Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: two - dimensionally extended materials , or membranes , have been paid much attention to in various fields of study , such as lipid bilayers @xcite and surfactants @xcite in soft - matter and biophysics @xcite . alongside , many theoretical studies on those membrane - type objects have been done toward a general understanding of physical properties of such materials @xcite . some of them were simulation approaches @xcite and others were with field theoretical techniques @xcite . for example , one of the authors studied the pore formation in a binary giant vesicle of two - component lipid bilayer , and reproduced its dynamical shapes in the field - theoretical approach with some numerical calculations @xcite . although most of the works contributed successfully to our knowledge of individual membranes , it can be said that we are yet very far from the general understanding .    in this work , we aim to give some new insight to the general understanding of the physical properties of soft - material membranes by studying mathematical models on discretized surfaces both analytically and numerically . that is to say , we propose a family of fluid particle models of two - dimensional lattice as simpler models of membranes : tightly pack molecular particles on a given lattice , and give the particles dynamics by some stochastic process , or by a set of mathematical rules . for more simplicity , we consider single - component , single - layered incompressible systems , and assume no explicit viscosity and an upper bound for the flow velocities on the particles . after the formulation , we construct two stochastic models of 2d lattice liquid , as our first steps . one of them is found to be the vicious random walk @xcite in its densest phase and a version of the dynamic lattice liquid model ( dll model ) @xcite in two dimensions . the dynamics of these models is given by completely independent time steps and would not generate various fluid dynamical phenomena such as lasting convective flows , while our formulation does not exclude such possibilities . in fact , the other model is constructed as the flow model with a mathematical rule , which has no corresponding known models . we further restrict ourselves to a finite flat honey - comb lattice and simulate the two models with their highest mobility . comparing with similar lattice models such as various lattice random walks or the loop gas model ( sos model ) @xcite , we show some statistical properties of the models by the simulation results . the results tell that the flow model may exhibit some anomalous diffusion , in terms of time - averaged mean square displacements ( tamsd ) , and the ergodicity with its fairly long relaxation time . relations to other models and some possible extensions of the models will also be discussed in the final section . there are various situations of the membrane systems , and each situation would deserve a single mathematical model in order to simulate it . however , since we aim to construct a basic model to be utilised for those various situations , we focus exclusively on a very simple but basic situation among them as a building block . first , we focus on a single - component and single - layered molecular system on a two - dimensional surface , treating the surrounding medium as a kind of heat bath to the surface . in other words , we introduce some rules or external forces onto the elements of the membrane rather than consider the interactions between the membrane and the medium . secondly , we focus exclusively on a simple classical interaction such as `` collision '' , neglecting any other complicated interaction between the elements of the membrane . let us call this ` no explicit viscosity ' . thirdly , we assume that the density fluctuation can be negligible and two elements would not occupy the same location of the surface at any time . this would correspond to the incompressibility condition of the surface from the two - dimensional fluid point of view . to summarise , we assume and focus on a single - component and single - layered incompressible particle systems with no explicit viscosity on a two - dimensional surface exposed in an external ( random ) field . now , we are ready to define the 2d lattice liquid models . given a two - dimensional lattice @xmath0 , a 2d lattice liquid model can be defined as a mathematical model of the particles which can only reside at the sites of the lattice @xmath0 , covering all or almost all of the sites , and which flow inside @xmath0 as molecular - dynamical units of liquid do inside them . here , the particles represent the elements of the membrane , and are assumed to be of the same physical properties : their sizes , masses , and so on . the word ` liquid ' comes directly from two parts of the above definition , one of which is that the particles cover all or almost all of the sites of @xmath0 , and the other of which is that the particles flow . obviously , there is an ambiguity on the phrase `` all or almost all '' . to avoid this ambiguity in this paper , we force each site to hold only and exactly one particle at a time , covering _ all _ the sites . we call it `` the occupation number is exactly one everywhere '' . although we can make some of the sites empty or put as many particles as possible , the assumption of the density fluctuation eliminates the latter and we simply omit the former in this paper . note that the definition of the lattice liquid would not exclude these cases and would be worth studying elsewhere . one can consider the boundary conditions in the presence of boundary of the surface . there are two types of boundary conditions , one of which is on particles dynamical degrees of freedom , and the other of which is on their internal degrees of freedom , such as particle species . the former type of boundary conditions are naturally embedded in the lattice on which we define the model . on the latter , since we only consider single - component systems , there is no boundary condition on the particle species .    to complete the definition of the model , the particles `` flows '' should be defined by imposing a set of mathematical rules on the flows . this consequently determines the dynamics of the system . before going into the details of the rules , let us introduce the lattice conventions and consider the configuration space of the model to begin . a lattice @xmath0 is defined by a set of sites @xmath1 and a set of bonds @xmath2 . a bond @xmath3 is connecting a pair of the sites , @xmath4 , which are called neighbouring sites or in the neighbourhood . the lattice spacing @xmath5  the shortest length of the bonds specifies a fine aspect of the lattice . we consider only the cases with the same bond length , unless otherwise stated . for that reason we set @xmath6 without loss of generality . the total number of the sites and the total number of the bonds are denoted by @xmath7 and @xmath8 , respectively . we abbreviate them by @xmath9 and @xmath10 for simplicity . the degree of the site , @xmath11 , is the number of the bonds connected to the site @xmath12 . if there is only one value for @xmath11 on @xmath0 , we write it by @xmath13 for short , and we consider mainly such cases . in the later sections of some numerical calculations , we focus on the honeycomb lattices of various sizes as a series of examples .    