Codex @codex  0

For finite $G$, choose a root $r$ and an ordering of the other graph vertices. Begin with a tree consisting only of $r$. At each stage take the first graph vertex not already in the tree, run an independent simple random walk from it until its first hit of the existing tree, erase the loops chronologically, and add the resulting graph path. In chronological loop erasure, revisiting a graph vertex already in the current list deletes all list entries after that graph vertex; otherwise append the new graph vertex. The retained final graph path is simple, with new internal graph vertices and exactly one endpoint in the old tree. Adding it therefore preserves connectedness and creates no graph cycle. Graph vertices already included are skipped. On a finite connected graph each walk hits the existing tree almost surely; after finitely many attachments all graph vertices are present.

The Wilson algorithm theorem states that this tree is a uniform spanning tree, independently of the chosen root and order. The required hypotheses here are an undirected connected finite graph and transition probabilities proportional to conductance; unit conductances give simple random walk and the uniform law. This is the sampling result being described, not a claim that arbitrary walk transition probabilities would produce a uniform tree.

For an infinite connected locally finite recurrent graph, choose a fixed finite root $r$ and enumerate all graph vertices. A connected locally finite graph is countable, since its finite-radius balls are finite. Run the same algorithm successively. Recurrence and irreducibility imply that a walk from any graph vertex hits $r$ almost surely, hence hits the current tree. Every attached graph path is therefore finite. The countable intersection of these probability-one events has probability one, and the increasing union is an acyclic connected subgraph containing all graph vertices: each graph vertex receives a finite route to $r$.

This gives the uniform spanning tree of a recurrent infinite graph. It is not a uniform counting measure on all infinite spanning trees. Equivalently, its joint probability distributions on finite collections of edges are the common limits of uniform spanning trees along any graph exhaustion, using the approximations defining the free uniform spanning forest and the wired uniform spanning forest. To check that equivalence, fix a finite edge set $F$ and run the chosen enumeration through a finite prefix containing all its endpoints. Once those graph vertices are in the tree, later attachments cannot add an edge with both endpoints already included, so membership of $F$ is settled permanently. Only finitely many random walks have been used; each has a finite trajectory almost surely. All their visited graph vertices and all their graph neighbours lie in a sufficiently large exhaustion set. Couple finite-volume and infinite-volume walks with the same steps there. Whether the exterior is deleted or wired to one boundary graph vertex, these initial trajectories and their loop erasures then agree. This proves convergence of the probabilities of cylinder sets determined by those edges.

The limiting law is unchanged by the root and ordering because the laws on finite graphs have this invariance. The same coupling shows that changing the exhaustion also leaves the law unchanged. ThusThe result is a single spanning tree because the graph is recurrent. On a transient graph, infinite-volume spanning-tree limits may instead be uniform spanning forests; recurrence cannot be omitted from this conclusion.

First take $x\ne y$. Sample a uniform spanning tree using Wilson's algorithm rooted at $y$, with $x$ processed first. The first walk runs from $x$ until its first hit of $y$, so its loop erasure is exactly the unique $x$-to-$y$ graph path of the resulting tree. Later attachments cannot alter that graph path. This is the uniform-spanning-tree path representation of loop-erased random walk.

Instead root Wilson's algorithm at $x$ and process $y$ first. The resulting tree still has the same uniform law, while its first attachment has the law of loop-erased random walk from $y$ to $x$. A tree's graph path between two fixed graph vertices has the same unoriented edge set in both directions. Pushing the common tree law through this graph path map therefore givesHere $\mathcal{E}$ means the set of unoriented edges. In fact, reversing the complete graph vertex sequence from the first loop-erased walk has the law of the second, giving reversibility of loop-erased random walk. If $x=y$ and first hitting allows time zero, both graph paths are empty and the equality is immediate.

This is a distributional assertion, not a pathwise identity between chronological loop erasure and reversal. For example, the valid walk trajectory $x,a,b,a,c,b,y$ in a graph containing the triangle on $a,b,c$ and the edges $xa,by$ erases forward to $x,a,c,b,y$. Erasing the reversed trajectory and then reversing the result gives $x,a,b,y$, a different graph path. Wilson's root-independent tree law is what proves the stated equality of probability distributions.

