemma 7.7 and the boundary continuity of (23) require interrobang(1/2) = 1/16, and the proof of Theorem 8.1 explicitly uses the 1/16 value in the x in [-3,-2] case; this is a correctness or missing-support issue (the final verification is also asserted as 'routine' with only one case shown), not a circularity, so it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained once standard background in Coxeter groups, hyperbolic geometry, and the cited properties of Minkowski's question-mark function are granted. No parameters are fitted to data. The interrobang constants are chosen as part of the explicit construction and are verified to satisfy the distributional equation by algebra rather than by optimization.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lines L1,L2,L3 and point z0 satisfy Axiom 3.1, defining a (possibly ideal) hyperbolic triangle and its tiling.
    The whole geometric model lives inside this configuration; the paper notes the axiom is weak enough to allow unbounded alcoves.
  • standard math Matsumoto's theorem: the map tau_w is independent of reduced word, giving tau_{u⋆w}=tau_u∘tau_w.
    Used in Section 4 to realize the Demazure product as composition of one-way reflections.
  • standard math The properties of Minkowski's question-mark function quoted in Lemma 7.18 from [29].
    Used in Theorem 7.21 to parametrize preimages of equally spaced points. The rendering of Definition 7.3 is ambiguous, so the intended standard properties should be confirmed.
  • standard math Levy-Desplanques theorem: diagonally dominant matrices are invertible.
    Used to prove the linear system in Theorem 7.21 has a unique rational solution.
  • standard math The compactification of the hyperbolic plane is compact and the triangle group acts properly, forcing subsequential limits onto the boundary.
    Used in the contradiction argument of Theorem 4.2 to rule out interior accumulation points.
invented entities (1)
  • Interrobang function ‽
    purpose: Encodes the cumulative distribution function of the reduced random walk limit in PGL2(Z) via formula (23).
    A new explicit mathematical object defined recursively. It is not an empirical postulate; its properties and conjectures are self-contained within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reduced Random Walks in the Hyperbolic Plane$\hspace{1pt}!\hspace{-3.8pt}?$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TXSD33E

@misc{pith2026250419367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reduced Random Walks in the Hyperbolic Plane$\hspace1pt!\hspace-3.8pt?$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TXSD33E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19367}
}
abstract

We study Lam's reduced random walk in a hyperbolic triangle group, which we view as a random walk in the upper half-plane. We prove that this walk converges almost surely to a point on the extended real line. We devote special attention to the reduced random walk in $PGL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ (i.e., the $(2,3,\infty)$ triangle group). In this case, we provide an explicit formula for the cumulative distribution function of the limit. This formula is written in terms of the interrobang function, a new function $!\hspace{-3.8pt}?\colon[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ that shares several of the remarkable analytic and arithmetic properties of Minkowski's question-mark function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19367 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A trajectory of the reduced random walk in P GL2(Z). The limit point ζ ∈ R is labeled. 1 arXiv:2504.19367v1 [math.PR] 27 Apr 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of lines L1, L2, L3 ⊆ H and a point z0 ∈ H satisfying Axiom 3.1. In this example, m(1, 2) = 2 and m(2, 3) = m(1, 3) = ∞. It is common in the literature to refer to W as the (p, q, r) triangle group, where p, q, r are the values m(1, 2), m(2, 3), m(1, 3) sorted in nondecreasing order. Note that W is determined up to isomorphism by p, q, and r. The set ∆ is a fundamental domain for the action of W in the fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the first part of the proof of Lemma 5.3. For i = 1, 2, 3, we have drawn the open subset {x ∈ S 1 | |x − ci | > ri/C} ⊆ S 1 in red, blue, and green respec￾tively. If C < 1 is sufficiently close to 1, then these sets form an open cover of S 1 . and (8) ν = 1 3 ((τ1)∗ν + (τ2)∗ν + (τ3)∗ν) ; we will prove that µ = ν. Let X ∼ µ and Y ∼ ν be random variables. We wish to prove that X and Y are identicall… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The transition diagram of the reduced random walk in P GL2(Z). The proper action of P GL2(Z) on the hyperbolic plane is given by fractional linear transformations; explicitly, for z ∈ H, we have  a b c d (z) =    az + b cz + d if ad − bc = 1 az + b cz + d if a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A plot of the interrobang function. (ii) If n = 1, then ‽(x) = 3 8 − 3 4 ‽  1 x − 1  − 1 2 ‽(1 − x). Proof. If 1/(n + 1) < x ≤ 1/n, then this is exactly (15). Otherwise, we have x = 1/(n + 1), and the lemma easily follows from Lemma 7.5. □ 7.2. Analytic properties. I…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A plot of the cumulative distribution function Fζ . Acknowledgments The authors thank Amol Aggarwal for communicating part of the argument that we used to prove Theorem 5.1. Colin Defant was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2201907 and by a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Limiting directions for random walks in classical affine Weyl groups

    Erik Aas, Arvind Ayyer, Svante Linusson, and Samu Potka. Limiting directions for random walks in classical affine Weyl groups. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (4):3092–3137, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Anderson

    James W. Anderson. Hyperbolic geometry . Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, second edition, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    The oriented swap process

    Omer Angel, Alexander Holroyd, and Dan Romik. The oriented swap process. Ann. Probab., 37(5):1970–1998, 2009

