After this observation was made, a large number of critical problems in two dimensions were analyzed using conformal methods, which were applied, among others, to Ising and Potts models, Brownian motion, SelfAvoiding Walk (SAW), percolation, and Diffusion Limited Aggregation (DLA). The large body of knowledge and techniques that resulted, starting with the work of Belavin, Polyakov and Zamolodchikov [
4,
5]
in the early eighties, goes under the name of Conformal Field Theory (CFT). In two dimensions, one of the main goals of CFT and its most important application to statistical mechanics is a complete classification of all universality classes via irreducible representations of the infinitedimensional Virasoro algebra.
Partly because of the success of CFT, work in recent years on critical phenomena seemed to slow down somewhat, probably due to the feeling that most of the leading problems had been resolved. Nonetheless, however powerful and successful it may be, CFT has some limitations and leaves various open problems. First of all, the theory deals primarily with correlation functions of
local (or quasilocal) operators, and is therefore not always the best tool to investigate other quantities. Secondly, given some critical lattice model, there is no way, within the theory itself, of deciding to which CFT it corresponds. A third limitation, of a different nature, is due to the fact that the methods of CFT, although very powerful, are generally speaking not completely rigorous from a mathematical point of view.
In a somewhat surprising twist, the most recent developments in the area of twodimensional critical phenomena have emerged in the mathematics literature and have followed a new
direction, which has provided new tools and a way of coping with at least some of the limitations of CFT. The new approach may even provide a reinterpretation of CFT, and seems to be complementary to the traditional one in the sense that questions that are difficult to pose and/or answer within CFT are easy and natural in this new approach and vice versa.
The main tool of this radically new approach is the Stochastic Loewner Evolution (
$SLE$
), or Schramm Loewner Evolution, as it is also known, introduced by Schramm [
28]
.
The new approach, which is probabilistic in nature, focuses directly on nonlocal structures that characterize a given system, such as cluster boundaries in Ising, Potts and percolation models, or loops in the
$O\left(n\right)$
model. At criticality, these nonlocal objects become, in the continuum limit, random curves whose distributions can be uniquely identified thanks to their conformal invariance and a certain “Markovian” property. There is a oneparameter family of
$SLE$
s, indexed by a positive real number
$\kappa $
, and they appear to be the only possible candidates for the scaling limits of interfaces of twodimensional critical systems that are believed to be conformally invariant.
In particular, substantial progress has been made in recent years, thanks to
$SLE$
, in understanding the fractal and conformally invariant nature of (the scaling limit of ) large percolation clusters, which has attracted much attention and is of interest both for intrinsic reasons, given the many applications of percolation, and as a paradigm for the behavior of other systems. The work of Schramm [
28]
and Smirnov [
30]
has identified the scaling limit of a certain percolation interface with
$SL{E}_{6}$
, providing, along with the work of LawlerSchrammWerner [
19,
20]
and SmirnovWerner [
34]
, a confirmation of many results in the physics literature, as well as some new results.
However,
$SL{E}_{6}$
describes a single interface, which can be obtained by imposing special boundary conditions, and is not in itself sufficient to immediately describe the full scaling limit of the system. In fact, not only the nature and properties, but the very existence of the full scaling limit remained an open question. This is true of all models, such as Ising and Potts models, that are represented in terms of clusters. Werner [
36]
considered this problem in the context of
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
for values of
$\kappa $
between
$8/3$
and
$4$
. For percolation (corresponding to
$\kappa =6$
), the same problem was addressed in [
7]
, where
$SL{E}_{6}$
was used to construct a random process of continuous loops in the plane, which was identified with the full scaling limit of critical twodimensional percolation, but without detailed proofs.
In this paper, we complete the analysis of [
7]
, making rigorous the connection between the construction given there and the full scaling limit of percolation, and we prove some properties of the full scaling limit, the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process, including (one version of ) conformal invariance. We do this in two parts. First, we give proofs in which we assume the validity of what we will call statement (S) (see Section 5 ), which is a specific version of the results of Schramm and of Smirnov [
28,
30,
31,
32,
33]
concerning convergence of percolation exploration paths to
$SL{E}_{6}$
(see the discussion towards the end of Section 4.1 ). Since no detailed proof of statement (S) (or indeed, any version of convergence to
$SL{E}_{6}$
) has been available, in Appendix A we give a proof based only on that part of Smirnov's results about the convergence of crossing probabilities to Cardy's formula [
30]
(see Theorem 4 in Appendix A ). We note that statement (S) is restricted toJordan domains while no such restriction is indicated in [
30,
31]
.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
2 , we give necessary definitions and introduce
$SL{E}_{6}$
. Section 3 is devoted to the construction of the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process. In Section 4 , we introduce the discrete model and a discrete construction analogous to the continuum one presented in Section 3 . Most of the main results of this paper are stated in Section 5 , while Section 6 contains the proofs of those results, which use (S). The long Appendix A contains the proof of statement (S) (it is a consequence of Corollary A.1 there) and the short Appendix B contains convergence results for sequences of conformal maps which are used throughout the paper.
We remark that although our proof in Appendix
A of convergence of exploration paths to
$SL{E}_{6}$
roughly follows Smirnov's outline [
30,
31]
, based on his proof [
30,
31]
of convergence of crossing probabilities to Cardy's formula and on the Markovian properties of hulls and tips, there are at least two technically significant modifications. The first is that we use a different sequence of stopping times to obtain a Markov chain approximation to
$SL{E}_{6}$
, which results in a different geometry for the approximation (see Remark A.2 ). The second is that the control of “close encounters” by the exploration path to the domain boundary is not handled by general results for “threearms” events at the boundary of a halfplane, but rather by an argument based on continuity of crossing probabilities with respect to domain boundaries (see Lemmas A.2 , A.3 , A.4 and A.5 ). Moreover, we cannot use directly Smirnov's result on convergence of crossing probabilities (see Theorem 4 ), but need an extended version which is given in Theorem 6 of Appendix A .
We conclude by noting that the convergence results of Appendix
A are sufficient not only for our purposes of obtaining the full scaling limit, but also for obtaining the critical exponents (see [
34]
).
2 Preliminary Definitions
We will find it convenient to identify the real plane
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
and the complex plane
$\mathbb{C}$
. We will also refer to the Riemann sphere
$\mathbb{C}\cup \infty $
and the open upper halfplane
$\mathbb{H}=\{x+iy:y>0\}$
(and its closure
$\overline{\mathbb{H}}$
), where chordal
$SLE$
will be defined (see Section 2.3 ).
$\mathbb{D}$
will denote the open unit disc
$\mathbb{D}=\{z\in \mathbb{C}:z<1\}$
.
A domain
$D$
of the complex plane
$\mathbb{C}$
is a nonempty, connected, open subset of
$\mathbb{C}$
; a simply connected domain
$D$
is said to be a Jordan domain if its (topological) boundary
$\partial D$
is a Jordan curve (i.e., a simple continuous loop).
We will make repeated use of Riemann's mapping theorem, which states that if
$D$
is any simply connected domain other than the entire plane
$\mathbb{C}$
and
${z}_{0}\in D$
, then there is a unique conformal map
$f$
of
$D$
onto
$\mathbb{D}$
such that
$f\left({z}_{0}\right)=0$
and
${f}^{\prime}\left({z}_{0}\right)>0$
.
2.1 Compactification of
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
When taking the scaling limit
$\delta \to 0$
one can focus on fixed finite regions,
$\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
, or consider the whole
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
at once. The second option avoids dealing with boundary conditions, but requires an appropriate choice of metric.
A convenient way of dealing with the whole
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
is to replace the Euclidean metric with a distance function
$\Delta (\cdot ,\cdot )$
defined on
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
by
$$\begin{array}{c}\Delta (u,v)={inf}_{\phi}\int (1+\phi {}^{2}{)}^{1}ds,\end{array}$$ 
(1)

where the infimum is over all smooth curves
$\phi \left(s\right)$
joining
$u$
with
$v$
, parametrized by arclength
$s$
, and where
$\cdot $
denotes the Euclidean norm. This metric is equivalent to the Euclidean metric in bounded regions, but it has the advantage of making
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
precompact.
Adding a single point at infinity yields the compact space
${\dot{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$
which is isometric, via stereographic projection, to the twodimensional sphere.
2.2 The Space of Curves
In dealing with the scaling limit we use the approach of AizenmanBurchard [
2]
. Denote by
${\mathcal{S}}_{R}$
the complete separable metric space of continuous curves in the closure
${\overline{\mathbb{D}}}_{R}$
of the disc
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
of radius
$R$
with the metric ( 2 ) defined below. Curves are regarded as equivalence classes of continuous functions from the unit interval to
${\overline{\mathbb{D}}}_{R}$
, modulo monotonic reparametrizations.
$\gamma $
will represent a particular curve and
$\gamma \left(t\right)$
a parametrization of
$\gamma $
;
$\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}$
will represent a set of curves (more precisely, a closed subset of
${\mathcal{S}}_{R}$
).
$\text{d}(\cdot ,\cdot )$
will denote the uniform metric on curves, defined by
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{d}({\gamma}_{1},{\gamma}_{2})\equiv inf{sup}_{t\in [0,1]}\left{\gamma}_{1}\right(t){\gamma}_{2}(t\left)\right,\end{array}$$ 
(2)

where the infimum is over all choices of parametrizations of
${\gamma}_{1}$
and
${\gamma}_{2}$
from the interval
$[0,1]$
. The distance between two closed sets of curves is defined by the induced Hausdorff metric as follows:
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{dist}(\mathcal{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\prime})\le \varepsilon \iff \forall \gamma \in \mathcal{\mathcal{F}},\exists {\gamma}^{\prime}\in {\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\prime}\text{with}\text{d}(\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime})\le \varepsilon ,\text{and vice versa.}\end{array}$$ 
(3)