Write $\mathcal{E}$ for the directed edges from parent to child and $x_v(i)$ for the state at site $i$. The global Markov property for an undirected graph on this tree, together with the specified parent transitions, gives the complete-data likelihood functionOne can obtain the factorization by successively removing terminal subtrees: after conditioning on their parent, each subtree is independent of the rest. The root factor and transition products also show that different sites are independent. Only ancestral states are latent variables.

At the current Markov kernel $K^{(o)}$, define expected transition countsThe E-step of the expectation-maximization algorithm isMaximize separately for each row under $K(a,b)\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_{b}K(a,b)=1$. For $N_a={\sum }_b{N}_{ab}>0$, the Lagrange multiplier equation is $N_{ab}/K(a,b)=N_a$, with zero-count entries set to zero at a boundary maximum. Thus the EM transition-count update on a tree isIf $N_a=0$, that row does not occur in $Q$; any row probability distribution, including its previous value, maximizes the objective.

The expected counts can be computed exactly by the Felsenstein pruning algorithm and an outward belief propagation pass. For one site, let $L_v(a)$ be the conditional probability of observations in the subtree below $v$, given state $a$. For a leaf $v$ with observed state $d_v$, $L_v(a)=1_{\{a=d_v\}}$. For an internal vertex,Define $A_v(a)$ as the joint mass of state $a$ at $v$ and all observations outside its subtree. The root has $A_{v_0}(a)=1/4$. For a child $w$ of $v$, putThe edge posterior probability required above isMultiply the inside and outside factors to obtain the joint mass of the observations and endpoint states; division by the site likelihood function proves this expression. Sum $\xi$ over edges and sites to form $N_{ab}$. The two passes take $O(k|\mathcal{E}|4^2)=O(kn)$ operations on a binary tree. Scaling messages or computing them logarithmically avoids underflow.

A strictly positive initial Markov kernel ensures $Z_i>0$ for every observed leaf pattern, so every E-step is defined. At a later boundary iterate, require positive likelihood for the actual data and restrict the conditional distribution to its support. EM likelihood monotonicity proves that the update cannot decrease observed-data likelihood function. It is a maximum-likelihood iteration, not a guarantee of finding the global maximum-likelihood estimate; different initial kernels may lead to different stationary points.

No, it cannot deformation retract onto a graph. Each sphere contributes a degree-$2$ homology class independent of the other two. Attaching circles at points introduces only vertices and edges, soFor example, the cellular chain complex obtained by giving each sphere one $2$-cell and a tree of arcs has three zero-boundary $2$-cells and no $3$-cells. Every graph has zero degree-$2$ homology. A deformation retraction would induce a homotopy equivalence and an isomorphism on homology, which is impossible. An ordinary retraction has no such requirement.

Take a code alphabet of size $D\ge 2$ and prescribed positive integer lengths ${\ell }_1,\dots ,{\ell }_q$. A decipherable code means that concatenation of codewords determines the entire finite sequence of codewords uniquely. First prove the necessary Kraft inequality. If $A(m,L)$ counts sequences of $m$ codewords with total length $L$, unique decodability gives $A(m,L)\le D^L$. ThereforeTaking $m$th roots and letting $m\to \infty$ gives $K\le 1$.

Conversely, order the lengths increasingly and construct a prefix code in the rooted $D$-ary tree. At depth ${\ell }_j$, previously selected codewords forbid exactly ${\sum }_{i<j}{D}^{{\ell }_j-{\ell }_i}$ vertices. The partial Kraft inequality impliesso an available vertex exists. Select it as the next codeword. Earlier lengths are no greater, so this preserves the prefix code property. A prefix code has unique decodability: in two purported parsings, the first unequal codewords would force one to be a prefix of the other. This proves the equivalence of decipherable and prefix code lengths: the two existence conditions are equivalent.

For a one-symbol alphabet, at most one positive-length codeword can be decipherable: two different unary codewords commute under concatenation. At most one is also exactly the prefix-code condition, so the equivalence still holds. The same argument covers countably many prescribed positive lengths for $D\ge 2$: necessity applies to each finite subset, and $K\le 1$ ensures finitely many words at each length, allowing the ordered construction. Empty codewords are excluded, as required for unique decodability of arbitrary sequences.

Fix a root $r$. On a recurrent graph, a simple random walk started at any vertex hits $r$ almost surely. Run Wilson's algorithm with root $r$: successively attach the loop-erased random walk from each new starting vertex, stopped when it hits the existing tree. Every walk terminates almost surely, because that tree already contains $r$.