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Correlations in the multispecies TASEP and a conjecture by Lam

    Arvind Ayyer and Svante Linusson. Correlations in the multispecies TASEP and a conjecture by Lam. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 369(2):1097–1125, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    TASEP on a ring in sub-relaxation time scale

    Jinho Baik and Zhipeng Liu. TASEP on a ring in sub-relaxation time scale. J. Stat. Phys. , 165(6):1051–1085, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fluctuations of TASEP on a ring in relaxation time scale

    Jinho Baik and Zhipeng Liu. Fluctuations of TASEP on a ring in relaxation time scale. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 71(4):747–813, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Multipoint distribution of periodic TASEP

    Jinho Baik and Zhipeng Liu. Multipoint distribution of periodic TASEP. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 32(3):609–674, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    The oriented swap process and last passage percolation

    Elia Bisi, Fabio Deelan Cunden, Shane Gibbons, and Dan Romik. The oriented swap process and last passage percolation. Random Structures Algorithms, 60(4):690–715, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Springer, New York, 2005

    Anders Bj¨ orner and Francesco Brenti.Combinatorics of Coxeter groups, volume 231 of Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, New York, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    V. I. Bogachev. Measure theory. Vol. I, II . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Absorbing time asymptotics in the oriented swap process

    Alexey Bufetov, Vadim Gorin, and Dan Romik. Absorbing time asymptotics in the oriented swap process. Ann. Appl. Probab., 32(2):753–763, 2022. 26

    2022

  4. [12]

    From multiline queues to Macdon- ald polynomials via the exclusion process

    Sylvie Corteel, Olya Mandelshtam, and Lauren Williams. From multiline queues to Macdon- ald polynomials via the exclusion process. Amer. J. Math. , 144(2):395–436, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Random combinatorial billiards and stoned exclusion processes, arXiv:2406.07858, 2024

    Colin Defant. Random combinatorial billiards and stoned exclusion processes, arXiv:2406.07858, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. A. Dushistova and N. G. Moshchevitin. On the derivative of the Minkowski ?( x) function. Fundam. Prikl. Mat., 16(6):33–44, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Evans, Pablo A

    Martin R. Evans, Pablo A. Ferrari, and Kirone Mallick. Matrix representation of the station- ary measure for the multispecies TASEP. J. Stat. Phys. , 135(2):217–239, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Ferrari and James B

    Pablo A. Ferrari and James B. Martin. Stationary distributions of multi-type totally asym- metric exclusion processes. Ann. Probab., 35(3):807–832, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Random walks of infinite moment on free semigroups

    Behrang Forghani and Giulio Tiozzo. Random walks of infinite moment on free semigroups. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 175(3-4):1099–1122, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Gray and Mark Kambites

    Robert D. Gray and Mark Kambites. On cogrowth, amenability, and the spectral radius of a random walk on a semigroup. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (12):3753–3793, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Probability and its Applications (New York)

    G¨ oran H¨ ogn¨ as and Arunava Mukherjea.Probability measures on semigroups. Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer, New York, second edition, 2011. Convolution products, random walks, and random matrices

    2011

  12. [20]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson. Matrix analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, second edition, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Steven P. Lalley. Random walks on infinite groups , volume 297 of Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics. Springer, Cham, [2023] ©2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    The shape of a random affine Weyl group element and random core partitions

    Thomas Lam. The shape of a random affine Weyl group element and random core partitions. Ann. Probab., 43(4):1643–1662, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    A Markov chain on the symmetric group that is Schubert positive? Exp

    Thomas Lam and Lauren Williams. A Markov chain on the symmetric group that is Schubert positive? Exp. Math., 21(2):189–192, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Random walks in the hyperbolic plane and the Minkowski question mark function

    G´ erard Letac and Mauro Piccioni. Random walks in the hyperbolic plane and the Minkowski question mark function. J. Theoret. Probab., 31(4):2376–2389, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Noneuclidean tesselations and their groups , volume Vol

    Wilhelm Magnus. Noneuclidean tesselations and their groups , volume Vol. 61 of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York- London, 1974

    1974

  18. [26]

    Random walks on weakly hyperbolic groups

    Joseph Maher and Giulio Tiozzo. Random walks on weakly hyperbolic groups. J. Reine Angew. Math., 742:187–239, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Random walks on free products of cyclic groups.J

    Jean Mairesse and Fr´ ed´ eric Math´ eus. Random walks on free products of cyclic groups.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 75(1):47–66, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    G´ en´ erateurs et relations des groupes de Weyl g´ en´ eralis´ es.C

    Hideya Matsumoto. G´ en´ erateurs et relations des groupes de Weyl g´ en´ eralis´ es.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 258:3419–3422, 1964

    1964

  21. [29]

    R. Salem. On some singular monotonic functions which are strictly increasing. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 53:427–439, 1943

    1943

  22. [30]

    Interaction of Markov processes

    Frank Spitzer. Interaction of Markov processes. Advances in Math., 5:246–290, 1970

    1970

  23. [31]

    Shift-invariance of the colored TASEP and finishing times of the oriented swap process

    Lingfu Zhang. Shift-invariance of the colored TASEP and finishing times of the oriented swap process. Adv. Math., 415:Paper No. 108884, 60, 2023. Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Email address: colindefant@gmail.com Department of Mathemat...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.