The space
${\Omega}_{R}$
of closed subsets of
${\mathcal{S}}_{R}$
(i.e., collections of curves in
${\overline{\mathbb{D}}}_{R}$
) with the metric ( 3 ) is also a complete separable metric space. We denote by
${\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}}_{R}$
its Borel
$\sigma $
algebra.
For each fixed
$\delta >0$
, the random curves that we consider are polygonal paths on the edges of the hexagonal lattice
$\delta \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, dual to the triangular lattice
$\delta \mathcal{T}$
. A superscript
$\delta $
is added to indicate that the curves correspond to a model with a “short distance cutoff ” of magnitude
$\delta $
.
We will also consider the complete separable metric space
$\mathcal{S}$
of continuous curves in
${\dot{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$
with the distance
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{D}({\gamma}_{1},{\gamma}_{2})\equiv inf{sup}_{t\in [0,1]}\Delta \left({\gamma}_{1}\right(t),{\gamma}_{2}(t\left)\right),\end{array}$$ 
(4)

where the infimum is again over all choices of parametrizations of
${\gamma}_{1}$
and
${\gamma}_{2}$
from the interval
$[0,1]$
. The distance between two closed sets of curves is again defined by the induced Hausdorff metric as follows:
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Dist}(\mathcal{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\prime})\le \varepsilon \iff \forall \gamma \in \mathcal{\mathcal{F}},\exists {\gamma}^{\prime}\in {\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}^{\prime}\text{with}\text{D}(\gamma ,{\gamma}^{\prime})\le \varepsilon ,\text{and vice versa.}\end{array}$$ 
(5)

The space
$\Omega $
of closed sets of
$\mathcal{S}$
(i.e., collections of curves in
${\dot{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$
) with the metric ( 5 ) is also a complete separable metric space. We denote by
$\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}$
its Borel
$\sigma $
algebra.
When we talk about convergence in distribution of random curves, we always mean with respect to the uniform metric (
2 ), while when we deal with closed collections of curves, we always refer to the metric ( 3 ) or ( 5 ).
Remark 2.1.
In this paper, the space
$\Omega $
of closed sets of
$\mathcal{S}$
is generally used for collections of exploration paths and cluster boundary loops and their scaling limits,
$SL{E}_{6}$
paths and continuum nonsimple loops. There is one place however, in the statements and proofs of Lemmas A.2 , A.4 and A.5 , where we also apply
$\Omega $
in essentially the original setting of Aizenman and Burchard [
1,
2]
, i.e., for collections of blue and yellow simple
$\mathcal{T}$
paths (see Section 4 for precise definitions) and their scaling limits. The slight modification needed to keep track of both the paths and their colors is easily managed.
2.3 Chordal
$SLE$
in the Upper HalfPlane
The Stochastic Loewner Evolution (
$SLE$
) was introduced by Schramm [
28]
as a tool for studying the scaling limit of twodimensional discrete (defined on a lattice) probabilistic models whose scaling limits are expected to be conformally invariant. In this section we define the chordal version of
$SLE$
; for more on the subject, the interested reader can consult the original paper [
28]
as well as the fine reviews by Lawler [
17]
, Kager and Nienhuis [
14]
, and Werner [
37]
, and Lawler's book [
18]
.
Let
$\mathbb{H}$
denote the upper halfplane. For a given continuous real function
${U}_{t}$
with
${U}_{0}=0$
, define, for each
$z\in \overline{\mathbb{H}}$
, the function
${g}_{t}\left(z\right)$
as the solution to the ODE
$$\begin{array}{c}{\partial}_{t}{g}_{t}\left(z\right)=\frac{2}{{g}_{t}\left(z\right){U}_{t}},\end{array}$$ 
(6)

with
${g}_{0}\left(z\right)=z$
. This is well defined as long as
${g}_{t}\left(z\right){U}_{t}\ne 0$
, i.e., for all
$t<T\left(z\right)$
, where
$$\begin{array}{c}T\left(z\right)\equiv sup\{t\ge 0:{min}_{s\in [0,t]}{g}_{s}\left(z\right){U}_{s}>0\}.\end{array}$$ 
(7)

Let
${K}_{t}\equiv \{z\in \overline{\mathbb{H}}:T(z)\le t\}$
and let
${\mathbb{H}}_{t}$
be the unbounded component of
$\mathbb{H}\backslash {K}_{t}$
; it can be shown that
${K}_{t}$
is bounded and that
${g}_{t}$
is a conformal map from
${\mathbb{H}}_{t}$
onto
$\mathbb{H}$
. For each
$t$
, it is possible to write
${g}_{t}\left(z\right)$
as
$$\begin{array}{c}{g}_{t}\left(z\right)=z+\frac{2t}{z}+o\left(\frac{1}{z}\right),\end{array}$$ 
(8)

