Proof of Theorem
2.1 : By Lemma 4.1 , when
$\leftv\right<N$
,
$$\begin{array}{c}{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}={\sum}_{v\to w}{f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right),\end{array}$$ 
(5.22)

holds for every sample, with
${f}_{w}$
as in equation ( 4.17 ). To make sense of this functional recursion, we will derive from it a system of real inequalities:
$$\begin{array}{c}{m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\le {\sum}_{v\to}\frac{{\theta}_{w}^{2}{m}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}}{1+\kappa {m}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}}.\end{array}$$ 
(5.23)

The quantity
${m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
will be an expectation of
${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
but it is not obvious what measure should be used to take the expectation. Define the measures
${Q}_{v}^{N+}$
(respectively
${Q}_{v}^{N}$
) on the
$\sigma $
field
${\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
of boundary values by letting
$${Q}_{v}^{N+}\left(\xi \right):={\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}(\eta :{\eta}_{\partial {T}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}}=\xi \eta \left(v\right)=+1)$$
be the conditional distribution of the free boundary given a plus at
$v$
(respectively, given a minus at
$v$
). Define
$${m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}:=\int {X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}d{Q}_{v}^{N+}=\int {X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}d{Q}_{v}^{N}.$$
The properties of the measures
${Q}_{v}^{N\pm}$
summarized in the following lemmas make these appropriate for the study of the free boundary.
Lemma 5.1
For any
$v$
with
$\leftv\right<N$
,
$${Q}_{v}^{N+}={\prod}_{v\to w}\left[\frac{(1+{\theta}_{w})}{2}{Q}_{w}^{N+}+\frac{(1{\theta}_{w})}{2}{Q}_{w}^{N}\right].$$
In particular, the projection of
${Q}_{v}^{N+}$
onto boundary configurations on
${T}^{\left(N\right)}\left(w\right)$
is
$$\frac{(1+{\theta}_{w})}{2}{Q}_{w}^{N+}+\frac{(1{\theta}_{w})}{2}{Q}_{w}^{N}.$$
$\square $
Lemma 5.2
For any odd function
$\phi $
,
$$\int \phi \left({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d{Q}_{v}^{N+}=\int \phi \left(\right{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left\right)tanh\left(\right{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2)d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}.$$
Lemma 5.3
There is a positive, continuous function
$\kappa $
such that when
${f}_{\theta}$
is defined as in ( 4.17 ) with
$\theta =\theta v$
, then
$$\int {f}_{\theta}\left({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d{Q}_{v}^{N+}\le \theta \frac{\int {X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}d{Q}_{v}^{N+}}{1+\kappa \left(\theta \right)\int {X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}d{Q}_{v}^{N+}}.$$
To finish the proof from these lemmas, use ( 5.22 ) and Lemma 5.1 to evaluate
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\int {f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d{Q}_{v}^{N+}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\int {f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d\left(\right(1+{\theta}_{w}){Q}_{w}^{N+}+(1{\theta}_{w}\left){Q}_{w}^{N}\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\int {\theta}_{w}{f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d{Q}_{w}^{N+}.\end{array}$$ 
(5.24)

Apply Lemma 5.3 to see that this is at most
$${\sum}_{v\to w}\frac{{\theta}_{w}^{2}{m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}}{1+\kappa \left(\theta v\right){m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}}.$$
By continuity of
$\kappa \left(\theta \right)$
and the boundedness assumption ( 1.1 ), we arrive at ( 5.23 ). Theorem 3.2 now applies to show that
${m}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}\le \frac{ca{p}_{2}\left({T}^{\left(N\right)}\right)}{\kappa}$
with resistances as in the hypothesis of the theorem. Hence
$ca{p}_{2}\left(T\right)=0$
implies
${m}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}\to 0$
as
$N\to \infty $
. Finally, by Lemma 5.2 , this implies
${X}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\u27f6}0$
as
$N\to \infty $
, finishing the proof.
$\square $
It remains to prove the lemmas. Lemma 5.1 is immediate from the Markov property.
Proof of Lemma
5.2 : We first compare
${Q}_{v}^{N+}$
to the boundary measure induced by the free measure
${\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
. We claim that
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d{Q}_{v}^{N+}}{d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}}=1+tanh({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2).\end{array}$$ 
(5.25)