on a given lattice @xmath0 , under any set of the rules of the movements , a flow of a particle can be sketched schematically in fig.[fig : worldlines ] below .        introducing the minimum time lapse @xmath14 , a particle at the site @xmath12 at the time @xmath15 flew from the site @xmath16 at @xmath17 with the velocity @xmath18 , where @xmath19 is implicitly taken as a unit ( @xmath20 ) . then , the particle at @xmath12 at @xmath15 flows toward @xmath21 at the future time @xmath22 , subject to some fluctuation @xmath23 by external forces . explicitly writing the time dependence of the variables , @xmath24 denotes the flow velocity of the particle from @xmath17 to @xmath15 , and @xmath25 does from @xmath15 to @xmath22 . we denote the latter velocity by a redundant variable @xmath26 for convenience . the solid continuous line in fig.[fig : worldlines ] represents the particle travelling in @xmath27-dimensional space - time , and all the particle movements can be represented by such world - lines . namely , the configuration of the system at a certain time @xmath15 , can be uniquely given by a set of the flow velocities : \{_i(t ) }  for  all   i v ( ) . accordingly , the time evolution is realised by mapping a configuration @xmath28 to another configuration @xmath29 at a successive time , while a particle at @xmath12 travels to @xmath30 with the velocity @xmath31 such that : i^= i+^_i(t ) , _ i^(t+t ) = ^_i(t ) . for consistency , @xmath18 and @xmath32 can not take completely arbitrary values , but are subject to the constraint that @xmath33 and @xmath34 map @xmath35 to itself and they are bijective . in other words , the configuration space is given by the whole set of such bijections . such a space is highly complicated in general , however one assumption actually makes the space more tractable . we assume the following upper bound for the velocities : |_i| 1  for  all  i v ( ) . this means that the particles are prevented from jumping in between non - nearest neighbouring sites . therefore , the assumption is not too restrictive in the physics context . when the bond lengths are all the same , this leads the absolute value @xmath36 takes either @xmath37 or @xmath38 . accordingly , the velocity @xmath18 takes one of @xmath39 values . since @xmath40 obeys the same , the velocity change @xmath41 takes at most one of @xmath39 values as well .    with the upper bound of the velocities and the assumption of the occupation number , a configuration of the particles can be represented by a collection of oriented non - intersecting loops on @xmath0 . in order to illustrate this fact , let us give a set of random velocities , @xmath42 , with the condition @xmath43 . all particles potentially try to move toward the directions they have been kicked by some external forces . however , this does not necessarily give movements to the particles due to the frustration of such momenta ( fig.[fig : frustration - circ](a ) ) . the frustration is an outcome of the excluded volume effect of the particles together with the restriction of the occupation number . in order to generate convective flows , some part of the `` potential '' movements generated by the forces must be enclosed so that the particles can move ( fig.[fig : frustration - circ](b ) ) . + ( a )     + ( b )    hence , the relevant part of the configuration @xmath33 can be represented by a collection of _ oriented _ non - intersecting loop graphs on @xmath0 . we label the space of the oriented non - intersecting loop configurations by @xmath44 . we also label the loop configuration without the orientations by @xmath45 for later use . formal definition of the ( oriented ) loop configurations in graph theory , refer to appendix [ ap : loops ] . note that , if and only if @xmath46 , the above algorithm coincides with a version of the dll model @xcite . in what follows , we focus on the situations where the loop configuration solely plays a crucial role . as was stated before , the set of mathematical rules of the particle - flows give the principal part of the definition of the model . however , regardless of how and what sort of the rules are imposed , they are to be expressed in the form of the velocities and the velocity changes : @xmath33 and @xmath47 , or in the form of the present loop configuration and the resulting one , @xmath48 , representing the velocities . so , we formulate the 2d lattice liquid models as a family of statistical models defined with such variables . one of the most straightforward expressions of the propagator would take the form of : [ eq:1stprop ] & & g ( x_1 , x_2 , ; g , t ; g^ , t^ ) & & or   g ( x_1 , x_2 , ; \{_i(t ) } , t ; \ { _ j(t^ ) } , t^ ) , or as its ensemble : [ eq:2ndprop ] & & z^g ( x_1 , x_2 , ; g , t ; t^ ) & & _ g^ ( ) g ( x_1 , x_2 , ; g , t ; g^ , t^ ) , where the @xmath49 s are other unspecified parameters to prescribe the propagator . if all the processes are statistical from the beginning , @xmath50 , even the initial configuration is given by some distribution , the following quantity would be the partition function in question : & & z(x_1 , x_2 , ; t , t^ ) & & _ g ( ) p_init ( g ) z^g ( x_1 , x_2 , ; g , t ; t^ ) , where the function @xmath51 is the statistical weight of the configuration @xmath52 . practically , we will focus on the second expression ( [ eq:2ndprop ] ) of the propagator and the first one ( [ eq:1stprop ] ) for the construction of the second . let us construct a more concrete yet abstract form of the propagator by the probabilities of the configurations . for the time step of @xmath19 , given the present configuration @xmath53 , let us define @xmath54 as the `` potential '' probability of a particle remaining at the site @xmath12 , and @xmath55 is the `` potential '' probability of the particle at @xmath12 being kicked toward one of the nearest neighbouring sites @xmath56 . they satisfy : [ eq : px - const ] p(i)+_j x(i;j ) = 1 , where the summation is over all nearest neighbouring sites to @xmath12 . in general , @xmath54 and @xmath55 may carry the information from the past , but we ignore it in the rest of this manuscript . recall that some of the kicks with the `` potential '' probabilities might not be performed due to the before mentioned frustration . suppose non - frustrated part of the particles are expressed in the configuration @xmath57 . the complementary graph can be given with its projection @xmath58 on @xmath45 by @xmath59 . then , the probability of having @xmath57 in @xmath0 , @xmath60 , can be given by the product of the loop probability @xmath61 of having @xmath57 in @xmath58 and the probability @xmath62 of the frustration in @xmath63 as follows : p(g^ ) = p_l(g^ ) p_f(|g^ ) , where the initial configuration @xmath53 is implicit , and the loop probability can be expressed by multiplying the probabilities @xmath55 s along the oriented loops : p_l(g^ ) _ _ i , j e(g^ ) x(i;j ) . note that the definitions of the above probabilities need some minor extensions to the subgraphs for their consistency . for the detailed definition of the probability functions and their properties , refer to appendix [ ap : pfpl ] . the probability @xmath60 is nothing but the first expression ( [ eq:1stprop ] ) of the propagator for one time step . accordingly , the second expression ( [ eq:2ndprop ] ) of the propagator for one time step is : z^g(g , t ; t+t ) & = & _ g^ ( ) p ( g^ ) . specifying its @xmath53 dependence by @xmath64 , the propagator for a longer time span can be expressed by : & & z^g(g^(0 ) , t ; t^ ) & & = _ g^(1 ) ( ) _ g^(k-1 ) ( ) _ k=1^k p(g^(k ) ; g^(k-1 ) ) , where @xmath65 . hence , the construction of the propagator reduces to a detailed construction of the probability functions , @xmath62 and @xmath61 . note that the above expression actually corresponds to the discretised version of the path integral . given the probabilities , an expectation value of some physical quantity @xmath66 for @xmath19 can be given as usual by the form of : _ g & = & _ g^ ( ) o p(g^ ; g ) . it is obvious that the set of the mathematical rules of the particle - flows give the principal part of the definition of the 2d lattice liquid model as well as of its formulation . in fact , one can easily imagine the following three sorts of the rules for the particle - flows . namely , the particles flow according to some stochastic process , or subject to some external thermodynamic forces from the surrounding medium , or obeying some physics laws with their ( fluid ) dynamical properties such as the langevin - type equation or the navier - stokes equation in the low @xmath67 single - component limit . in order to avoid ambiguities on discretisation and limiting procedures in the equation - based approaches , we deal only with the stochastic cases here . some relations to thermodynamic or equation - based approaches will be discussed later .      in this section , we construct and formulate one of the simplest stochastic models , the stochastic markovian model , whose rules are as simple as assigning simple kicks to push the particles and arresting them at the end of each step . the model is turned out to be equivalent to the vicious random walk in its densest phase and a version of the dll model on two - dimensional lattice . the precise definition of the rules are given as follows . first , let @xmath54 be non - negative constant , and @xmath55 be of isotropic kicks such that : [ eq : bounds4p ] p(i ) & = & p , x(i;j ) & = & x(i ) . here , we restrict them to be strictly independent of the past , ensuring that the process is markovian . second , we assign the kicks according to the above probabilities , @xmath68 and @xmath69 , and those kicks are projected onto some oriented loop configuration @xmath53 . perform the moves of @xmath53 . thirdly , as a key part of the rules , we force : [ def : sto ] _ j(t+t ) = _ i(t ) i , where @xmath70 . this means that the configuration of the velocities is set at every step by the fluctuation @xmath71 only . accordingly , one of the two sets , @xmath33 and @xmath72 , becomes redundant . note that @xmath73 inherits the upper bound from @xmath36 : @xmath74 . practically , it follows @xmath75 . the probability of an oriented loop configuration @xmath53 on the sublattice @xmath76 can be written by : p_l ( g ) = _ _ i , je(g ) x(i ) . if @xmath11 s are all the same as of regular lattices , the above probability can be simplified as : p_l ( g ; x ) = x^l(g ) , where we specify @xmath77 as an argument , @xmath78 , and @xmath79 denotes @xmath80 for @xmath81 of @xmath53 , _ i.e. _ , the total length of the loops in @xmath53 . note that @xmath77 plays the role of the fugacity of the bonds in @xmath53 . if we further define the probability of a non - oriented loop configuration @xmath76 on the sublattice @xmath76 , summing up all the orientations of @xmath76 , it follows that : p_l ( g ; x ) = 2^(g ) x^l(g ) , where @xmath82 by definition , @xmath83 counts the number of the loops in @xmath76 , and the factor ` 2 ' indicates the directions of each oriented loop in @xmath53 . accordingly , the propagator , or the partition function , can be written down by : [ eq : part_sto ] g^sto ( x ) = _ g ( ) p_l(g;x ) p_f ( |g ; x ) , which is equivalent to unity by definition . @xmath84 gives the probability of the no - loop configuration . the probabilities @xmath62 and @xmath61 take physical values , @xmath85 and @xmath86 for @xmath87 . it should be mentioned here that if @xmath88 is set to be one for any @xmath76 then the partition function reduces to that of the non - oriented non - intersecting loop configurations on a lattice , which is known as the loop gas model @xcite : @xmath89 with @xmath90 . so , @xmath88 plays a crucial role in our model .    as in the definition ( [ def : sto ] ) , the present configuration is always trivial so that the above expression ( [ eq : part_sto ] ) is exact at any @xmath15 . therefore , the propagator can be expressed by : z^sto(x ; t ; t+t ) = g^sto(x ) . hence , it can be summarised and simplified to the propagator of the time lapse @xmath15 as follows : z^sto(x ; t ) = ^t / t . the expectation value of a physical quantity @xmath66 is given in a conventional manner : _ t & = & ^t / t , & = & _ g ( ) op_f ( |g ; x ) p_l(g;x ) . before giving our simulation results , let us show some simple relations and calculations on an isotropic regular lattice . on an isotropic regular lattice , such as a square lattice with periodicities , the one - point function of the velocity can trivially be given by : = 0 , by symmetry . similarly , the expectation value of the absolute value of the velocity at @xmath12 can be given by : = = i , where @xmath91 is the expectation value of the length of the loops : @xmath92 . besides , the variance of the velocity becomes : = = , where the normalised lattice spacing is used .    with the above facts , one can state that each particle behaves like a random walker on the given lattice with the constant trapping ratio of @xmath93 , where a particle moves to a certain direction with the probability @xmath94 . namely , for any @xmath95 for large @xmath0 or small @xmath15 : & = & 0 , & = & t , where @xmath96 denotes the position of the @xmath97-th particle at the time @xmath15 . however , it should be noted that the system is not a collection of independent simple random walks , as our particles do not occupy the same site at the same time . in fact , the system is in the densest phase of the vicious random walks  mutually avoiding @xmath98 particles random walks on a lattice with @xmath98 sites @xcite . the difference between this system and a collection of the independent simple random walks can be clearly shown by the spacial correlation of the velocities . for example , the spacial correlation of a nearest pair of the system is given by : , whereas those of the simple random walks is given by a simple product of one - point functions : @xmath99 . in the previous sections , we have formulated the model where the streamlines are temporally generated and live only for the duration of @xmath19 . because the probability of the shortest loop in a honeycomb lattice is at most @xmath100 in the bulk , @xmath91 seems to be very small . we infer in the model ( i ) that the stochastic process realises the solid - like nature of the membrane rather than its liquid nature as the dll model targeted supercooled liquids . in this section , we intend to explore another class of stochastic models where the particles keep flowing on the membrane rather than obeying the ` stop and go ' evolution . in order to realise this phenomenon , we take the simplest way : if no fluctuations are added to the system , the particles keep flowing along the oriented loops . this rule can be expressed by the relation in the absence of the fluctuations : [ def : stof ] _ i(t+t ) = _ i(t ) . now , it is evident that the key point of the construction lies on how to add stochastically generated fluctuations onto the existing streamlines .    