when
$z\to \infty $
. The family
$({K}_{t},t\ge 0)$
is called the Loewner chain associated to the driving function
$({U}_{t},t\ge 0)$
.
Definition 2.1.
Chordal
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
is the Loewner chain
$({K}_{t},t\ge 0)$
that is obtained when the driving function
${U}_{t}=\sqrt{\kappa}{B}_{t}$
is
$\sqrt{\kappa}$
times a standard realvalued Brownian motion
$({B}_{t},t\ge 0)$
with
${B}_{0}=0$
.
For all
$\kappa \ge 0$
, chordal
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
is almost surely generated by a continuous random curve
$\gamma $
in the sense that, for all
$t\ge 0$
,
${\mathbb{H}}_{t}\equiv \mathbb{H}\backslash {K}_{t}$
is the unbounded connected component of
$\mathbb{H}\backslash \gamma [0,t]$
;
$\gamma $
is called the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
.
2.4 Chordal
$SLE$
in an Arbitrary Simply Connected Domain
Let
$D\subset \mathbb{C}$
(
$D\ne \mathbb{C}$
) be a simply connected domain whose boundary is a continuous curve. By Riemann's mapping theorem, there are (many) conformal maps from the upper halfplane
$\mathbb{H}$
onto
$D$
. In particular, given two distinct points
$a,b\in \partial D$
(or more accurately, two distinct prime ends), there exists a conformal map
$f$
from
$\mathbb{H}$
onto
$D$
such that
$f\left(0\right)=a$
and
$f(\infty )\equiv {lim}_{\leftz\right\to \infty}f\left(z\right)=b$
. In fact, the choice of the points
$a$
and
$b$
on the boundary of
$D$
only characterizes
$f(\cdot )$
up to a multiplicative factor, since
$f(\lambda \cdot )$
would also do.
Suppose that
$({K}_{t},t\ge 0)$
is a chordal
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
in
$\mathbb{H}$
as defined above; we define chordal
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
$({\stackrel{~}{K}}_{t},t\ge 0)$
in
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
as the image of the Loewner chain
$({K}_{t},t\ge 0)$
under
$f$
. It is possible to show, using scaling properties of
$SL{E}_{\kappa}$
, that the law of
$({\stackrel{~}{K}}_{t},t\ge 0)$
is unchanged, up to a linear timechange, if we replace
$f(\cdot )$
by
$f(\lambda \cdot )$
. This makes it natural to consider
$({\stackrel{~}{K}}_{t},t\ge 0)$
as a process from
$a$
to
$b$
in
$D$
, ignoring the role of
$f$
.
We are interested in the case
$\kappa =6$
, for which
$({K}_{t},t\ge 0)$
is generated by a continuous, nonsimple, nonselfcrossing curve
$\gamma $
with Hausdorff dimension
$7/4$
. We will denote by
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
the image of
$\gamma $
under
$f$
and call it the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
in
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
;
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
is a continuous nonsimple curve inside
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
, and it can be given a parametrization
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}\left(t\right)$
such that
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}\left(0\right)=a$
and
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}\left(1\right)=b$
, so that we are in the metric framework described in Section 2.2 . It will be convenient to think of
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
as an oriented path, with orientation from
$a$
to
$b$
.
3 Construction of the Continuum Nonsimple Loops
3.1 Construction of a Single Loop
As a preview to the full construction, we explain how to construct a single loop using two
$SL{E}_{6}$
paths inside a domain
$D$
whose boundary is assumed to have a given orientation (clockwise or counterclockwise). This is done in three steps (see Figure 1 ), of which the first consists in choosing two points
$a$
and
$b$
on the boundary
$\partial D$
of
$D$
and “running” a chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
,
$\gamma ={\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
, from
$a$
to
$b$
inside
$D$
. As explained in Section 2.4 , we consider
$\gamma $
as an oriented path, with orientation from
$a$
to
$b$
. The set
$D\backslash {\gamma}_{D,a,b}[0,1]$
is a countable union of its connected components, which are open and simply connected. If
$z$
is a deterministic point in
$D$
, then with probability one,
$z$
is not touched by
$\gamma $
[
26]
and so it belongs to a unique domain in
$D\backslash {\gamma}_{D,a,b}[0,1]$
that we denote
${D}_{a,b}\left(z\right)$
.
The elements of
$D\backslash {\gamma}_{D,a,b}[0,1]$
can be conveniently thought of in terms of how a point
$z$
in the interior of the component was first “trapped” at some time
${t}_{1}$
by
$\gamma [0,{t}_{1}]$
, perhaps together with either
${\partial}_{a,b}D$
or
${\partial}_{b,a}D$
(the portions of the boundary
$\partial D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
counterclockwise or clockwise respectively): (1) those components whose boundary contains a segment of
${\partial}_{b,a}D$
between two successive visits at
${\gamma}_{0}\left(z\right)=\gamma \left({t}_{0}\right)$
and
${\gamma}_{1}\left(z\right)=\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)$
to
${\partial}_{b,a}D$
(where here and below
${t}_{0}<{t}_{1}$
), (2) the analogous components with
${\partial}_{b,a}D$
replaced by the other part of the boundary
${\partial}_{a,b}D$
, (3) those components formed when
${\gamma}_{0}\left(z\right)=\gamma \left({t}_{0}\right)=\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)={\gamma}_{1}\left(z\right)\in D$
with
$\gamma $
winding about
$z$
in a counterclockwise direction between
${t}_{0}$
and
${t}_{1}$
, and finally (4) the analogous clockwise components.
We give to the boundary of a domain of type 3 or 4 the orientation induced by how the curve
$\gamma $
winds around the points inside that domain. For a domain
${D}^{\prime}\ni z$
of type 1 or 2 which is produced by an “excursion”
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
from
${\gamma}_{0}\left(z\right)\in \partial D$
to
${\gamma}_{1}\left(z\right)\in \partial D$
, the part of the boundary that corresponds to the inner perimeter of the excursion
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
(i.e., the perimeter of
$\gamma $
seen from
$z$
) is oriented according to the direction of
$\gamma $
, i.e., from
${\gamma}_{0}\left(z\right)$
to
${\gamma}_{1}\left(z\right)$
.
If we assume that
$\partial D$
is oriented from
$a$
to
$b$
clockwise, then the boundaries of domains of type 2 have a well defined orientation, while the boundaries of domains of type 1 do not, since they are composed of two parts which are both oriented from the beginning to the end of the excursion that produced the domain.
Now, let
${D}^{\prime}$
be a domain of type 1 and let
$A$
and
$B$
be respectively the starting and ending point of the excursion that generated
${D}^{\prime}$
. The second step to construct a loop is to run a chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
,
${\gamma}^{\prime}={\gamma}_{{D}^{\prime},B,A}$
, inside
${D}^{\prime}$
from
$B$
to
$A$
; the third and final step consists in pasting together
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
and
${\gamma}^{\prime}$
.
Running
${\gamma}^{\prime}$
inside
${D}^{\prime}$
from
$B$
to
$A$
partitions
${D}^{\prime}\backslash {\gamma}^{\prime}$
into new domains. Notice that if we assign an orientation to the boundaries of these domains according to the same rules used above, all of those boundaries have a well defined orientation, so that the construction of loops just presented can be iterated inside each one of these domains (as well as inside each of the domains of type 2, 3 and 4 generated by
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
in the first step). This will be done in the next section.
3.2 The Full Construction Inside The Unit Disc
In this section we define the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process inside the unit disc
$\mathbb{D}={\mathbb{D}}_{1}$
via an inductive procedure. Later, in order to define the continuum nonsimple loops in the whole plane, the unit disc will be replaced by a growing sequence of large discs,
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
, with
$R\to \infty $
(see Theorem 2 ). The basic ingredient in the algorithmic construction, given in the previous section, consists of a chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
path
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
between two points
$a$
and
$b$
of the boundary
$\partial D$
of a given simply connected domain
$D\subset \mathbb{C}$
.
We will organize the inductive procedure in steps, each one corresponding to one
$SL{E}_{6}$
inside a certain domain generated by the previous steps. To do that, we need to order the domains present at the end of each step, so as to choose the one to use in the next step.
For this purpose, we introduce a deterministic countable set of points
$\mathcal{P}$
that are dense in
$\mathbb{C}$
and are endowed with a deterministic order (here and below by deterministic we mean that they are assigned before the beginning of the construction and are independent of the
$SL{E}_{6}$
's).
The first step consists of an
$SL{E}_{6}$
path,
${\gamma}_{1}={\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}$
, inside
$\mathbb{D}$
from
$i$
to
$i$
, which produces many domains that are the connected components of the set
$\mathbb{D}\backslash {\gamma}_{1}[0,1]$
. These domains can be priorityordered according to the maximal
$x$
or
$y$
coordinate distances between points on their boundaries and using the rank of the points in
$\mathcal{P}$
(contained in the domains) to break ties, as follows. For a domain
$D$
, let
${\text{d}}_{m}\left(D\right)$
be the maximal
$x$
or
$y$
distance between points on its boundary, whichever is greater. Domains with larger
${\text{d}}_{m}$
have higher priority, and if two domains have the same
${\text{d}}_{m}$
, the one containing the highest ranking point of
$\mathcal{P}$
from those two domains has higher priority. The priority order of domains of course changes as the construction proceeds and new domains are formed.
The second step of the construction consists of an
$SL{E}_{6}$
path,
${\gamma}_{2}$
, that is produced in the domain with highest priority (after the first step). Since all the domains that are produced in the construction are Jordan domains, as explained in the discussion following Corollary 5.1 , for all steps we can use the definition of chordal
$SLE$
given in Section 2.4 .
As a result of the construction, the
$SL{E}_{6}$
paths are naturally ordered:
$\{{\gamma}_{j}{\}}_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$
. It will be shown (see especially the proof of Theorem 1 below) that every domain that is formed during the construction is eventually used (this is in fact one important requirement in deciding how to order the domains and therefore how to organize the construction).
So far we have not explained how to choose the starting and ending points of the