Indeed, from Bayes' rule, one gets
$$\frac{d{Q}_{v}^{N+}}{d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}}=\frac{{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left(\eta \right(v)=+1{\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)})}{{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left(\eta \right(v)=+1)}.$$
The denominator is
$1/2$
by symmetry, while the numerator is
$exp\left({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\right)/(1+exp({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left)\right)=(1+tanh({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2\left)\right)/2$
by definition of
${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
. This proves the claim. Now if
$\phi $
is any odd function, then
$\phi \left(x\right)=\left(\phi \right(x)\phi (x\left)\right)/2$
, and thus
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\int \phi \left({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\right)d{Q}_{v}^{N+}& =& \int \frac{1}{2}\left(\phi \right({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)})\phi ({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left)\right)d{Q}_{v}^{N+}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \int \left(\phi \right({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)})\phi ({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\left)\right)\frac{{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}}{{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}+{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}}d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \int \phi \left({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\right)\frac{{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}}{{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}+{e}^{{X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/2}}d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)},\end{array}$$  
yielding the desired conclusion.
$\square $
Proof of Lemma 5.3 : Abbreviate the notation by writing
$X$
for
${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
,
$\mathbf{E}$
for integration against
${\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
and
${\mathbf{E}}_{+}$
for integration against
${Q}_{v}^{N+}$
. First, for any
$c>0$
, the product
$${\mathbf{E}}_{+}{f}_{\theta}\left(X\right)(1+c{\mathbf{E}}_{+}X)={\mathbf{E}}_{+}{f}_{\theta}\left(X\right)+c\left({\mathbf{E}}_{+}{f}_{\theta}\left(X\right)\right)\left({\mathbf{E}}_{+}X\right)$$
is equal, by Lemma 5.2 , to the sum
$$\mathbf{E}\left[{f}_{\theta}\left(\rightX\left\right)tanhX/2\right]+\mathbf{E}\left[{f}_{\theta}\left(\rightX\left\right)tanhX/2)\right]\cdot \mathbf{E}\left[c\leftX\righttanhX/2\right].$$
Since the functions
${f}_{\theta}\left(x\right)tanh(x/2)$
and
$cxtanh(x/2)$
are both nondecreasing on
$[0,\infty )$
, they are positively correlated functions of
$\leftX\right$
(under
${\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
or any other law), and hence
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left({\mathbf{E}}_{+}{f}_{\theta}\right(X\left)\right)(1+c{\mathbf{E}}_{+}X)& \le & \mathbf{E}{f}_{\theta}\left(\rightX\left\right)tanhX/2+\mathbf{E}\left(c\rightX\left{f}_{\theta}\right(\leftX\right\left){tanh}^{2}\rightX/2\left\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \mathbf{E}\left[{f}_{\theta}\left(\rightX\left\right)tanhX/2(1+cXtanhX/2\left\right)\right].\end{array}$$  
Recall that
$tanh\left(x\right)=x\Theta \left({x}^{3}\right)$
. Refer to the Taylor expansion for
${f}_{\theta}={f}_{v}$
in equation ( 4.20 ) to see that for
$\kappa \left(\theta \right)$
sufficiently small, there is a range
$x\in [0,\delta ]$
for which
$$\begin{array}{c}{f}_{\theta}\left(x\right)(1+\kappa (\theta )xtanh(x/2\left)\right)<\theta x.\end{array}$$ 
(5.26)