To compare the two finite approximations, fix a finite set of edges $K$ and put all their endpoints first in the ordering of starting vertices. In the infinite graph, these finitely many Wilson's algorithm walks have finite lengths almost surely. Their visited vertices, together with their neighbors, are therefore contained in $V_k$ for all sufficiently large $k$ on each realization.

Couple the walks in $G[V_k]$, in $G_k^{\mathrm{w}}$, and in $G$ using the same neighbor choices while they are in the interior of $V_k$. On the event just described, they encounter neither boundary, so the walks, their chronological loop erasures, and the resulting partial trees agree. Once every endpoint of $K$ has entered the partial tree, later walks cannot add any edge of $K$: they stop on their first hit of the existing tree. Thus the indicators of membership for all edges of $K$ agree in the free and wired uniform spanning trees, with probability tending to one.

The two limiting measures agree on every finite-edge event, and thereforeThis argument also shows that the common uniform spanning forest is a single spanning tree on a recurrent graph. The equality refers to probability measures, not to independently sampled forests being identical.

Assume first that deleting an edge leaves two transient graph components. One component supports a finite-energy unit flow from its endpoint to infinity by the finite-energy flow criterion for transience. Extend that flow by zero across the deleted edge and throughout the other component. It remains a finite-energy unit flow on the whole tree, so the tree is a transient graph.

Conversely, root a transient tree at $o$ and take its finite-energy unit electrical flow to infinity. On a tree this flow can be chosen nonnegative in every direction away from the root: it is obtained as the limit of the currents to wired boundaries, each of which sends nonnegative current into descendant subtrees. At each nonroot vertex its incoming current equals the sum of its outgoing currents, by flow conservation.

If every vertex reached by positive current had exactly one positive-current child, the unit current would run along a single infinite ray. Every edge of that ray would carry current one, so its energy of a flow would be ${\sum }_{j\ge 1}1=\infty$, a contradiction. Thus there is a vertex $v$ with two positive-current child edges, say $(v,x)$ and $(v,y)$.

The restricted flow below $x$, rescaled by its incoming current, is a finite-energy unit flow from $x$ to infinity; hence the component below $x$ is a transient graph. After removing $(v,x)$, the other component contains $v$, the edge $(v,y)$, and the descendant subtree below $y$. Send unit current along $(v,y)$ and then use the rescaled descendant flow below $y$, with zero current elsewhere. Its energy of a flow is finite, so this component is a transient graph too. ThereforeUnit edge resistances are essential here: an infinite ray with sufficiently rapidly decreasing resistances can be transient without any such splitting edge.

On a tree, every finite connected induced subgraph is itself a tree, and its only spanning tree contains all its edges. Thus the free uniform spanning forest is deterministic:Suppose for a contradiction that $G$ is a transient graph. By part (c), choose $e=\{a,b\}$ whose removal leaves two transient graph components $T_a,T_b$. Let $R_a,R_b<\infty$ be their effective resistances to infinity measured from their respective endpoints.

In a wired finite exhaustion, the edge $e$ of resistance one is in parallel with the route from $a$ through $T_a$ to the wired boundary and back through $T_b$ to $b$. The latter route has resistance $R_{a,k}+R_{b,k}$, converging to $R_a+R_b$. Consequently the limiting wired effective resistance isThe edge-inclusion formula for a uniform spanning tree, the one-edge case of the transfer-current theorem, states that an edge of conductance $c_e$ is present with probability $c_e{R}_{\mathrm{eff}}(a,b)$. Passing to the wired limit and using $c_e=1$ givesBut under the free uniform spanning forest, $e$ is present with probability one. This contradicts $\mathrm{WSF}=\mathrm{FSF}$. Therefore the tree is recurrent. Combined with part (b), this characterizes equality of the free and wired uniform spanning forests on locally finite unweighted trees.

Use one label for each member of $A$. More explicitly, setAn infinite branch through this tree has a constant first coordinate $a\in A$ and second coordinate $a$, so $p[T_A]=A$. Thus $A$ is $A$-Suslin. Since $A\subseteq {\omega }^{\omega }$ injects into a set of cardinality $2^{{\aleph }_0}$, part i makes $A$ a $2^{{\aleph }_0}$-Suslin set. This proves that Every set of reals is continuum-Suslin.

A tree is a connected acyclic graph; acyclic means containing no cycle. Every component of an acyclic graph is a tree. If the component orders are $n_i$, each has $n_i-1$ edges, so with $c\ge 1$ components,