$SL{E}_{6}$
paths on the boundaries of the domains. In order to do this, we give an orientation to the boundaries of the domains produced by the construction according to the rules explained in Section 3.1 . We call monochromatic a boundary which gets, as a consequence of those rules, a well defined (clockwise or counterclockwise) orientation; the choice of this term will be clarified when we discuss the lattice version of the loop construction below.
We will generally take our initial domain
${\mathbb{D}}_{1}$
(or
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
) to have a monochromatic boundary (either clockwise or counterclockwise orientation).
It is easy to see by induction that the boundaries that are not monochromatic are composed of two “pieces” joined at two special points (call them A and B, as in the
example of Section 3.1 ), such that one piece is a portion of the boundary of a previous domain, and the other is the inner perimeter of an excursion (see again Section 3.1 ). Both pieces are oriented in the same direction, say from A to B (see Figure 1 ).
For a domain whose boundary is not monochromatic, we make the “natural” choice of starting and ending points, corresponding to the end and beginning of the excursion that produced the domain (the points B and A respectively, in the example above). As explained in Section
3.1 , when such a domain is used with this choice of points on the boundary, a loop is produced, together with other domains, whose boundaries are all monochromatic.
For a domain whose boundary is monochromatic, and therefore has a well defined orientation, there are various procedures which would yield the “correct” distribution for the resulting Continuum Nonsimple Loop process; one possibility is as follows.
Given a domain
$D$
,
$a$
and
$b$
are chosen so that, of all pairs
$(u,v)$
of points in
$\partial D$
, they maximize
$\left\text{Re}\right(uv\left)\right$
if
$\left\text{Re}\right(uv\left)\right\ge \left\text{Im}\right(uv\left)\right$
, or else they maximize
$\left\text{Im}\right(uv\left)\right$
. If the choice is not unique, to restrict the number of pairs one looks at those pairs, among the ones already obtained, that maximize the other of
$\left\{\right\text{Re}(uv),\text{Im}(uv)\left\right\}$
. Notice that this leaves at most two pairs of points; if that's the case, the pair that contains the point with minimal real (and, if necessary, imaginary) part is chosen. The iterative procedure produces a loop every time a domain whose boundary is not monochromatic is used. Our basic loop process consists of the collection of all loops generated by this inductive procedure (i.e., the limiting object obtained from the construction by letting the number of steps
$k\to \infty $
), to which we add a “trivial” loop for each
$z$
in
$\mathbb{D}$
, so that the collection of loops is closed in the appropriate sense [
2]
. The Continuum Nonsimple Loop process in the whole plane is introduced in Theorem 2 , Section 5 . There, a “trivial” loop for each
$z\in \mathbb{C}\cup \infty $
has to be added to make the space of loops closed.
4 Lattices and Paths
We will denote by
$\mathcal{T}$
the twodimensional triangular lattice, whose sites we think of as the elementary cells of a regular hexagonal lattice
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
embedded in the plane as in Figure 2 . A sequence
$({\xi}_{0},\dots ,{\xi}_{n})$
of sites of
$\mathcal{T}$
such that
${\xi}_{i1}$
and
${\xi}_{i}$
are neighbors in
$\mathcal{T}$
for all
$i=1,\dots ,n$
and
${\xi}_{i}\ne {\xi}_{j}$
whenever
$i\ne j$
will be called a
$\mathcal{T}$
path and denoted by
$\pi $
.
If the first and last sites of the path are neighbors in
$\mathcal{T}$
, the path will be called a
$\mathcal{T}$
loop.
We say that a finite subset
$D$
of
$\mathcal{T}$
is simply connected if both
$D$
and
$\mathcal{T}\backslash D$
are connected (by the edges of
$\mathcal{T}$
). For a simply connected set
$D$
of hexagons, we denote by
$\Delta D$
its external site boundary, or sboundary (i.e., the set of hexagons that do not belong to
$D$
but are adjacent to hexagons in
$D$
), and by
$\partial D$
the topological boundary of
$D$
when
$D$
is considered as a domain of
$\mathbb{C}$
. We will call a bounded, simply connected subset
$D$
of
$\mathcal{T}$
a Jordan set if its sboundary
$\Delta D$
is a
$\mathcal{T}$
loop.
For a Jordan set
$D\subset \mathcal{T}$
, a vertex
$x\in \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
that belongs to
$\partial D$
can be either of two types, according to whether the edge incident on
$x$
that is not in
$\partial D$
belongs to a hexagon in
$D$
or not. We call a vertex of the second type an evertex (e for “external” or “exposed”).
Given a Jordan set
$D$
and two evertices
$x,y$
in
$\partial D$
, we denote by
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
the portion of
$\partial D$
traversed counterclockwise from
$x$
to
$y$
, and call it the right boundary; the remaining part of the boundary is denote by
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
and is called the left boundary. Analogously, the portion of
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
of
$\Delta D$
whose hexagons are adjacent to
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
is called the right sboundary and the remaining part the left sboundary.
A percolation configuration
$\sigma =\left\{\sigma \right(\xi ){\}}_{\xi \in \mathcal{T}}\in \{1,+1{\}}^{\mathcal{T}}$
on
$\mathcal{T}$
is an assignment of
$1$
(equivalently, yellow) or
$+1$
(blue) to each site of
$\mathcal{T}$
. For a domain
$D$
of the plane, the restriction to the subset
$D\cap \mathcal{T}$
of
$\mathcal{T}$
of the percolation configuration
$\sigma $
is denoted by
${\sigma}_{D}$
.
On the space of configurations
$\Sigma =\{1,+1{\}}^{\mathcal{T}}$
, we consider the usual product topology and denote by
$\mathbb{P}$
the uniform measure, corresponding to Bernoulli percolation with equal density of yellow (minus) and blue (plus) hexagons, which is critical percolation in the case of the triangular lattice.
A (percolation)
cluster is a maximal, connected, monochromatic subset of
$\mathcal{T}$
; we will distinguish between blue (plus) and yellow (minus) clusters. The boundary of a cluster
$D$
is the set of edges of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
that surround the cluster (i.e., its Peierls contour); it coincides with the topological boundary of
$D$
considered as a domain of
$\mathbb{C}$
. The set of all boundaries is a collection of “nested” simple loops along the edges of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
.
Given a percolation configuration
$\sigma $
, we associate an arrow to each edge of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
belonging to the boundary of a cluster in such a way that the hexagon to the right of the edge with respect to the direction of the arrow is blue (plus). The set of all boundaries then becomes a collection of nested, oriented, simple loops. A boundary path (or bpath)
$\gamma $
is a sequence
$({e}_{0},\dots ,{e}_{n})$
of distinct edges of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
belonging to the boundary of a cluster and such that
${e}_{i1}$
and
${e}_{i}$
meet at a vertex of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
for all
$i=1,\dots ,n$
. To each bpath, we can associate a direction according to the direction of the edges in the path. Given a bpath
$\gamma $
, we denote by
${\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)$
(respectively,
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
) the set of blue (resp., yellow) hexagons (i.e., sites of
$\mathcal{T}$
) adjacent to
$\gamma $
; we also let
$\Gamma \left(\gamma \right)\equiv {\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)\cup {\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
.
4.1 The Percolation Exploration Process and Path
For a Jordan set
$D\subset \mathcal{T}$
and two evertices
$x,y$
in
$\partial D$
, imagine coloring blue all the hexagons in
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
and yellow all those in
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
. Then, for any percolation configuration
${\sigma}_{D}$
inside
$D$
, there is a unique bpath
$\gamma $
from
$x$
to
$y$
which separates the blue cluster adjacent to
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
from the yellow cluster adjacent to
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
. We call
$\gamma ={\gamma}_{D,x,y}\left({\sigma}_{D}\right)$
a percolation exploration path (see Figure 3 ).
An exploration path
$\gamma $
can be decomposed into left excursions
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
, i.e., maximal bsubpaths of
$\gamma $
that do not use edges of the left boundary
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
. Successive left excursions are separated by portions of
$\gamma $
that contain only edges of the left boundary
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
.
Analogously,
$\gamma $
can be decomposed into right excursions, i.e., maximal bsubpaths of
$\gamma $
that do not use edges of the right boundary
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
. Successive right excursions are separated by portions of
$\gamma $
that contain only edges of the right boundary
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
.
Notice that the exploration path
$\gamma ={\gamma}_{D,x,y}\left({\sigma}_{D}\right)$
only depends on the percolation configuration
${\sigma}_{D}$
inside
$D$
and the positions of the evertices
$x$
and
$y$
; in particular, it does not depend on the color of the hexagons in
$\Delta D$
, since it is defined by imposing fictitious
$\pm $
boundary conditions on
$D$
. To see this more clearly, we next show how to construct the percolation exploration path dynamically, via the percolation exploration process defined below.
Given a Jordan set
$D\subset \mathcal{T}$
and two evertices
$x,y$
in
$\partial D$
, assign to
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
a counterclockwise orientation (i.e., from
$x$
to
$y$
) and to
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
a clockwise orientation. Call
${e}_{x}$
the edge incident on
$x$
that does not belong to
$\partial D$
and orient it in the direction of
$x$
; this is the “starting edge” of an exploration procedure that will produce an oriented path inside
$D$
along the edges of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, together with two nonsimple monochromatic paths on
$\mathcal{T}$
. From
${e}_{x}$
, the process moves along the edges of hexagons in
$D$
according to the rules below. At each step there are two possible edges (left or right edge with respect to the current direction of exploration) to choose from, both belonging to the same hexagon
$\xi $
contained in
$D$
or
$\Delta D$
.