Since
${f}_{\theta}$
is itself bounded and less than
$\theta x\epsilon \left(\theta \right)x$
on
$[\delta ,\infty )$
, we may choose
$\kappa \left(\theta \right)$
smaller if necessary so that ( 5.26 ) holds for all
$x\ge 0$
. Clearly the choice of
$\kappa $
can be made continuously in
$\theta $
. It follows that
$$\left({\mathbf{E}}_{+}{f}_{\theta}\right(X\left)\right)(1+\kappa (\theta \left){\mathbf{E}}_{+}X\right)\le \mathbf{E}\theta \leftX\righttanhX/2=\theta {\mathbf{E}}_{+}X$$
by Lemma 5.2 . Dividing by
$(1+\kappa (\theta \left){\mathbf{E}}_{+}X\right)$
proves the lemma.
$\square $
6 Spinglasses
Let
${\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{(N,0)}$
denote the spinglass measure
${\mathbf{P}}^{sg}$
on configurations on the tree
${T}^{\left(N\right)}\left(v\right)$
(see Section 1 for definitions). Our object in this section is to determine when
${\mathbf{P}}_{0}^{(N,sg)}\left(\eta \right(0)=+1{\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\left(N\right)})$
converges in distribution to 0, where
${\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\left(N\right)}={\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}$
is the
$\sigma $
field generated by boundary values on
${T}^{\left(N\right)}$
. By the Markov random field property (or by the definitions of
$\mathbf{P}$
and
${\mathbf{P}}^{sg}$
), the measures
${\mathbf{P}}^{\left(N\right)}$
and
${\mathbf{P}}^{(N,sg)}$
agree when conditioned on the boundary, so the functions
${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
of the previous section compute conditional probabilities with respect to
${\mathbf{P}}^{(N,sg)}$
. Thus our task is to see when
${X}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\u27f6}0$
under the laws
${\mathbf{P}}^{(N,sg)}$
.
Theorem
2.5 Let
$T$
be an infinite, locally finite tree, rooted at 0, with no leaves except possibly at 0 and interaction strengths
${J}_{v}$
satisfying ( 1.1 ) and set
${\theta}_{v}=tanh\left(\beta {J}_{v}\right)$
. Then
${X}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\u27f6}0$
under the spinglass measure if and only if
$ca{p}_{2}\left(T\right)=0$
with resistances
${R}_{v}={\prod}_{y\le v}{\theta}_{y}^{2}$
as assigned in ( 2.6 ).
Proof:
The structure of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.1 . We begin with equation ( 5.22 ):
$${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}={\sum}_{v\to w}{f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right).$$
This time we have unconditional independence of boundary values instead of conditional independence, so instead of
${m}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
we work with
${U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}:=({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}$
and the mean
$${u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}:=\int ({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}d{\mathbf{P}}_{v}^{(N,sg)},$$
where the integrating measure in this case is just i.i.d. fair coinflips on the boundary of
${T}^{\left(N\right)}\left(v\right)$
. In place of Lemma 5.1 we have the observation that the random variables
${X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}$
have mean zero and are independent as
$w$
ranges over the children of a fixed
$v$
. Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3 are replaced by the following two lemmas. Define
$${g}_{v}\left(x\right):=\left({f}_{v}\right(\sqrt{x}){)}^{2}.$$
Lemma 6.1
For all
$v$
and all
$N>\leftv\right$
,
$$\mathbf{E}({U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\le 3(\mathbf{E}{U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}.$$
Lemma 6.2
There are continuous functions
${\kappa}_{2}(c,\theta v)\ge {\kappa}_{1}(c,\theta v)>0$
such that for any random variable
$V$
satisfying
$\mathbf{E}{V}^{2}\le c(\mathbf{E}V{)}^{2}$
, one has
$$\begin{array}{c}{h}_{2}(\mathbf{E}V)\le \mathbf{E}{g}_{v}\left(V\right)\le {h}_{1}(\mathbf{E}V),\end{array}$$ 
(6.27)