in order to avoid complications for realising the relation ( [ def : stof ] ) and the frustrations in terms of @xmath47 , let us formulate the above addition in terms of the oriented loop configurations . say , @xmath101 is the initial configuration and @xmath102 is the resulting configuration . the arithmetic rule ( addition / subtraction ) for the oriented loop configurations can be illustrated in a multiplicative form by : g g_i = g_f ( ) , where @xmath103 stands for the stochastically generated fluctuations , and vanishing @xmath103 is given by the no - loop configuration @xmath104 naturally satisfying the rule ( [ def : stof ] ) . in @xmath45 , there is a natural definition of such an additive operation as the symmetric difference . we extend and modify it to our case for @xmath105 . let @xmath106 , @xmath107 be elements in @xmath44 . if @xmath107 consists of the same sites and bonds with opposite directions as those of @xmath106 , then we call @xmath107 the inverse of @xmath106 , denoting it by @xmath108 . the additive operation between @xmath106 and @xmath107 is defined in the multiplicative form by : g_1 g_2 = g , such that the directed bonds of the elements satisfy : [ eq : symdiff - directed ] g & = & g_1 g_2 - g_1 g_2 ^ -1 - g_1 ^ -1 g_2 , while the disconnected sites are removed from @xmath53 . the above addition trivially satisfies the followings : g_1 i ( ) & = & i ( ) g_1 = g_1 g_1 ( ) , g_1 g_2 & = & i ( ) g_2 = g_1 ^ -1 , where @xmath104 behaves as the zero in the addition and the identity in its multiplicative form . the problem of this definition is that @xmath53 is in the corresponding ( directed ) cycle space but not necessarily in @xmath44 . to avoid this unwanted situation , we propose the following projected addition for @xmath53 in eq . ( [ eq : symdiff - directed ] ) : [ def : addition ] g_1 g_2 & = & g g ( ) , g_1 g_2 & = & g_2 g ( ) . in the second line , we call @xmath106 is non - additive to @xmath107 , or vice versa . this projection drastically changes the algebraic nature of the operation . in fact , it breaks the commutativity : @xmath109 , and the associativity : @xmath110 . so , the ordering of the operations matters in this case . it should be mentioned here that we can create some different definitions of the addition simply by different projections of @xmath111 onto @xmath44 . as a starting point , we stick to the above definition and will mention another possibility later . note also that , precisely speaking , @xmath103 is either a candidate for a fluctuation or a fluctuation which sometimes does nothing , because of the projection . if the configuration at the time @xmath95 is given by @xmath112 , the configuration @xmath113 at the time @xmath114 can be expressed by a series of successive additions of @xmath103 to @xmath112 : g(t_0+t ) = g(t_0 ) . [ def : flow - part ] the multiplication in the r.h.s . means the multiple application of the loop additions , @xmath115 , and the addition should be done from right to left . the factor expresses nothing but a configurational and kinetic path between two configurations . finally , we complete the definition of the stochastic flow model by stochastically giving @xmath103 in the same manner as in the previous section . namely , assign the `` potential '' probabilities of a particle remaining at the same position and of a particle at @xmath12 being kicked toward one of the nearest site @xmath56 by @xmath68 and @xmath55 , respectively . for the isotropic distribution , @xmath55 can be simplified to @xmath116 . then , project the velocity changes onto the space of the oriented loop configurations @xmath44 , and add it to the current configuration in the end . the degrees of freedom of @xmath41 and @xmath18 are same as @xmath39 , as long as an additional upper bound for @xmath41 is not imposed . so , their spaces differ only by the meanings of @xmath68 and @xmath55 . for simplicity , we neglect this difference and distribute the probabilities isotropically . note that the addition rule implicitly introduced the upper bound for @xmath23 such that @xmath117 . now , we have formulated how the fluctuations are given and added to existing flows . the propagator with the initial configuration @xmath118 can now be written down by : & & z^flow(x ; g_i , t_0 ; t+t_0 ) & & = _ g_t / t ( ) _ g_1 ( ) _ j=1^t / t g_i(t_0 ) , where the probability @xmath119 of having the loop @xmath53 in @xmath0 is the same as in the stochastic markovian model . note the process of this model is also markovian . in this section , we perform numerical calculations on the proposed models and show their statistical properties for further investigation , some of which reveal very interesting features of the models . we restrict the lattice @xmath0 to be as simple as the finite rectangular honeycomb lattice of roughly @xmath120 hexagons for odd @xmath98 , labelling it by @xmath121 . precisely speaking , we define the lattice @xmath121 by piling @xmath122 and @xmath98 aligned hexagons alternatively up to @xmath98 rows so that the lattice becomes left - right symmetric ( fig.[fig : hn ] ) . .,width=188 ]    for odd @xmath98 , the lattice becomes actually top - bottom symmetric as well , and therefore symmetric under discrete rotations . in the case of a finite lattice with boundary , there are the boundary sites and bonds which face the outer region of the lattice on its planar embedding . among such sites , some have smaller degrees from those in the bulk . in the case of the honeycomb lattice , there are degree - two boundary sites . accordingly , we can assign two different probabilities : @xmath123 in the bulk and @xmath124 for the boundary sites of degree two . we choose the highest mobility @xmath125 , @xmath126 , and @xmath127 for numerical calculations .    as two models share the oriented non - intersecting loop configurations as an input to the system , the input data has been generated in common for a million of time steps for various sizes , @xmath128 . below is the basic information of @xmath121 : dim v(_h_n ) & = & ( n+1)(2n+1)-4 , dim v_b ( _ h_n ) & = & 4n , dim e(_h_n ) & = & 3n^2 + 52 n - 92 , f & = & n^2 - , for odd @xmath129 . @xmath130 is the set of all the boundary sites of degree two . the number of faces is denoted by @xmath131 . we first plot the probability @xmath132 of the no - loop configuration , or of the total frustration , for different sizes in fig.([fig : pf - log ] ) . we have observed that it decays approximately exponentially with respect to the area of the lattice . the @xmath77-axis stands for the area of the lattice counted by the number of hexagonal faces in @xmath0 . there can be obviously seen a scalability . the error bars are given at the 95% confidence level.,width=302 ]    here , we propose the approximate functional form of @xmath62 for general shape of the honeycomb lattice with @xmath131 connected faces : p_f ( ) e^- . [ eq : pfapprox ] note the form may not well approximate if @xmath0 takes an extreme shape such as a lattice with small @xmath131 or of aligned faces . fitting the data in fig.