∙
If
$\xi $
belongs to
$D$
and has not been previously “explored,” its color is determined by flipping a fair coin and then the edge to the left (with respect to the direction in which the exploration is moving) is chosen if
$\xi $
is blue (plus), or the edge to the right is chosen if
$\xi $
is yellow (minus).

∙
If
$\xi $
belongs to
$D$
and has been previously explored, the color already assigned to it is used to choose an edge according to the rule above.

∙
If
$\xi $
belongs to the right external boundary
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
, the left edge is chosen.

∙
If
$\xi $
belongs to the left external boundary
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
, the right edge is chosen.

∙
The exploration process stops when it reaches
$b$
.
We can assign an arrow to each edge in the path in such a way that the hexagon to the right of the edge with respect to the arrow is blue; for edges in
$\partial D$
, we assign the arrows according to the direction assigned to the boundary. In this way, we get an oriented path,whose shape and orientation depend solely on the color of the hexagons explored during the construction of the path.
When we present the discrete construction, we will encounter Jordan sets
$D$
with two evertices
$x,y\in \partial D$
assigned in some way to be discussed later. Such domains will have either monochromatic (plus or minus) boundaries or
$\pm $
boundary conditions, corresponding to having both
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
and
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
monochromatic, but of different colors.
As explained, the exploration path
${\gamma}_{D,x,y}$
does not depend on the color of
$\Delta D$
, but the interpretation of
${\gamma}_{D,x,y}$
does. For domains with
$\pm $
boundary conditions, the exploration path represents the interface between the yellow cluster containing the yellow portion of the sboundary of
$D$
and the blue cluster containing its blue portion.
For domains with monochromatic blue (resp., yellow) boundary conditions, the exploration path represents portions of the boundaries of yellow (resp., blue) clusters touching
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
and adjacent to blue (resp., yellow) hexagons that are the starting point of a blue (resp., yellow) path (possibly an empty path) that reaches
${\partial}_{x,y}D$
, pasted together using portions of
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
.
In order to study the continuum scaling limit of an exploration path, we introduce the following definitions.
Definition 4.1.
Given a bounded, simply connected domain
$D$
of the plane, we denote by
${D}^{\delta}$
the largest Jordan set of hexagons of the scaled hexagonal lattice
$\delta \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
that is contained in
$D$
, and call it the
$\delta $
approximation of
$D$
.
It is clear that if
$D$
is a Jordan domain, then as
$\delta \to 0$
,
$\partial {D}^{\delta}$
converges to
$\partial D$
in the metric ( 2 ).
Definition 4.2.
Let
$D$
be a bounded domain of the plane and
${D}^{\delta}$
its
$\delta $
approximation. For
$a,b\in \partial D$
, choose the pair
$({x}_{a},{x}_{b})$
of evertices in
$\partial {D}^{\delta}$
closest to, respectively,
$a$
and
$b$
(if there are two such vertices closest to
$a$
, we choose, say, the first one encountered going clockwise along
$\partial {D}^{\delta}$
, and analogously for
$b$
). Given a percolation configuration
$\sigma $
, we define the exploration path
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}\left(\sigma \right)\equiv {\gamma}_{{D}^{\delta},{x}_{a},{x}_{b}}\left(\sigma \right)$
.
For a fixed
$\delta >0$
, the measure
$\mathbb{P}$
on percolation configurations
$\sigma $
induces a measure
${\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}$
on exploration paths
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}\left(\sigma \right)$
. In the continuum scaling limit,
$\delta \to 0$
, one is interested in the weak convergence of
${\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}$
to a measure
${\mu}_{D,a,b}$
supported on continuous curves, with respect to the uniform metric ( 2 ) on continuous curves.
One of the main tools in this paper is the result on convergence to
$SL{E}_{6}$
announced by Smirnov [
30]
(see also [
31]
), whose detailed proof is to appear [
32]
: The distribution of
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}$
converges, as
$\delta \to 0$
, to that of the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
inside
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
, with respect to the uniform metric ( 2 ) on continuous curves.
Actually, we will rather use a slightly stronger conclusion, given as statement (S) at the beginning of Section
5 below, a version of which, according to [
34]
(see p. 734 there), and [
33]
, will be contained in [
32]
. This stronger statement is that the convergence of the percolation process to
$SL{E}_{6}$
takes place locally uniformly with respect to the shape of the domain
$D$
and the positions of the starting and ending points
$a$
and
$b$
on its boundary
$\partial D$
.
We will use this version of convergence to
$SL{E}_{6}$
to identify the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process with the scaling limit of all critical percolation clusters. Statement (S) is a direct consequence of Corollary A.1 , which is proved in Appendix A . Although the convergence statements in Corollary A.1 and in (S) are stronger than those in [
30,
31]
, we note that they are restricted to Jordan domains, a restriction not present in [
30,
31]
.
Before concluding this section, we give one more definition. Consider the exploration path
$\gamma ={\gamma}_{D,x,y}^{\delta}$
and the set
$\Gamma \left(\gamma \right)={\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)\cup {\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)$
. The set
${D}^{\delta}\backslash \Gamma \left(\gamma \right)$
is the union of its connected components (in the lattice sense), which are simply connected. If the domain
$D$
is large and the evertices
${x}_{a},{y}_{a}\in \partial {D}^{\delta}$
are not too close to each other, then with high probability the exploration process inside
${D}^{\delta}$
will make large excursions into
${D}^{\delta}$
, so that
${D}^{\delta}\backslash \Gamma \left(\gamma \right)$
will have more than one component. Given a point
$z\in \mathbb{C}$
contained in
${D}^{\delta}\backslash \Gamma \left(\gamma \right)$
, we will denote by
${D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
the domain corresponding to the unique element of
${D}^{\delta}\backslash \Gamma \left(\gamma \right)$
that contains
$z$
(notice that for a deterministic
$z\in D$
,
${D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
is well defined with high probability for
$\delta $
small, i.e., when
$z\in {D}^{\delta}$
and
$z/\in \Gamma \left(\gamma \right)$
).
4.2 Discrete Loop Construction
Next, we show how to construct, by twice using the exploration process described in Section 4.1 , a loop
$\Lambda $
along the edges of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
corresponding to the external boundary of a monochromatic cluster contained in a large, simply connected, Jordan set
$D$
with monochromatic blue (say) boundary conditions (see Figures 4 and 5 ).
Consider the exploration path
$\gamma ={\gamma}_{D,x,y}$
and the sets
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
and
${\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)$
(see Figure 4 ).
The set
$D\backslash \left\{{\Gamma}_{Y}\right(\gamma )\cup {\Gamma}_{B}(\gamma \left)\right\}$
is the union of its connected components (in the lattice sense), which are simply connected. If the domain
$D$
is large and the evertices
$x,y\in \partial D$
are chosen not too close to each other, with large probability the exploration process inside
$D$
will make large excursions into
$D$
, so that
$D\backslash \left\{{\Gamma}_{Y}\right(\gamma )\cup {\Gamma}_{B}(\gamma \left)\right\}$
will have many components.
There are four types of components which may be usefully thought of in terms of their external site boundaries: (1) those components whose site boundary contains both sites in
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
and
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
, (2) the analogous components with
${\Delta}_{y,x}D$
replaced by
${\Delta}_{x,y}D$
and
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
by
${\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)$
, (3) those components whose site boundary only contains sites in
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\delta \right)$
, and finally (4) the analogous components with
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left(\gamma \right)$
replaced by
${\Gamma}_{B}\left(\gamma \right)$
.
Notice that the components of type 1 are the only ones with
$\pm $
boundary conditions, while all other components have monochromatic sboundaries. For a given component
${D}^{\prime}$
of type 1, we can identify the two edges that separate the yellow and blue portions of its sboundary. The vertices
${x}^{\prime}$
and
${y}^{\prime}$
of
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
where those two edges intersect
$\partial {D}^{\prime}$
are evertices and are chosen to be the starting and ending points of the exploration path
${\gamma}_{{D}^{\prime},{x}^{\prime},{y}^{\prime}}$
inside
${D}^{\prime}$
.
If
${x}^{\prime \prime},{y}^{\prime \prime}\in \partial D$
are respectively the ending and starting points of the left excursion
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
of
${\gamma}_{D,x,y}$
that “created”
${D}^{\prime}$
, by pasting together
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
and
${\gamma}_{{D}^{\prime},{x}^{\prime},{y}^{\prime}}$
with the help of the edges of
$\partial D$
contained between
${x}^{\prime}$
and
${x}^{\prime \prime}$
and between
${y}^{\prime}$
and
${y}^{\prime \prime}$
, we get a loop
$\Lambda $
which corresponds to the boundary of a yellow cluster adjacent to
${\partial}_{y,x}D$
(see Figure 5 ). Notice that the path
${\gamma}_{{D}^{\prime},{x}^{\prime},{y}^{\prime}}$
in general splits
${D}^{\prime}$
into various other domains, all of which have monochromatic boundary conditions.
4.3 Full Discrete Construction
We now give the algorithmic construction for discrete percolation which is the analogue of the continuum one. Each step of the construction is a single percolation exploration process; the order of successive steps is organized as in the continuum construction detailed in Section 3.2 . We start with the smallest Jordan set
${D}_{0}^{\delta}={\mathbb{D}}^{\delta}$
of hexagons that covers the unit disc
$\mathbb{D}$
. We will also make use of the countable set
$\mathcal{P}$
of points dense in
$\mathbb{C}$
that was introduced earlier.
The first step consists of an exploration process inside
${D}_{0}^{\delta}$
. For this, we need to select two points
$x$
and
$y$
in
$\partial {D}_{0}^{\delta}$
(which identify the starting and ending edges). We choose for
$x$
the evertex closest to
$i$
, and for
$y$
the evertex closest to
$i$
(if there are two such vertices closest to
$i$
, we can choose, say, the one with smallest real part, and analogously for
$i$
). The first exploration produces a path
${\gamma}_{1}^{\delta}$
and, for
$\delta $
small, many new domains of all four types. These domains are ordered according to the maximal
$x$
or
$y$
distance
${\text{d}}_{m}$
between points on their boundaries and, if necessary, with the help of points in
$\mathcal{P}$
, as in the continuum case, and that order is used, at each step of the construction, to determine the next exploration process. With this choice, the exploration processes and paths are naturally ordered:
${\gamma}_{1}^{\delta},{\gamma}_{2}^{\delta},\dots $
.
Each exploration process of course requires choosing a starting and ending vertex and edge. For domains of type 1, with a
$\pm $
or
$\mp $
boundary condition, the choice is the natural one, explained before.
For a domain
${D}_{k}^{\delta}$
(used at the
$k$
th step) of type other than 1, and therefore with a monochromatic boundary, the starting and ending edges are chosen with a procedure that mimics what is done in the continuum case. Once again, the exact procedure used to choose the pair of points is not important, as long as they are not chosen too close to each other. This is clear in the discrete case because the procedure that we are presenting is only “discovering” the cluster boundaries. In more precise terms, it is clear that one could couple the processes obtained with different rules by means of the same percolation configuration, thus obtaining exactly the same cluster boundaries.
As in the continuum case, we can choose the following procedure. (In Theorem
1 we will slightly reorganize the procedure by using a coupling to the continuum construction to guarantee that the order of exploration of domains of the discrete and continuum procedures match despite the rules for breaking ties.) Given a domain
$D$
,
$x$
and
$y$
are chosen so that, of all pairs
$(u,v)$
of points in
$\partial D$
, they maximize
$\left\text{Re}\right(uv\left)\right$
if
$\left\text{Re}\right(uv\left)\right\ge \left\text{Im}\right(uv\left)\right$
, or else they maximize
$\left\text{Im}\right(uv\left)\right$
. If the choice is not unique, to restrict the number of pairs one looks at those pairs, among the ones already obtained, that maximize the other of
$\left\{\right\text{Re}(uv),\text{Im}(uv)\left\right\}$
. Notice that this leaves at most two pairs of points; if that's the case, the pair that contains the point with minimal real (and, if necessary, imaginary) part is chosen.
The procedure continues iteratively, with regions that have monochromatic boundaries playing the role played in the first step by the unit disc. Every time a region with
$\pm $
boundary conditions is used, a new loop, corresponding to the outer boundary contour ofa cluster, is formed by pasting together, as explained in Section 3.1 , the new exploration path and the excursion containing the region where the last exploration was carried out.
All the new regions created at a step when a loop is formed have monochromatic boundary conditions.
5 Main Results
In this section we collect our main results about the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process. Before doing that, we state a precise version, called statement (S), on convergence of exploration paths to
$SL{E}_{6}$
that we will use in the proofs of these results, presented in Section 6 . (A proof of statement (S) is given in Appendix A ; it is an immediate consequence of Corollary A.1 there. The proof relies, among other things, on the result of Smirnov [
30]
concerning convergence of crossing probabilities to Cardy's formula [
10,
11]
– see Theorem 4 .) We note that (S) or (Corollary A.1 ) is both more general and more special than the convergence statements in [
30,
31]
— more general in that the domain can vary with
$\delta $
as
$\delta \to 0$
, but more special in the restriction to Jordan domains.
Given a Jordan domain
$D$
with two distinct points
$a,b\in \partial D$
on its boundary, let
${\mu}_{D,a,b}$
denote the law of
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
, the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
, and let
${\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}$
denote the law of the percolation exploration path
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}$
. Let
$X$
be the space of continuous curves inside
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
. We define
$\rho ({\mu}_{D,a,b},{\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta})\equiv inf\{\varepsilon >0:{\mu}_{D,a,b}(U)\le {\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}({\cup}_{x\in U}{B}_{\text{d}}(x,\varepsilon ))+\varepsilon \text{for all Borel}U\subset X\}$
(where
${B}_{\text{d}}(x,\varepsilon )$
denotes the open ball of radius
$\varepsilon $
centered at
$x$
in the metric ( 2 )) and denote by
${\text{d}}_{\text{P}}({\mu}_{D,a,b},{\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta})\equiv max\left\{\rho \right({\mu}_{D,a,b},{\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta}),\rho ({\mu}_{D,a,b}^{\delta},{\mu}_{D,a,b}\left)\right\}$
the Prohorov distance; weak convergence is equivalent to convergence in the Prohorov metric. Statement (S) is the following; it is used in the proofs of all the results of this section except for Lemmas 5.1  5.2 .