with
${h}_{i}\left(x\right)={\theta}^{2}vx/(1+{\kappa}_{i}(c,{\theta}_{v}\left)x\right)$
.
From these two lemmas the proof is finished as follows. Let
$\mathbf{E}$
denote expectation with respect to i.i.d. unbiased (spinglass) boundary conditions. Since each
${f}_{v}$
is an odd function, the quantities
$f\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)$
are independent meanzero as
$w$
varies over the children of
$v$
, which gives rise to the recursive formula
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}& =& \mathbf{E}({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \mathbf{E}{\left({\sum}_{v\to w}{f}_{v}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)\right)}^{2}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\mathbf{E}{f}_{v}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\mathbf{E}{g}_{v}\left({U}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right).\end{array}$$  
Apply Lemma 6.2 with
$V={U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
and
$c=3$
(obtaining the hypothesis from Lemma 6.1 ), to get
$${\sum}_{v\to w}{h}_{2}\left({u}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)\le {u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\le {\sum}_{v\to w}{h}_{1}\left({u}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right).$$
By continuity and the boundedness assumption ( 1.1 ), we may take
${\kappa}_{i}$
in the definition of
${h}_{i}$
to be constants independent of
$v$
. By Theorem 3.2 we see that
${lim}_{N\to \infty}{u}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}$
is estimated up to a constant factor by
$ca{p}_{2}\left(T\right)$
with resistances as stated in the hypothesis of the theorem.
Since
${X}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}$
has mean zero and is bounded by
${\sum}_{0\to v}log\left[\right(1+\theta v)/(1\theta v\left)\right]$
, it follows that the random variables
${X}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}$
converge in distribution to 0 if and only if their variances
${u}_{0}^{\left(N\right)}$
go to zero. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.5 .
$\square $
It remains to prove Lemmas 6.1 and 6.2 . Before proving Lemma 6.1 , we record some preliminary facts.
Lemma 6.3
Suppose
$f$
is a differentiable, weakly increasing and concave function on
$[0,\infty )$
, with
$f\left(0\right)=0$
. Then
${x}^{2}\circ f\circ \sqrt{x}$
is concave.
Proof: Let
$\phi \left(x\right)=f\left({x}_{0}\right)+(x{x}_{0}){f}^{\prime}\left({x}_{0}\right)$
be the tangent line for
$f$
at
${x}_{0}$
. Concavity implies that
$\phi \left(x\right)\ge f\left(x\right)$
for all
$x\ge 0$
and that
${h}^{\prime}\left({x}_{0}\right)\le f\left({x}_{0}\right)/{x}_{0}$
. Thus
$\phi \left(x\right)=ax+b$
with
$b\ge 0$
, whence
${x}^{2}\circ \phi \circ \sqrt{x}$
is a concave support function, lying above
${x}^{2}\circ f\circ \sqrt{x}$
withequality at
${x}_{0}^{2}$
. We conclude that
${x}^{2}\circ f\circ \sqrt{x}$
is the minimum of a family of concave functions.
$\square $
Lemma 6.4
Let
$g:[0,\infty )\to [0,\infty )$
be concave with
$g\left(0\right)=0$
, and let
$Y$
be a nonnegative random variable with positive finite variance. Then
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathbf{E}\left[g\right(Y{)}^{2}]}{[\mathbf{E}g(Y){]}^{2}}\le \frac{\mathbf{E}{Y}^{2}}{(\mathbf{E}Y{)}^{2}}.\end{array}$$ 
(6.28)

Proof: Let
$Z=Y/\mathbf{E}Y$
and
$h\left(z\right)=g(z\mathbf{E}Y)/\mathbf{E}\left(g\right(Y\left)\right)$
. Then
$\mathbf{E}Z=\mathbf{E}h\left(Z\right)=1$
, so there must exist
${z}_{1},{z}_{2}>0$
such that
$h\left({z}_{1}\right)\ge {z}_{1}$
and
$h\left({z}_{2}\right)\le {z}_{2}$
. We also may assume that
$h\left(z\right)$
is not identically equal to
$z$
, and thus by concavity there is a unique fixed point
$x>0$
for which
$h\left(x\right)=x$
. For any
$z\ge 0$
,
$$\lefth\right(z)x\le zx,$$
and therefore,
$$\mathbf{E}\left[h\right(Z{)}^{2}]=\mathbf{E}(h\left(Z\right)x{)}^{2}+2x{x}^{2}\le \mathbf{E}(Zx{)}^{2}+2x{x}^{2}=\mathbf{E}{Z}^{2},$$
proving the lemma.
$\square $
Lemma 6.5
For any nonnegative random variable
$X\in {L}^{4}$
, and any concave function
$f$
with
$f\left(0\right)=0$
,
$$\frac{\mathbf{E}{f}^{4}\left(X\right)}{(\mathbf{E}{f}^{2}(X){)}^{2}}\le \frac{\mathbf{E}{X}^{4}}{(\mathbf{E}{X}^{2}{)}^{2}}.$$
Proof: by Lemma 6.3 , the function
$g:={x}^{2}\circ f\circ \sqrt{x}$
is concave. Applying Lemma 6.4 to the function
$g$
and the random variable
$Y={X}^{2}\in {L}^{2}$
gives
$$\frac{\mathbf{E}{f}^{4}\left(X\right)}{(\mathbf{E}{f}^{2}(X){)}^{2}}=\frac{\mathbf{E}{g}^{2}\left(X\right)}{[\mathbf{E}g(X){]}^{2}}\le \frac{\mathbf{E}{X}^{2}}{(\mathbf{E}X{)}^{2}}=\frac{\mathbf{E}{X}^{4}}{(\mathbf{E}{X}^{2}{)}^{2}},$$
proving the lemma.
$\square $
Proof of Lemma 6.1 : Recall the definitions of
${U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
and
${u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
and define the fourth moment
${s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
:

${U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}=({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}$
;
${u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}=\mathbf{E}{U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
;
${s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}=\mathbf{E}({U}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}=\mathbf{E}({X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{4}$
.
For any
$v$
, the random variables
$\left\{{f}_{w}\right({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}):v\to w\}$
are independent with mean zero, so any monomial of these will have mean zero unless all exponents are even. The basic recursion ( 5.22 ) yields
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}& =& \mathbf{E}{\left({\sum}_{v\to w}{f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)\right)}^{2}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}.\end{array}$$  
Hence
$$\begin{array}{c}({u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}={\sum}_{v\to w}{\left(\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\right)}^{2}+{\sum}_{v\to \{w,{w}^{\prime}\}}2\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\mathbf{E}{f}_{{w}^{\prime}}({X}_{{w}^{\prime}}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}.\end{array}$$ 
(6.29)

The fourth power expands similarly:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}& =& \mathbf{E}{\left({\sum}_{v\to w}{f}_{w}\left({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}\right)\right)}^{4}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\sum}_{v\to w}\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{4}+{\sum}_{v\to \{w,{w}^{\prime}\}}6\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}\mathbf{E}{f}_{{w}^{\prime}}({X}_{{w}^{\prime}}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}.\end{array}$$ 
(6.30)

It is required to show that
${s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\le 3({u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}$
.
Proceed by induction on
$N\leftv\right$
. First suppose
$N\leftv\right=1$
and that
$v$
has
$d$
children.
Then
${X}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}$
is the sum of
$d$
independent meanzero random variables, each equal to
$\pm log(p/(1p\left)\right)$
. In this case,
${s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}/({u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}=32/d<3$
. Now suppose
$N\leftv\right>1$
. By induction,
${s}_{w}\le 3{u}_{w}^{2}$
for each child
$w$
of
$v$
. Applying Lemma 6.5 , we see that for each such
$w$
,
$$\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{4}\le 3(\mathbf{E}{f}_{w}({X}_{w}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}{)}^{2}.$$
Plugging this into equation ( 6.30 ) and comparing with equation ( 6.29 ) shows that
${s}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}\le 3({u}_{v}^{\left(N\right)}{)}^{2}$
, completing the induction.
$\square $
Proof of Lemma 6.2 : We observed in the proof of Lemma 6.5 that
${g}_{v}$
is concave; it is bounded as well. For the upper bound, first note that
$${g}_{v}\left(x\right)\le h\left(x\right):=\frac{{\theta}^{2}vx}{1+\kappa \left({\theta}_{v}\right)x}$$
for some
$\kappa $
varying continuously with
$\theta v$
. The proof of this is same as the proof of ( 4.21 ), using the Taylor expansion
$${g}_{v}\left(x\right)={\theta}_{v}x(1+\theta v)\left)\theta v\right(1{\theta}_{v}){x}^{2}/6+O({x}^{3})$$
together with boundedness and concavity of
${g}_{v}$
. Jensen's inequality gives
$$\mathbf{E}{g}_{v}\left(V\right)\le \mathbf{E}h\left(V\right)\le h(\mathbf{E}V)$$
which proves the upper bound with
${\kappa}_{1}=\kappa $
.
For the lower bound, since
${g}_{v}\left(x\right)=\theta vxO\left({x}^{2}\right)$
near 0, we have
${g}_{v}\left(x\right)\ge \theta vx\lambda {x}^{2}$
for some
$\lambda $
and all
$x$
in some interval
$[0,\delta ]$
. Choosing
$\lambda $
larger if necessary, we can ensure that
${g}_{v}\left(x\right)\ge \theta vx\lambda {x}^{2}$
for all
$x\ge 0$
. Hence
$$\mathbf{E}{g}_{v}\left(V\right)\ge {\theta}^{2}v\mathbf{E}Vc\lambda (\mathbf{E}V{)}^{2}.$$
Choose
$\delta \left(\theta v\right)>0$
so that the righthand side is positive for
$x\in (0,\delta (\theta v\left)\right)$
. Choose
${\kappa}_{2}\left(\theta v\right)$
so that
$$\frac{{\theta}^{2}vx}{1+{\kappa}_{2}\left(\theta v\right)x}\le [{\theta}^{2}vx\lambda {x}^{2}]\wedge \frac{{g}_{v}(\delta /2)}{4c}.$$
This satisfies ( 6.27 ) when
$\mathbf{E}V\le \delta $
. But when
$\mathbf{E}V>\delta $
, then hypothesis on
$V$
implies that
$\mathbf{P}(V>\delta /2)\ge 1/\left(4c\right)$
and therefore that
$\mathbf{E}{g}_{v}\left(V\right)\ge {g}_{v}(\delta /2)/\left(4c\right)$
. Hence ( 6.27 ) is valid for all
$x\ge 0$
. Together with the evident continuous dependence of
${\kappa}_{i}$
on
$\theta v$
, this proves the lemma.
$\square $
7 Concluding remarks
Although we have in general no explicit probabilistic interpretation of
${L}^{p}$
capacities, in the case of integer values of
$p$
there is a more probabilistic formulation. Positive
${L}^{p}$
capacity is equivalent to the existence of a probability measure
$\mu $
on
$\partial T$
such that
$p$
independent paths picked from
$\mu $
will coincide along a path of finite average resistance. This corresponds to the representation of
${L}^{p}$
energy as a
$p$
fold integral over
$\partial T$
.
Finally, we remark that other statistical mechanical models lead to recursions similar to (
5.22 ) but with functions
${f}_{v}$
that are not necessarily concave. The Potts model with
$1<q<2$
is essentially similar to the Ising model, but when
$q>2$
, the functions
${f}_{v}$
are not concave and qualitatively different behavior arises. See Häggström (1996) for a discussion of this as pertains to the random cluster model, and Pemantle and Steif (1999) for the Heisenberg and other continuousstate models on general trees.
Acknowledgement
. Much of the research presented here was performed at the Mittag Leffler Institute. We are grateful to E. B. Dynkin for telling us about the importance of
${L}^{p}$
capacities in connection with superprocesses.
References