[fig : pf - log ] with the above function actually leads to @xmath133 . we have also calculated @xmath62 by hand in the case of the honeycomb lattice of 2 piles of 3 hexagons , @xmath134 , and confirmed that the extrapolation from @xmath134 gives @xmath135 . this result further indicates that the system gradually changes its nature between frustration dominant surface to loop dominant surface as the size changes around @xmath136 . next , we plot the number of events for the total length of the loops @xmath137 , which is equivalent to the number of the moving particles in one time step ( fig.[fig : looplen_dist ] ) . -axis is the length in the unit of the lattice spacing . the @xmath138 shows the number of events in a million trials . periodic oscillations seem to suggest the multiple entries of the same type of loops , e.g. , two length - six loops at once contributes to the length - twelve event.,width=302 ]    it is remarkable that the leading contribution is not necessarily from length - six loops , and neither is the sub - leading contribution from length - ten loops . for instance , on @xmath139 , the leading and sub - leading contributions are from length-24 and length-30 loops , resp . we have confirmed that the proposed form of @xmath62 can explain nicely the @xmath98-dependence of the probability of length - six loops . we also report the proportionality of the mean loop length @xmath91 w.r.t . the area of the lattice : |l ~0.01763 f , for @xmath140 .    as for the loop number distribution , we find that they obey the poisson distribution in an accurate way with the mean @xmath141 approximately proportional to the number of the faces @xmath131 :    not so trivial , suggesting that there is a relatively stable value of the loop number per unit surface as well as that of the total length of the loops per unit surface . together with the average absolute value of the velocity and other basic numbers of @xmath121 , we list them in table [ table : hn ] .    . the basic numbers of @xmath121 for various @xmath98 . [ cols=">,>,>,>,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ] the above averages include the data from the beginning , and therefore we neglected the relaxation time @xmath142 from @xmath104 to quasi - critical states . the relaxation time @xmath142 which will be shown shortly is not very long compared to @xmath143 . so , it would not spoil the accuracy of the statistics much . in this flow model , the distribution of the loop number behaves rather gaussian than poisson . in addition , @xmath91 and @xmath141 no longer obey simple proportional relations to the area of the lattice . the former has a rather correlation to the number of the sites @xmath9 , as @xmath144 is almost independent of the size @xmath98 . the value @xmath145 gives the ratio of the moving particles among all , while @xmath146 is of the trapped particles . nearly constant value of @xmath145 might suggest that the value is intrinsically universal for all honeycomb lattices . the average loop number @xmath141 is not so stabilised compared to the average loop length @xmath91 . it should be remarked here that the projection in our addition ( [ def : addition ] ) would certainly change the probability of the fluctuations , but only its characteristic time scale . so , we claim that the above values and qualitative arguments are characteristic in this type of models , regardless of the addition rule defined earlier . it is the dynamical aspect of the model that the addition rule makes different . in this stochastic flow model , the particles are basically trapped in the sites alike in the stochastic markovian model . but , once they are involved in the streamlines , they keep moving until it is stopped by a fluctuation . coarse - graining of the pathway actually make itself look like a brownian motion , but it is actually much more complicated . let us quantify it by the tamsd of eq . ( [ eq : tamsd ] ) . we picked up a particle situated at the centre of the lattice and calculated the tamsd ( fig.[fig : msd11 - 41 ] ) , where the lower limit of the time is set by the relaxation time @xmath147 : @xmath148 , @xmath149 , so that at @xmath150 the particles are randomised enough on @xmath0 from the initial configuration . @xmath151 is set to be the end of the simulation : the million - th step .    , for various sizes in the log - log format . the @xmath77-axis is the time lapse @xmath15 , while the @xmath138-axis is the square distance in the unit of the lattice spacing squared . the dashed lines are all exactly calculated asymptotic values for various @xmath98.,width=302 ]    as one can see from the left side of fig.[fig : msd11 - 41 ] , the particle starts moving at a certain rate of @xmath145 , and diffuses like liquid , slightly faster than the brownian motion . at around @xmath152 , the exponent @xmath153 in @xmath154 reaches the brownian one , and later decreases to the anomalous diffusion of @xmath155 in a strange way . finally , it approaches its asymptotic value . by the times the particles approach the asymptotic values , we can read off the relaxation times , @xmath142 . their orders of magnitude are roughly the same we set for the initial time @xmath156 for tamsds . it can be said that the system is generally in an anomalous diffusion process where @xmath157 in the short range , and @xmath155 in the distance . there can be found a strange and interesting plateau as well in the middle of the curve for each size of the lattice , but we have not yet obtained any clear explanation of the plateau . we will further mention this in the final section . there is a closest model to compare with our model ( ii ) , which is the non - reversal random walk . in that model , a random walker can bring a little memory for its past path so that it will not come back to the memorised positions . usually , the walker memorises only the previous position in order not to come back at once . the model is sometimes known as a polymer chain model with excluded volume . in our flow model , a particle movement is always associated with a ring of movements and can not reverse immediately . this minimum regulation matches with that of the non - reversal walker . in addition , because the non - reversal walker is not bounded by any loop - like relation to neighbours , we deduce that it gives the upper limit for the tamsd of our model . we define the stochastic flow model ( ii ) and the non - reversal random walk on the lattice @xmath158 , and compare them in terms of their tamsds in fig.[fig : comparisonii_21 ] . notice that the constant trapping ratio is equipped with the non - reversal walkers to keep the pace of his first step with the flows in our model .    . the line for the non - reversal random walk is given with the trapping time consistent with the original model , and the asymptotic value for @xmath158 is shown.,width=302 ]    as for the ergodicity , we claim that the ergodicity weakly holds in our model ( ii ) of the lattice liquid . in order to illustrate this , we have calculated the asymptotic value of the msd with some assumption as follows . assume that , in the limit of @xmath159 , the time correlation of every particle on @xmath0 vanishes so that a particle situated at any of the sites on @xmath0 at a certain time @xmath95 is to be drifted to every site with equal footing in the infinite future . then , the asymptotic value of @xmath160 can simply be given by the average of the square distances of all the relevant pairs of the sites on @xmath0 . on the rectangular honeycomb lattice @xmath121 , we derived its exact formula and the leading terms are given by : [ eq : asymptotic_approx ] _ t+ = 18 ( 7 n^2 + 10 n ) + o(1 ) . in the case of @xmath161 , the exact values are up to first five digits : [ eq : asymptotic ] 116.75 , 409.04 , 876.45 , 1518.9 , 2336.4 . see appendix [ app : aymptotic ] for the exact form of an arbitrary @xmath98 . the time - averaged msds in fig.[fig : msd11 - 41 ] , [ fig : comparisonii_21 ] approach the calculated asymptotic values ( [ eq : asymptotic ] ) and are stabilised around them as the time grows . therefore , we can state that our models are surely ergodic in this sense . in this paper , we have proposed and formulated a family of models , called the 2d lattice liquid models , as one sort of the simplest models of single - component , single - layered , incompressible fluid particle system on a membrane without explicit viscosity and density fluctuation . the model is formulated as a particle system on a lattice , but the configurations are found to be expressed by the sets of oriented non - intersecting loops , due to the restriction on the occupation number and the upper bound for the velocities . following the formulation , we have constructed two models of the lattice liquid . one of them is the stochastic markovian model ( i ) which is found to be another manifestation of the vicious random walks in its densest phase and the dll model in two dimensions . we have dealt with the model on the isotropic lattice , and derived a few basic quantities of the model . we have also shown that the difference between our model and a collection of non - interacting simple random walks by distinct two - point functions . the other model is the stochastic flow model ( ii ) where the set of rules are given in eqs.([def : stof ] , [ eq : symdiff - directed ] , [ def : addition ] ) . the first rule ( [ def : stof ] ) is on the stability of the existing flow and is written in the euler formulation . we have utilised the notion of the oriented loop configurations @xmath44 and formulated the model . in order to interpret the fluctuation as a direct consequence of the kicks by the environment , it is worth rewriting the rule in the original lagrangian formulation . in this paper , we have focused on the construction of the model itself , and neglected this point .    in numerical calculations , we have realised both models on the rectangular honeycomb lattice @xmath121 of various sizes in one million time steps . from the input data of the models on @xmath121 , we have found that the probability of the no - loop configuration , @xmath132 , has a scaling relation with the area of the lattice , and we have proposed the functional form ( [ eq : pfapprox ] ) for a general size of the honeycomb lattice as an approximation . we briefly report here that the probability of one - loop length - six configurations and that of length - ten can also be explained by the proposed form of @xmath62 . this might suggest that the form of @xmath62 with other additional criteria can explain how the distribution of the total length of the loops takes such a peculiar form in fig.[fig : looplen_dist ] . the area laws of the average loop length @xmath91 and the average loop number @xmath141 are also to be explained . we do not know the answers yet . in the numerical calculations of the flow model ( ii ) , we have shown the probability of how many fluctuations of @xmath162 had been added in a million trials . as @xmath98 goes over @xmath163 , the system seems to be stuck against the projected addition . this reduction of the fluctuations is entirely due to the definition of the projected addition . because of the second line of the projection rule ( [ def : addition ] ) , if @xmath164 is huge enough as a set , many elements of @xmath44 become non - additive . even so , practically speaking in quasi - critical states , there are about 30% vacant faces . therefore , the system can not be entirely frozen , changing only the time scale for its dynamics . it is the msd on which the time scale matters . especially , the emergence of the plateaus in fig.[fig : msd11 - 41 ] might be because of this strong restriction of the fluctuations . we then expect that softening the projection in the addition may change the intermediate plateau part of the msds , and this point is to be explored more elsewhere @xcite . there are many related statistical models . particularly , the vicious walk and the dll model are the closest ones to the model ( i ) . the vicious walk is the model of mutually avoiding multiple particle system so that its densest phase inevitably coincides with ours with the simplest stochastic process . the dll model is the model of cooperative particle rearrangement for supercooled liquids and polymer melts , usually equipped with volume fluctuations and their temperature dependence . in both cases , the dynamics is governed by completely independent time steps , and they surely overlap with this sort of the models among the family of our models . especially in the dll model , the dynamics is usually equipped with the temperature dependence of @xmath69 , so it would be intriguing to investigate another manifestation of the temperature dependence and multi - component systems @xcite in both contexts . in addition , the loop gas model is one of the closest models . letting all @xmath62 be one , one automatically obtains the partition function of the loop gas model from that of our stochastic markovian model of the lattice liquid . the loop gas model can be described in the @xmath165 spin model on the lattice by expressing all the loop graphs in terms of @xmath165 spin variables @xcite . to avoid complications , we have not included this algebraic description of our models . also , in the presence of the @xmath62 less than unity , the loop probabilities of both models become different . we can quantify them by the use of number series known as the derangement number and its related series . to invoke the expression , the models must be first written in the form of algebras . we have put aside this procedure , and therefore , to be given elsewhere @xcite . we are afraid that the constructed models are not so applicable and not ready to be compared to experiments , except for a few cases in a very different context . because we used the honeycomb lattice as an explicit example , the current model might be able to be applied directly to a particle system of the same situation : a bigger sort of particles form a most densely packed crystal sitting at the centres of the faces while smaller particles moving in between them . because of the set - up , the msd of the flow model actually resembles that of the super - cooled polymer melt @xcite . since their dimensions are different , we consider this happens by accident though .    in order to apply 2d lattice liquid models to soft - material membranes directly , one should remove or relax some of the assumptions we used in this paper for convenience . namely , the assumptions are such that the system must be single - component , single - layered , incompressible , non - explicitly - viscous , less density fluctuating . also , we have not used interactions between particles . note that they are not the requirements nor the definitions of the 2d lattice liquid models . among them , double - layer can easily be embedded just by folding a layer into two , but the interactions between two layers are not obvious . the simplest one is to introduce the interaction between layers only at the common boundary of two layers , possibly as a boundary condition . our construction itself is ready to be extended to the multi - component case where there are more than one particle species and the interaction between different species should be introduced as well . the simplest one will be the ising - type nearest neighbour interaction with which one can observe the phase separation according to some temperature . this might also turn on the effective viscosity in the model . note the concept of the temperature can naturally be installed by letting @xmath166 be a function of @xmath67 , for example , by @xmath167 and @xmath168 . thermodynamic behaviour will depend on the manifestation of the functional forms of @xmath77 and @xmath68 . some of the above proposals will be studied elsewhere @xcite    another very interesting yet possibly very hard model to solve is the fluid model with memory effect . as we mentioned in the manuscript , the `` potential '' probabilities can potentially carry the information from the past so that the past partially control the forthcoming event through the probabilities . here , we have only dealt with markov processes in both models , and the problem is beyond our scope of this manuscript .    * acknowledgements *    the authors acknowledge prof . k. yasuoka , prof . y. masubuchi , prof . s. yasuda , dr . t. akimoto , and all the members of the group _ multiscale simulation for softmatters _ for their stimulating discussions . one of the authors ( yi ) would like to thank prof . k. nagayama for his advice and encouragement , and s. ishimoto for his support . this research was supported by _ core research for evolutional science and technology ( crest ) of japan science and technology agency corporation ( jst)_. to begin with , let us define the ( oriented ) loop configurations on @xmath0 . for a given lattice @xmath0 , a one - loop graph , or configuration , is defined by a sequence of sites and bonds with no repeating sites and no ends . the object is the same as simple cycles in graph theory . an oriented one - loop graph is defined in the same way and is given by a one - loop graph with an orientation of the bonds representing its sequence . the space of the non - oriented non - intersecting loop configurations @xmath45 on @xmath0 is the whole set of the non - intersecting combinations of such one - loop graphs . the space of the oriented non - intersecting loop configuration @xmath44 is those of the oriented one - loop graphs . these spaces can be decomposed into ( oriented ) @xmath169-loop subspaces , or can be defined by them . let @xmath170 be a one - loop graph on @xmath0 for @xmath171 . then , a @xmath169-loop graph @xmath172 is defined by : g_k = _ i=1^k l_i ,  s.t . l_i _ j =   for   i j. collecting all such @xmath169-loop graphs in @xmath45 constitutes the @xmath169-loop subspace @xmath173 of @xmath45 : _ k ( ) \ { g_k } , _ k ( ) ( ) . when @xmath0 is finite , there exists the maximum number of co - existing non - intersecting loops on @xmath0 . denoting it by @xmath174 , one can write down the decomposition as : & & l ( ) = _ k=0^k_max l_k ( ) , & & s.t .   l_i ( ) _ j ( ) =   for   ij . in the same manner , one can decompose the oriented space @xmath44 into the oriented @xmath169-loop subspaces : & & _ k ( ) \ { g_k } , _ k ( ) ( ) , & & ( ) = _ k=0^k_max _ k ( ) , & & s.t . _ i ( ) _ j ( ) =   for   ij , where @xmath175 is an oriented @xmath169-loop graph in @xmath44 . if we introduce the function @xmath176 which counts the number of elements of a set , then the uniqueness of the no - loop configuration in both spaces is trivially given by @xmath177 and @xmath178 . we label this unique configuration by @xmath104 . similarly , @xmath179 due to the orientations . one can further observe the relation : @xmath180 for @xmath181 . the algebraic structure of the space @xmath44 directly corresponds to the physical relations between the states on @xmath0 . however , even for a very basic question of how many configurations are in the space @xmath44 , we have not known any clear answer yet for an arbitrary size of the lattice . in fact , it is shown that counting the number of self - avoiding walks ( saws ) for fixed ends on a given graph is @xmath182-complete @xcite . @xmath182 is a class of the problems for counting and , roughly speaking , they are expected to be as hard as @xmath183-complete problems such as the prime number decomposition of an arbitrary large number . therefore , one can expect that counting the number of the elements of @xmath44 is as hard as @xmath183-complete problems as well , because a non - intersecting loop is nothing but a self - avoiding walk ending at its start @xcite . below , we illustrate the structure of the spaces in terms of the cycle space in graph theory . we restrict ourselves to the planar cases unless otherwise stated . when @xmath0 is planar , _ i.e. _ , @xmath0 can be embedded on a plane with no bonds crossing , the space @xmath45 can be spanned by the set of the smallest loops which are the perimeters of the interior faces of @xmath0 . in graph theory , there is the so - called cycle space @xmath184 which is generated by all the simple cycles and whose basis is given by the fundamental cycles . the addition generates the cycle space from the basis , and makes it the vector space of @xmath185 , where @xmath186 and @xmath187 are the number of the bonds and the number of the sites , respectively . the concepts of @xmath45 and the cycle space @xmath184 are very close to each other , but not always the same because of the presence of the intersecting loops in the cycle space . in fact , there is a necessary and sufficient condition for their equivalence that the degrees of the sites must be less than four everywhere : @xmath188 for all @xmath189 . otherwise , the addition allows intersecting loops . therefore , ( ) cycle ( ) , in general , and @xmath45 is not necessarily a vector space but can be spanned by the set of the smallest loops . when @xmath0 is a planar honeycomb lattice of a finite size , ( ) = cycle ( ) _ 2^e - v+1 , and ( l ( ) ) = 2^e - v+1 = 2^f , where @xmath131 denotes the number of the interior faces and the second equality is given by euler s formula on a planar graph . its basis can be given by the set of the smallest loops . note that , in general , ( l ( ) ) 2^e - v+1 . in the case of the oriented loop configurations @xmath44 , the relation is not as simple as above . we can only provide an estimate for the number of the elements to close . in the case of @xmath190 , & & 2^f+1 -1 < ( ( _ h_n,3 m ) ) < & & 2^ f - 2^(f+1 ) + 2f + 1 . a more refined relation will be given elsewhere @xcite . in this section , we define the probability functions of the no - loop configuration and of having ( oriented ) loops on the given graph , @xmath62 and @xmath61 , respectively . that is to say , the complementary functions satisfying : @xmath191 . upon their definitions , we will show some of the basic properties of the probability functions . note that the word ` loop graph ' indicates the same object as the loop configuration in the original context , but the latter emphasises an outcome of some stochastic process .    on the loop graphs as events of the stochastic process , we define the following probability functions . let @xmath192 be the probability of having the loop graph @xmath172 in @xmath0 . let @xmath193 be the probability of having any loop graph on the graph @xmath194 . let @xmath88 be the probability of the graph @xmath195 being completely frustrated , _ i.e. _ , having no loops . here , the graph @xmath196 is an extended graph of @xmath76 such that it additionally includes all the bonds adjacent to the sites in @xmath76 , in order to precisely explain and estimate the stochastic nature of our model . introducing the complementary graph @xmath197 to a loop graph @xmath198 , the probability function @xmath199 of having the loop graph @xmath198 in @xmath0 is given by the product of the probability @xmath200 of the loop configuration @xmath198 on the graph @xmath198 , and the probability @xmath201 of all the other sites being frustrated : p(l ) = p_l(l ) p_f(|l ) . by definition , the following equalities and inequalities hold : [ eq : ineq ] p_l ( ) & = & _ g_k>0 ( ) p(g_k ) , p_f(g ) & = & 1 - p_l(g ) , p_f ( ) = 1- p_l ( ) = 1 , 0 & & p_l(g ) 1 , 0p_f(g ) 1 . in the third line , for finite @xmath76 and @xmath0 , the equalities @xmath202 and @xmath203 only hold when @xmath76 or @xmath0 is linear or the assignment of the `` potential '' probabilities of the particles moving are unnaturally given in the non - stochastic limit . therefore , we assume @xmath204 and @xmath205 for finite size @xmath76 and @xmath0 .    letting @xmath198 be the naive projection of the oriented loop graph @xmath206 by removing the orientations , and assuming that the different oriented loop graphs which share the same projected loop graph @xmath198 are equiprobable , then the mapping of the oriented loop graphs by the probability functions become apparent as : p(g_k ) & = & p_l(g_k ) p_f(|g_k ) , p(g_k ) & = & 2^k p(g_k ) , p_l(g_k ) & = & 2^k p(g_k ) , p_f(g_k ) & = & p_f(g_k ) . @xmath175 is not a subgraph of @xmath0 so that the complementary graph is defined by the projected graph @xmath172 : @xmath207 . one can interpret that the same projection is done for the @xmath62 as well . because the frustrations in disconnected graphs are independent , the following relation holds : for two disconnected graphs , @xmath208 : p_f(g_1 g_2 ) = p_f(g_1 ) p_f(g_2 ) g_1 g_2 = . note that , using the above definitions and successive application of the relations , one can obtain @xmath192 in a nested expression of the loop probabilities only in this section , we calculate the asymptotic value of the mean square displacements , @xmath209 , which is the average of @xmath210 over @xmath97 , in the limit of @xmath211 . before going into the actual calculation , we fix the notations and introduce some functions to facilitate it . number the position on @xmath0 starting from 0 to @xmath212 , and assign a pair of integers to the @xmath68-th site , @xmath213 . the position of the @xmath68-th site , @xmath214 , on the two - dimensional @xmath215 plane can be given by , for the @xmath216 honeycomb lattice : & & p_x = p   mod   col , p_y = [ p / col ] , & & x_p = p_x , y_q = 32 p_y + 14 ( -1)^p_x+p_y+1 , where @xmath217 , and @xmath218 $ ] denotes the greatest integer which does not exceed @xmath219 . @xmath220 takes the value from @xmath37 to @xmath221 , while @xmath222 . @xmath223 are all integers . the lattice spacing is taken to be a unit length . the square distance between @xmath68-th and @xmath224-th positions are : & & r_q , p - q^2 = ( x_p - x_q ) ^2 + ( y_p - y_q ) ^2 & & = 34 \ { ( p_x - q_x)^2 + 3 ( p_y - q_y)^2 } & & + 18 \{1 - 6(-1)^p_x+p_y ( p_y - q_y ) } ( 1 - ( -1)^(p_x - q_x ) + ( p_y - q_y ) ) . note that we used the following identity : @xmath225 for @xmath226 . replacing @xmath227 by @xmath228 , one can rewrite this as @xmath229 : [ c3 ] r_q,(k , l)^2 & = & 34 k^2 + 94 l^2 + 18 c(q , l ) - 8 c(q , l ) ( -1)^k+l , where @xmath230 from this expression , one can verify that @xmath231 is integer . assume that , in the limit of @xmath159 , all the pairs of the sites are independent to each other so that the asymptotic value of @xmath209 can simply be given by the average of the square distances of all the relevant pairs in @xmath232 combinations . namely , the value leads to the expression : [ eq : r_inf ] [ eq : r^2 ] & & _ t & & = _ relevant . here , the word `` relevant '' means that some sites at the boundary can not contribute to the above , because our flow dynamics can only involve those points which have more than one bond . for instance , regardless of the value of @xmath98 , the following two sites should always be excluded : q = \ { ( 0,0 ) , ( 2n,0 ) } . besides , when @xmath98 is odd , the following two sites are to be taken into account in the same manner : q = \ { ( 0,n ) , ( 2n , n ) } . they are connected only one nearest neighbouring site , so that the particle can not reach these four points via our flow dynamics . therefore , the square distances related to these points do not contribute to the above calculation . substituting ( [ c3 ] ) into ( [ eq : r^2 ] ) and subtracting such unnecessary terms from the sum , we obtain for odd @xmath98 : & & & & = & & & & 18 ( 7 n^2 + 10 n ) , up to @xmath233 . in the cases of @xmath234 , the exact values are given in the manuscript up to first five digits . h. noguchi and g. gompper , phys . e * 73 * , 021903 ( 2006 ) ; t. akimoto , e. yamamoto , k. yasuoka , y. hirano , and m. yasui , phys . lett . , * 107 * , 178103 ( 2011 ) ; h. noguchi , j. chem . phys . * 134 * , 055101 ( 2011 ) ;
Abstract:

Answer: a family of models of liquid on a 2d lattice ( 2d lattice liquid models ) have been proposed as primitive models of soft - material membrane . as a first step , we have formulated them as single - component , single - layered , classical particle systems on a two - dimensional surface with no explicit viscosity . among the family of the models , we have shown and constructed two stochastic models , a vicious walk model and a flow model , on an isotropic regular lattice and on the rectangular honeycomb lattice of various sizes . in both cases , the dynamics is governed by the nature of the frustration of the particle movements . by simulations , we have found the approximate functional form of the frustration probability , and peculiar anomalous diffusions in their time - averaged mean square displacements in the flow model . the relations to other existing statistical models and possible extensions of the models are also discussed .