(S)
For Jordan domains, there is convergence in distribution of the percolation exploration path to the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
that is locally uniform in the shape of the boundary with respect to the uniform metric on continuous curves ( 2 ), and in the location of the starting and ending points with respect to the Euclidean metric; i.e., for
$(D,a,b)$
a Jordan domain with
$a,b\in \partial D$
,
$\forall \varepsilon >0$
,
$\exists {\alpha}_{0}={\alpha}_{0}\left(\varepsilon \right)$
and
${\delta}_{0}={\delta}_{0}\left(\varepsilon \right)$
such that for all
$({D}^{\prime},{a}^{\prime},{b}^{\prime})$
with
${D}^{\prime}$
Jordan and with
$max\left(\text{d}\right(\partial D,\partial {D}^{\prime}),a{a}^{\prime},b{b}^{\prime}\left\right)\le {\alpha}_{0}$
and
$\delta \le {\delta}_{0}$
,
${\text{d}}_{\text{P}}({\mu}_{{D}^{\prime},{a}^{\prime},{b}^{\prime}},{\mu}_{{D}^{\prime},{a}^{\prime},{b}^{\prime}}^{\delta})\le \varepsilon $
.
5.1 Preliminary Results
We first give some important results which are needed in the proofs of the main theorems. We start with two lemmas which are consequences of [
2]
, of standard bounds on the probability of events corresponding to having a certain number of monochromatic crossings of an annulus (see Lemma 5 of [
16]
and Appendix A of [
20]
), but which do not depend on statement (S).
Lemma 5.1.
Let
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
be the percolation exploration path on the edges of
$\delta \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
inside (the
$\delta $
approximation of )
$\mathbb{D}$
between (the evertices closest to)
$i$
and
$i$
. For any fixed point
$z\in \mathbb{D}$
, chosen independently of
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
, as
$\delta \to 0$
,
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
and the boundary
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
of the domain
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
that contains
$z$
jointly have limits in distribution along subsequences of
$\delta $
with respect to the uniform metric ( 2 ) on continuous curves. Moreover, any subsequence limit of
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
is almost surely a simple loop [
3]
.
Lemma 5.2.
Using the notation of Lemma 5.1 , let
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}$
be the limit in distribution of
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
as
$\delta \to 0$
along some convergent subsequence
$\left\{{\delta}_{k}\right\}$
and
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(z\right)$
the boundary of the domain
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(z\right)$
of
$\mathbb{D}\backslash {\gamma}_{D,i,i}[0,1]$
that contains
$z$
.
Then, as
$k\to \infty $
,
$({\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}},\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}(z\left)\right)$
converges in distribution to
$({\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i},\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}(z\left)\right)$
.
The two lemmas above are important ingredients in the proof of Theorem 1 below. The second one says that, for every subsequence limit, the discrete boundaries converge to the boundaries of the domains generated by the limiting continuous curve. If we use statement (S), then the limit
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}$
of
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}$
is the trace of chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
for every subsequence
${\delta}_{k}\downarrow 0$
, and we can use Lemmas 5.2 and 5.1 to deduce that all the domains produced in the continuum construction are Jordan domains. The key step in that direction is represented by the following result, our proof of which relies on (S).
Corollary 5.1.
For any deterministic
$z\in \mathbb{D}$
, the boundary
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(z\right)$
of a domain
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(z\right)$
of the continuum construction is almost surely a Jordan curve.
The corollary says that the domains that appear after the first step of the continuum construction are Jordan domains. The steps in the second stage of the continuum construction consist of
$SL{E}_{6}$
paths inside Jordan domains, and therefore Corollary 5.1 , combined with Riemann's mapping theorem and the conformal invariance of
$SL{E}_{6}$
, implies that the domains produced during the second stage are also Jordan. By induction, we deduce that all the domains produced in the continuum construction are Jordan domains.
We end this section with one more lemma which is another key ingredient in the proof of Theorem
1 ; we remark that its proof requires (S) in a fundamental way.
Lemma 5.3.
Let
$(D,a,b)$
denote a random Jordan domain, with
$a,b$
two points on
$\partial D$
. Let
$\left\{\right({D}_{k},{a}_{k},{b}_{k}){\}}_{k\in \mathbb{N}},{a}_{k},{b}_{k}\in \partial {D}_{k}$
, be a sequence of random Jordan domains with points on their boundaries such that, as
$k\to \infty $
,
$(\partial {D}_{k},{a}_{k},{b}_{k})$
converges in distribution to
$(\partial D,a,b)$
with respect to the uniform metric ( 2 ) on continuous curves, and the Euclidean metric on
$(a,b)$
. For any sequence
$\{{\delta}_{k}{\}}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$
with
${\delta}_{k}\downarrow 0$
as
$k\to \infty $
,
${\gamma}_{{D}_{k},{a}_{k},{b}_{k}}^{{\delta}_{k}}$
converges in distribution to
${\gamma}_{D,a,b}$
with respect to the uniform metric ( 2 ) on continuous curves.
5.2 The Main Theorems
In this section we state the main theorems of this paper and a corollary, our most important result, that the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process is the scaling limit of the set of all cluster boundaries for critical site percolation on the triangular lattice. The corollary is obtained by combining the first two theorems. The proofs of all these results rely on statement (S). As noted before, statement (S) is proved in Appendix A .
Theorem 1.
For any
$k\in \mathbb{N}$
, the first
$k$
steps of (a suitably reorganized version of ) the full discrete construction inside the unit disc (of Section 4.3 ) converge, jointly in distribution, to the first
$k$
steps of the full continuum construction inside the unit disc (of Section 3.2 ). Furthermore, the scaling limit of the full (original or reorganized) discrete construction is the full continuum construction.
Moreover, if for any fixed
$\varepsilon >0$
we let
${K}_{\delta}\left(\varepsilon \right)$
denote the number of steps needed to find all the cluster boundaries of Euclidean diameter larger than
$\varepsilon $
in the discrete construction, then
${K}_{\delta}\left(\varepsilon \right)$
is bounded in probability as
$\delta \to 0$
; i.e.,
${lim}_{C\to \infty}{limsup}_{\delta \to 0}\mathbb{P}\left({K}_{\delta}\right(\varepsilon )>C)=0$
. This is so in both the original and reorganized versions of the discrete construction.
The second part of Theorem 1 means that both versions of the discrete construction used in the theorem find all large contours in a number of steps which does not diverge as
$\delta \to 0$
. This, together with the first part of the same theorem, implies that the continuum construction does indeed describe all macroscopic contours contained inside the unit disc (with blue boundary conditions) as
$\delta \to 0$
.
The construction presented in Section
3.2 can of course be repeated for the disc
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
of radius
$R$
, for any
$R$
, so we should take a “thermodynamic limit” by letting
$R\to \infty $
. In this way, we would eliminate the boundary (and the boundary conditions) and obtain a process on the whole plane. Such an extension from the unit disc to the plane is contained in the next theorem.
Let
${P}_{R}$
be the (limiting) distribution of the set of curves (all continuum nonsimple loops) generated by the continuum construction inside
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
(i.e., the limiting measure, defined by the inductive construction, on the complete separable metric space
${\Omega}_{R}$
of collections of continuous curves in
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
).
For a domain
$D$
, we denote by
${I}_{D}$
the mapping (on
$\Omega $
or
${\Omega}_{R}$
) in which all portions of curves that exit
$D$
are removed. When applied to a configuration of loops in the plane,
${I}_{D}$
gives a set of curves which either start and end at points on
$\partial D$
or form closed loops completely contained in
$D$
. Let
${\hat{I}}_{D}$
be the same mapping lifted to the space of probability measures on
$\Omega $
or
${\Omega}_{R}$
.
Theorem 2.
Theorem 1 implies that there exists a unique probability measure
$P$
on the space
$\Omega $
of collections of continuous curves in
${\dot{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$
such that
${P}_{R}\to P$
as
$R\to \infty $
in the sense that for every bounded domain
$D$
, as
$R\to \infty $
,
${\hat{I}}_{D}{P}_{R}\to {\hat{I}}_{D}P$
.
Remark 5.1.
We remark that we will generally take monochromatic blue boundary conditions on the disc
${\mathbb{D}}_{R}$
of radius
$R$
. But one could also takemonochromatic boundary conditions with color depending on
$R$
or even nonmonochromatic boundary conditions without any essential change in the results or the proofs.
Corollary 5.2.
The Continuum Nonsimple Loop process
$P$
in the plane defined in Theorem 2 is the scaling limit of the collection of all boundary contours for critical site percolation on the triangular lattice.
The next theorem states some properties of the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process in the plane.
Theorem 3.
The Continuum Nonsimple Loop process in the plane has the following properties, the first three of which are valid with probability one:

1.
The Continuum Nonsimple Loop process is a random collection of noncrossing continuous loops in the plane. The loops can and do touch themselves and each other many times, but there are no triple points; i.e. no three or more loops can come together at the same point, and a single loop cannot touch the same point more than twice, nor can a loop touch a point where another loop touches itself.