Bleher, P. M., Ruiz, J. and Zagrebnov V. A. (1995) On the purity of limiting Gibbs state for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice, J. Stat. Phys 79, 473–482.

Chayes, J. T., Chayes, L., Sethna, J. and Thouless, D. (1986). Comm. Math. Phys. 106 41 89.

Evans, W., Kenyon, C., Peres, Y. and Schulman, L. J. (2000). Broadcasting on trees and the Ising Model, Ann. Appl. Prob. 10, 410–433.

H. O. Georgii (1988). Gibbs Measures and Phase Transitions. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.

Häggström, O. (1996). The randomcluster model on a homogeneous tree. Probab. Th. Related Fields 104, 231–253.

Ioffe, D. (1996a). A note on the extremality of the disordered state for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice. Lett. Math. Phys. 37, 137–143.

Ioffe, D. (1996b) Extremality of the disordered state for the Ising model on general trees. Trees (Versailles, 1995), 3–14, Progr. Probab. 40, Birkhäuser, Basel.

Lyons, R. (1989). The Ising model and percolation on trees and treelike graphs. Comm. Math. Phys. 125 337 353.

Lyons, R. (1992). Random walks, capacity, and percolation on trees. Ann. Prob. 20 2043 2088. Murakami, A. and Yamasaki, M. (1992). Nonlinear potentials on an infinite network. Mem. Fac. Sci. Shimane Univ. 26, 15–28

Pemantle, R. and Steif, J. E. (1999). Robust phase transitions for Heisenberg and other models on general trees. Ann. Probab. 27, 876–912.

Preston, C. J. (1974). Gibbs states on countable sets. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Preston, C. J. (1976). Random fields. Lecture notes in Mathematics, vol. 534. Springer: Berlin.

Soardi, P. M. (1993). Morphisms and currents in infinite nonlinear resistive networks. Potential Anal. 2, 315–347.

Soardi, P. M. (1994) Potential Theory on Infinite Networks. Lect. Notes Math. 1590, Springer, Berlin.