2.
Any deterministic point (i.e., chosen independently of the loop process) of the plane is surrounded by an infinite family of nested loops with diameters going to both zero and infinity; any annulus about that point with inner radius
${r}_{1}>0$
and outer radius
${r}_{2}<\infty $
contains only a finite number of those loops. Consequently, any two distinct deterministic points of the plane are separated by loops winding around each of them.

3.
Any two loops are connected by a finite “path” of touching loops.

4.
The Continuum Nonsimple Loop process is conformally invariant in the sense that, given a Jordan domain
$D$
and a conformal homeomorphism
$f:D\to {D}^{\prime}$
onto
${D}^{\prime}$
, the scaling limits,
${P}_{D}$
and
${P}_{{D}^{\prime}}$
, of the loops inside
$D$
and
${D}^{\prime}$
taken with, say, blue boundary conditions are related by
$f*{P}_{D}={P}_{{D}^{\prime}}$
. (Here
$f*{P}_{D}$
denotes the probability distribution of the loop process
$f\left(X\right)$
when
$X$
is distributed by
${P}_{D}$
.)
To conclude this section, we show how to recover chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
from the Continuum Nonsimple Loop process, i.e., given a (deterministic) Jordan domain
$D$
with two boundary points
$a$
and
$b$
, we give a construction that uses the continuum nonsimple loops of
$P$
to generate a process distributed like chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
inside
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
.
Remember, first of all, that each continuum nonsimple loop has either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, with the set of all loops surrounding any deterministic point alternating in direction. For convenience, let us suppose that
$a$
is at the “bottom” and
$b$
is at the “top” of
$D$
so that the boundary is divided into a left and right part by thesetwo points. Fix
$\varepsilon >0$
and call
$LR\left(\varepsilon \right)$
the set of all the directed segments of loops that connect from the left to the right part of the boundary touching
$\partial D$
at a distance larger than
$\varepsilon $
from both
$a$
and
$b$
, and
$RL\left(\varepsilon \right)$
the analogous set of directed segments from the right to the left portion of
$\partial D$
. For a fixed
$\varepsilon >0$
, there is only a finite number of such segments, and, if they are ordered moving along the left boundary of
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
, they alternate in direction (i.e., a segment in
$LR\left(\varepsilon \right)$
is followed by one in
$RL\left(\varepsilon \right)$
and so on).
Between a segment in
$RL\left(\varepsilon \right)$
and the next segment in
$LR\left(\varepsilon \right)$
, there are countably many portions of loops intersecting
$D$
which start and end on
$\partial D$
and are maximal in the sense that they are not contained inside any other portion of loop of the same type; they all have counterclockwise direction and can be used to make a “bridge” between the righttoleft segment and the next one (in
$LR\left(\varepsilon \right)$
). This is done by pasting the portions of loops together with the help of points in
$\partial D$
and a limit procedure to produce a connected (nonsimple) path.
If we do this for each pair of successive segments on both sides of the boundary of
$D$
, we get a path that connects two points on
$\partial D$
. By letting
$\varepsilon \to 0$
and taking the limit of this procedure, since almost surely
$a$
and
$b$
are surrounded by an infinite family of nested loops with diameters going to zero, we obtain a path that connects
$a$
with
$b$
; this path is distributed as chordal
$SL{E}_{6}$
inside
$D$
from
$a$
to
$b$
. The last claim follows from considering the analogous procedure for percolation on the discrete lattice
$\delta \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, using segments of boundaries. It is easy to see that in the discrete case this procedure produces exactly the same path as the percolation exploration process. By Corollary 5.2 , the scaling limit of this discrete procedure is the continuum one described above, therefore the claim follows from (S).
6 Proofs
In this section we present the proofs of the results stated in Section 5 .
Proof of Lemma 5.1 . The first part of the lemma is a direct consequence of [
2]
; it is enough to notice that the (random) polygonal curves
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
and
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
satisfy the conditions in [
2]
and thus have a scaling limit in terms of continuous curves, at least along subsequences of
$\delta $
.
To prove the second part, we use standard percolation bounds (see Lemma 5 of [
16]
and Appendix A of [
20]
) to show that, in the limit
$\delta \to 0$
, the loop
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(z\right)$
does not collapse on itself but remains a simple loop.
Let us assume that this is not the case and that the limit
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}$
of
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}\left(z\right)$
along some subsequence
$\{{\delta}_{k}{\}}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$
touches itself, i.e.,
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\left({t}_{0}\right)=\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\left({t}_{1}\right)$
for
${t}_{0}\ne {t}_{1}$
with positive probability.
If that happens, we can take
$\varepsilon >{\varepsilon}^{\prime}>0$
small enough so that the annulus
$B\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )\backslash B\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\right({t}_{1}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
is crossed at least four times by
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}$
(here
$B(u,r)$
is the ball of radius
$r$
centered at
$u$
).
Because of the choice of topology, the convergence in distribution of
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}\left(z\right)$
to
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}$
implies that we can find coupled versions of
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}\left(z\right)$
and
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}$
on some probability space
$({\Omega}^{\prime},{\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}}^{\prime},{\mathbb{P}}^{\prime})$
such that
$\text{d}(\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}(z),\stackrel{~}{\gamma})\to 0$
, for all
${\omega}^{\prime}\in {\Omega}^{\prime}$
as
$k\to \infty $
(see, for example, Corollary 1 of [
6]
).
Using this coupling, we can choose
$k$
large enough (depending on
${\omega}^{\prime}$
) so that
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}\left(z\right)$
stays in an
${\varepsilon}^{\prime}/2$
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma},{\varepsilon}^{\prime}/2)\equiv {\cup}_{u\in \stackrel{~}{\gamma}}B(u,{\varepsilon}^{\prime}/2)$
of
$\stackrel{~}{\gamma}$
. This event however would correspond to (at least) four paths of one color (corresponding to the four crossings by
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}\left(z\right)$
) and two of the other color of the annulus
$B\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon {\varepsilon}^{\prime}/2)\backslash B\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma}\right({t}_{1}),3{\varepsilon}^{\prime}/2)$
.
As
${\delta}_{k}\to 0$
, we can let
${\varepsilon}^{\prime}\to 0$
, in which case the probability of seeing the event just described somewhere inside
$\mathbb{D}$
goes to zero [
16,
20]
, leading to a contradiction.
Proof of Lemma 5.2 . Let
$\{{\delta}_{k}{\}}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$
be a convergent subsequence for
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
and
$\gamma \equiv {\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}$
the limit in distribution of
${\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{{\delta}_{k}}$
as
$k\to \infty $
. For simplicity of notation, in the rest of the proof we will drop the
$k$
and write
$\delta $
instead of
${\delta}_{k}$
. Because of the choice of topology, the convergence in distribution of
${\gamma}^{\delta}\equiv {\gamma}_{\mathbb{D},i,i}^{\delta}$
to
$\gamma $
implies that we can find coupled versions of
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
and
$\gamma $
on some probability space
$({\Omega}^{\prime},{\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}}^{\prime},{\mathbb{P}}^{\prime})$
such that
$\text{d}\left({\gamma}^{\delta}\right({\omega}^{\prime}),\gamma ({\omega}^{\prime}\left)\right)\to 0$
, for all
${\omega}^{\prime}$
as
$k\to \infty $
(see, for example, Corollary 1 of [
6]
). Using this coupling, our first task will be to prove the following claim:

(C)
For two (deterministic) points
$u,v\in \mathbb{D}$
, the probability that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(v\right)$
but
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)\ne {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
or vice versa goes to zero as
$\delta \to 0$
.
Let us consider first the case of
$u,v$
such that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(v\right)$
but
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)\ne {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
. Since
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)$
is an open subset of
$\mathbb{C}$
, there exists a continuous curve
${\gamma}_{u,v}$
joining
$u$
and
$v$
and a constant
$\varepsilon >0$
such that the
$\varepsilon $
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}({\gamma}_{u,v},\varepsilon )$
of the curve is contained in
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)$
, which implies that
$\gamma $
does not intersect
$\mathcal{N}({\gamma}_{u,v},\varepsilon )$
. Now, if
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
does not intersect
$\mathcal{N}({\gamma}_{u,v},\varepsilon /2)$
, for
$\delta $
small enough, then there is a
$\mathcal{T}$
path
$\pi $
of unexplored hexagons connecting the hexagon that contains
$u$
with the hexagon that contains
$v$
, and we conclude that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
. This shows that the event that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(v\right)$
but
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)\ne {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
implies the existence of a curve
${\gamma}_{u,v}$
whose
$\varepsilon $
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}({\gamma}_{u,v},\varepsilon )$
is not intersected by
$\gamma $
but whose
$\varepsilon /2$
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}({\gamma}_{u,v},\varepsilon /2)$
is intersected by
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
. This implies that
$\forall u,v\in \mathbb{D}$
,
$\exists \varepsilon >0$
such that
${\mathbb{P}}^{\prime}\left({\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\right(u)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}(v\left)\text{but}{\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\right(u)\ne {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}(v\left)\right)\le {\mathbb{P}}^{\prime}\left(\text{d}\right({\gamma}^{\delta},\gamma )\ge \varepsilon /2)$
. But the right hand side goes to zero for every
$\varepsilon >0$
as
$\delta \to 0$
, which concludes the proof of one direction of the claim.
To prove the other direction, we consider two points
$u,v\in D$
such that
${D}_{i,i}\left(u\right)\ne {D}_{i,i}\left(v\right)$
but
${D}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)={D}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
. Assume that
$u$
is trapped before
$v$
by
$\gamma $
and suppose for the moment that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)$
is a domain of type 3 or 4; the case of a domain of type 1 or 2 is analogous and will be treated later. Let
${t}_{1}$
be the first time
$u$
is trapped by
$\gamma $
with
$\gamma \left({t}_{0}\right)=\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)$
the double point of
$\gamma $
where the domain
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)$
containing
$u$
is “sealed off.” At time
${t}_{1}$
, a new domain containing
$u$
is created and
$v$
is disconnected from
$u$
.
Choose
$\varepsilon >0$
small enough so that neither
$u$
nor
$v$
is contained in the ball
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
of radius
$\varepsilon $
centered at
$\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)$
, nor in the
$\varepsilon $
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}\left(\gamma \right[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}],\varepsilon )$
of the portion of
$\gamma $
which surrounds
$u$
. Then it follows from the coupling that, for
$\delta $
small enough, there are appropriate parameterizations of
$\gamma $
and
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
such that the portion
${\gamma}^{\delta}[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}]$
of
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left(t\right)$
is inside
$\mathcal{N}\left(\gamma \right[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}],\varepsilon )$
, and
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left({t}_{0}\right)$
and
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left({t}_{1}\right)$
are contained in
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
.
For
$u$
and
$v$
to be contained in the same domain in the discrete construction, there must be a
$\mathcal{T}$
path
$\pi $
of unexplored hexagons connecting the hexagon that contains
$u$
to the hexagon that contains
$v$
. From what we said in the previous paragraph, any such
$\mathcal{T}$
path connecting
$u$
and
$v$
would have to go though a “bottleneck” in
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
.
Assume now, for concreteness but without loss of generality, that
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)$
is a domain of type 3, which means that
$\gamma $
winds around
$u$
counterclockwise, and consider the hexagons to the “left” of
${\gamma}^{\delta}[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}]$
. Those hexagons form a “quasiloop” around
$u$
since they wind around it (counterclockwise) and the first and last hexagons are both contained in
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
. The hexagons to the left of
${\gamma}^{\delta}[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}]$
belong to the set
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left({\gamma}^{\delta}\right)$
, which can be seen as a (nonsimple) path by connecting the centers of the hexagons in
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left({\gamma}^{\delta}\right)$
by straight segments. Such a path shadows
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
, with the difference that it can have double (or even triple) points, since the same hexagon can be visited more than once. Consider
${\Gamma}_{Y}\left({\gamma}^{\delta}\right)$
as a path
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}$
with a given parametrization
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}\left(t\right)$
, chosen so that
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}\left(t\right)$
is inside
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
when
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left(t\right)$
is, and it winds around
$u$
together with
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left(t\right)$
.
Now suppose that there were two times,
${\hat{t}}_{0}$
and
${\hat{t}}_{1}$
, such that
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}\left({\hat{t}}_{1}\right)={\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}\left({\hat{t}}_{0}\right)\in B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
and
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}[{\hat{t}}_{0},{\hat{t}}_{1}]$
winds around
$u$
. This would imply that the “quasiloop” of explored yellow hexagons around
$u$
is actually completed, and that
${D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(v\right)\ne {D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(u\right)$
.
Thus, for
$u$
and
$v$
to belong to the same discrete domain, this cannot happen.
For any
$0<{\varepsilon}^{\prime}<\varepsilon $
, if we take
$\delta $
small enough,
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}$
will be contained inside
$\mathcal{N}(\gamma ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
, due to the coupling. Following the considerations above, the fact that
$u$
and
$v$
belong to the same domain in the discrete construction but to different domains in the continuum construction implies, for
$\delta $
small enough, that there are four disjoint yellow
$\mathcal{T}$
paths crossing the annulus
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )\backslash B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
(the paths have to be disjoint because, as we said,
${\hat{\gamma}}^{\delta}$
cannot, when coming back to
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
after winding around
$u$
, touch itself inside
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
). Since
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )\backslash B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
is also crossed by at least two blue
$\mathcal{T}$
paths from
${\Gamma}_{B}\left({\gamma}^{\delta}\right)$
, there is a total of at least six
$\mathcal{T}$
paths, not all of the same color,crossing the annulus
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )\backslash B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
.
Let us call
${\mathcal{A}}_{w}(\varepsilon ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
the event described above, where
$\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)=w$
; a standard bound [
16]
on the probability of six disjoint crossings (not all of the same color) of an annulus gives that the probability of
${\mathcal{A}}_{w}(\varepsilon ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
scales as
$(\frac{{\varepsilon}^{\prime}}{\varepsilon}{)}^{2+\alpha}$
with
$\alpha >0$
. As
$\delta \to 0$
, we can let
${\varepsilon}^{\prime}$
go to zero (keeping
$\varepsilon $
fixed); when we do this, the probability of
${\mathcal{A}}_{w}(\varepsilon ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
goes to zero sufficiently rapidly with
${\varepsilon}^{\prime}$
to conclude, like in the proof of Lemma 5.1 , that the probability to see such an event anywhere in
$\mathbb{D}$
goes to zero.
In the case in which
$u$
belongs to a domain of type 1 or 2, let
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
be the excursion that traps
$u$
and
$\gamma \left({t}_{0}\right)\in \partial \mathbb{D}$
be the point on the boundary of
$\mathbb{D}$
where
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
starts and
$\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)\in \partial \mathbb{D}$
the point where it ends. Choose
$\varepsilon >0$
small enough so that neither
$u$
nor
$v$
is contained in the balls
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{0}),\varepsilon )$
and
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
of radius
$\varepsilon $
centered at
$\gamma \left({t}_{0}\right)$
and
$\gamma \left({t}_{1}\right)$
, nor in the
$\varepsilon $
neighborhood
$\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\varepsilon )$
of the excursion
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
. Because of the coupling, for
$\delta $
small enough (depending on
$\varepsilon $
),
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
shadows
$\gamma $
along
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
, staying within
$\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\varepsilon )$
. If this is the case, any
$\mathcal{T}$
path of unexplored hexagons connecting the hexagon that contains
$u$
with the hexagon that contains
$v$
would have to go through one of two “bottlenecks,” one contained in
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{0}),\varepsilon )$
and the other in
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
.
Assume for concreteness (but without loss of generality) that
$u$
is in a domain of type 1, which means that
$\gamma $
winds around
$u$
counterclockwise. If we parameterize
$\gamma $
and
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
so that
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left({t}_{0}\right)\in B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{0}),\varepsilon )$
and
${\gamma}^{\delta}\left({t}_{1}\right)\in B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}),\varepsilon )$
,
${\gamma}^{\delta}[{t}_{0},{t}_{1}]$
forms a “quasiexcursion” around
$u$
since it winds around it (counterclockwise) and it starts inside
${B}_{\varepsilon}\left(\gamma \right({t}_{0}\left)\right)$
and ends inside
${B}_{\varepsilon}\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}\left)\right)$
. Notice that if
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
touched
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}^{\delta}$
, inside both
${B}_{\varepsilon}\left(\gamma \right({t}_{0}\left)\right)$
and
${B}_{\varepsilon}\left(\gamma \right({t}_{1}\left)\right)$
, this would imply that the “quasiexcursion” is a real excursion and that
${D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(v\right)\ne {D}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(u\right)$
.
For any
$0<{\varepsilon}^{\prime}<\varepsilon $
, if we take
$\delta $
small enough,
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
will be contained inside
$\mathcal{N}(\gamma ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
, due to the coupling. Therefore, the fact that
${\mathbb{D}}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(v\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{a,b}^{\delta}\left(u\right)$
implies, with probability going to one as
$\delta \to 0$
, that for
$\varepsilon >0$
fixed and any
$0<{\varepsilon}^{\prime}<\varepsilon $
,
${\gamma}^{\delta}$
enters the ball
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{i}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
and does not touch
$\partial {\mathbb{D}}^{\delta}$
inside the larger ball
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{i}),\varepsilon )$
, for
$i=0$
or
$1$
. This is equivalent to having at least two yellow and one blue
$\mathcal{T}$
paths (contained in
${\mathbb{D}}^{\delta}$
) crossing the annulus
$B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{i}),\varepsilon )\backslash B\left(\gamma \right({t}_{i}),{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
. Let us call
${\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}}_{w}(\varepsilon ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
the event described above, where
$\gamma \left({t}_{i}\right)=w$
; a standard bound [
20]
(this bound can also be derived from the one obtained in [
16]
) on the probability of disjoint crossings (not all of the same color) of a semiannulus in the upper halfplane gives that the probability of
${\mathcal{\mathcal{B}}}_{w}(\varepsilon ,{\varepsilon}^{\prime})$
scales as
$(\frac{{\varepsilon}^{\prime}}{\varepsilon}{)}^{1+\beta}$
with
$\beta >0$
. (We can apply the bound to our case because the unit disc is a convex subset of the halfplane
$\{x+iy:y>1\}$
and therefore the intersection of an annulus centered at say
$i$
with the unit disc is a subset of the intersection of the same annulus with the halfplane
$\{x+iy:y>1\}$
.) As
$\delta \to 0$
, we can let
${\varepsilon}^{\prime}$
go to zero (keeping
$\varepsilon $
fixed), concluding that the probability that such an event occurs anywhere on the boundary of the disc goes to zero.
We have shown that, for two fixed points
$u,v\in \mathbb{D}$
, having
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(u\right)\ne {\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}\left(v\right)$
but
${\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(u\right)={\mathbb{D}}_{i,i}^{\delta}\left(v\right)$
or vice versa implies the occurrence of an event whose probability goes to zero as
$\delta \to 0$
, and the proof of the claim is concluded.
We now introduce the Hausdorff distance
${\text{d}}_{\text{H}}(A,B)$
between two closed nonemptysubsets of
$\overline{\mathbb{D}}$
: