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: circular planar electrical networks were studied by curtis - ingerman - morrow @xcite and de verdire - gitler - vertigan @xcite . associated to any circular planar electrical network of order @xmath0 is its @xmath1 _ response matrix _ , and response matrices are characterized in ( * ? ? ? * theorem 4 ) as the symmetric matrices with row sums equal to zero and _ circular minors _ non - negative . furthermore , the circular minors which are strictly positive can be identified combinatorially using ( * ? ? ? * lemma 4.2 ) . this positivity condition is of particular interest to us , and the goal of this paper is to investigate the connections between electrical networks and other positivity phenomena in the literature . until now , the combinatorial properties of these response matrices have remained largely unstudied , despite their inherently combinatorial descriptions . a natural question that arises is : which sets of circular minors can be positive , while the others are zero ? it is clear ( for example , from the grassmann - plcker relations ) that one can not construct response matrices with arbitrary sets of positive circular minors . postnikov @xcite studied a similar question in the _ totally nonnegative grassmannian _ , as follows : for @xmath2 matrices @xmath3 , with @xmath4 and all @xmath5 minors nonnegative , which sets ( in fact , matroids ) of @xmath5 minors can be the set of positive minors of @xmath3 ? these sets , called _ positroids _ by knutson - lam - speyer @xcite , were found in @xcite to index many interesting combinatorial objects . two of these objects , plabic graphs and alternating strand diagrams , are highly similar to circular planar electrial networks and medial graphs , respectively , which we study in this paper . our introduction of _ electrical positroids _ is therefore a natural extension of the theory of positroids . we give a novel axiomatization of electrical positroids , motivated by the grassmann - plcker relations , and prove the following :    a set @xmath6 of circular pairs is the set of positive circular minors of a response matrix if and only if @xmath6 is an electrical positroid . another point of interest is that of _ positivity tests _ for response matrices . in @xcite , fomin - zelevinsky describe various positivity tests for _ totally positive matrices _ : given an @xmath1 matrix , there exist sets of @xmath7 minors whose positivity implies the positivity of all minors . these sets of minors are described combinatorially by _ double wiring diagrams_. fomin - zelevinsky later introduced _ cluster algebras _ in @xcite , in part , to study similar positivity phenomena . in particular , their double wiring diagrams fit naturally within the realm of cluster algebras as manifestations of certain cluster algebra mutations .    in a similar way , we describe sets of @xmath8 minors of an @xmath1 matrix @xmath9 whose positivity implies the positivity of all circular minors , that is , that @xmath9 is a response matrix for a top - rank ( in @xmath10 , as defined in @xcite ) electrical network . some such sets were first described by kenyon - wilson @xcite . however , these sets do not form clusters in a cluster algebra . instead , they form clusters in a _ laurent phenomenon ( lp ) algebra _ , a notion introduced by lam - pylyavskyy in @xcite . this observation leads to the last of our main theorems :    there exists an lp algebra @xmath11 , isomorphic to the polynomial ring on @xmath8 generators , with an initial seed @xmath12 of diametric circular minors . @xmath12 is a positivity test for circular minors , and furthermore , all `` plcker clusters '' in @xmath11 , that is , clusters of circular minors , are positivity tests .    in proving theorem [ lpalg ] , we find that @xmath11 is , in a sense , `` double - covered '' by a cluster algebra @xmath13 that behaves very much like @xmath11 when we restrict to certain types of mutations . further investigation of the clusters leads to an analogue of weak separation , as studied by oh - speyer - postnikov @xcite and scott @xcite . conjecturally , the `` plcker clusters , '' of @xmath11 correspond exactly to the maximal pairwise weakly separated sets of circular pairs . furthermore , we conjecture that these maximal pairwise weakly separated sets are related to each other by mutations corresponding to the grasmann - plcker relations . while we establish several weak forms of the conjecture , the general statement remains open . the roadmap of the paper is as follows . we begin by briefly reviewing terminology and known results in  [ defs ] , referring the reader to @xcite for a more detailed exposition . in  [ circpos ] , we motivate and introduce electrical positroids , and prove theorem [ circposthm ] . in  [ lpsec ] , using positivity tests as a springboard , we construct @xmath11 and prove theorem [ lpalg ] , and conclude by establishing weak forms of conjecture [ wsconj ] , which relates the clusters of @xmath11 to positivity tests and our new analogue of weak separation . we recommend that the reader begin by reviewing the definitions and notational conventions from @xcite . for convenience , we re - state some of the more important definitions and results that we will use in this paper . a * circular planar graph * @xmath14 is a planar graph embedded in a disk @xmath15 . @xmath14 is allowed to have self - loops and multiple edges , and has at least one vertex on the boundary of @xmath15 - such vertices are called * boundary vertices*. a * circular planar electrical network * ( or more simply an * electrical network * is a circular planar graph @xmath14 , together with a * conductance map * @xmath16 . associated to an electrial network is its * response matrix * , which is obtained by imposing voltages at the boundary vertices and measuring the resulting boundary currents . more details are given in @xcite . two electrical networks @xmath17 are * equivalent * if they have the same response matrix . the equivalence relation is denoted by @xmath18 . recall also the * local equivalences * , described in detail in @xcite and @xcite : self - loop and spike removal , series and parallel edge replacement , and @xmath19-@xmath20 transformations . these local equivalences are sufficient to generate the equivalence relation @xmath18 :    [ localeqenough ] two electrical networks are equivalent if and only if they are related by a sequence of local equivalences .    as in @xcite , we will often consider only the underlying circular planar graph of an electrical network . accordingly , we use the following notion of equivalence of circular planar graphs :    let @xmath21 be circular planar graphs , each with the same number of boundary vertices . then , @xmath21 are * equivalent * ( with the equivalence abusively denoted @xmath18 ) if there exist conductances @xmath22 on @xmath21 , respectively such that @xmath17 are equivalent electrical networks . alternatively , @xmath23 if @xmath24 and @xmath25 are related by a sequence of local equivalences . the central ingredient to this paper is the characterization of response matrices given in @xcite . in order to state this characterization , we recall the definitions of circular pairs and circular minors . [ circpair ] let @xmath26 and @xmath27 be disjoint ordered subsets of the boundary vertices of an electrical network @xmath28 . we say that @xmath29 is a * circular pair * if @xmath30 are in clockwise order around the circle . we will refer to @xmath31 as the * size * of the circular pair . [ flippq ] we will take @xmath29 to be the same circular pair as @xmath32 , where @xmath33 denotes the ordered set @xmath34 with its elements reversed . almost all of our definitions and statements are compatible with this convention ; most notably , by theorem [ circularminorspositive](a ) , because response matrices are positive , the circular minors @xmath35 and @xmath36 are the same . whenever there is a question as to the effect of choosing either @xmath29 or @xmath32 , we take extra care to point the possible ambiguity . [ connection ] let @xmath29 and @xmath28 be as in definition [ circpair ] . we say that there is a * connection * from @xmath34 to @xmath37 in @xmath14 if there exists a collection of vertex - disjoint paths from @xmath38 to @xmath39 in @xmath14 , and furthermore each path in the collection contains no boundary vertices other than its endpoints . we denote the set of circular pairs @xmath29 for which @xmath34 is connected to @xmath37 by @xmath40 . let @xmath29 and @xmath28 be as in definition [ circpair ] , and let @xmath9 be the response matrix . we define the * circular minor * associated to @xmath29 to be the determinant of the @xmath5 matrix @xmath35 with @xmath41 .    as in @xcite , we often refer to submatrices and their determinants both as minors , interchangeably . we now have the language needed to state the characterization of response matrices :    [ circularminorspositive ] let @xmath9 be an @xmath1 matrix . then :    1 . @xmath9 is the response matrix for an electrical network @xmath28 if and only if @xmath9 is symmetric with row and column sums equal zero , and each of the circular minors @xmath35 is non - negative . 2 .   if @xmath9 is the response matrix for an electrical network @xmath28 , the positive circular minors @xmath35 are exactly those for which there is a connection from @xmath34 to @xmath37 .    let us also mention include two more tools which we will need in what follows . [ equivalentconnections ] the circular planar graphs @xmath42 and @xmath43 are equivalent if and only if @xmath44 . it is easily checked that local equivalences preserve @xmath45 , so if @xmath46 , then @xmath44 . conversely , if @xmath44 , there exist critical ( see @xcite graphs @xmath47 with @xmath48 and @xmath49 , by ( * ? ? ? * thorme 2 ) . then , @xmath50 , so the claim follows from ( * ? ? ? * theorem 1 ) . let @xmath51 be a circular planar graph , and let @xmath52 be an edge with endpoints @xmath53 . the * deletion * of @xmath52 from @xmath51 is exactly as named ; the edge @xmath52 is removed while leaving the rest of the vertices and edges of @xmath51 unchanged . if @xmath53 are not both boundary vertex of @xmath51 , we may also perform a * contraction * of @xmath52 , which identifies all points of @xmath52 . if exactly one of @xmath53 is a boundary vertex , then the image of @xmath52 under the contraction is a boundary vertex . note that edges connecting two boundary vertices can not be contracted to either endpoint . by theorem [ circularminorspositive ] , @xmath1 response matrices are characterized in the following way : a square matrix @xmath9 is the response matrix for an electrical network @xmath28 if and only if @xmath9 is symmetric , its row and column sums are zero , and its circular minors @xmath35 are non - negative . furthermore , @xmath35 is positive if and only if there is a connection from @xmath34 to @xmath37 in @xmath14 . the sets @xmath6 of circular pairs for which there exists a response matrix @xmath9 with @xmath35 is positive if and only if @xmath54 , then , are thus our next objects of study .    the case of the totally nonnegative grassmannian was studied in @xcite : for @xmath2 ( with @xmath4 ) matrices with non - negative maximal minors , the possible sets of positive maximal minors are called _ positroids _ , and are a special class of matroids . our objects will be called _ electrical positroids _ , which we first construct axiomatically , then prove are exactly those sets @xmath6 of positive circular minors in response matrices .      here , we present the axioms for electrical positroids , which arise naturally from the grassmann - plcker relations . let @xmath9 be a fixed matrix , whose rows and columns are indexed by some sets @xmath55 . we write @xmath56 for the determinant of the matrix @xmath57 formed by deleting the rows corresponding to @xmath58 and @xmath59 , provided @xmath57 is square . while the meaning @xmath56 depends on the underlying sets @xmath55 , these sets will always be implicit . [ gp ] we have the following two * grassmann - plcker * relations .    1 . let @xmath9 be an @xmath1 matrix , with @xmath60 elements of its row set and @xmath61 elements of its column set . furthermore , suppose that the row @xmath62 appears above row @xmath63 and column @xmath64 appears to the left of column @xmath65 . then , @xmath66 2 . let @xmath9 be an @xmath67 matrix , with @xmath68 elements of its row set ( appearing in this order , from top to bottom ) , and let @xmath65 an element of its column set . then , @xmath69    while the grasmann - plcker relations are purely algebraic in formulation , they encode combinatorial information concerning the connections of circular pairs in a circular planar graph @xmath14 . as a simple example , consider four boundary vertices @xmath70 in clockwise order of an electrical network @xmath28 , and let @xmath71 . if @xmath9 is the response matrix of @xmath28 , then @xmath72 is the circular minor associated to the circular pair @xmath73 ; thus , @xmath57 has non - negative determinant . furthermore , the entries of @xmath57 are @xmath74 circular minors of @xmath9 , so they , too , must be non - negative .    now , suppose that the left hand side of ( [ p1 ] ) is positive , that is , @xmath75 . equivalently , there are connections between @xmath63 and @xmath65 and between @xmath62 and @xmath64 in @xmath14 . then , at least one of the two terms on the right hand side must be strictly positive ; combinatorially , this means that either there are connections between @xmath63 and @xmath64 and between @xmath62 and @xmath65 , or there is a connection between @xmath76 and @xmath77 . one can derive similar combinatorial rules by assuming one of the terms on the right hand side is positive , and deducing that the left hand side must be positive as well . the first six of the electrical positroid axioms given in definition [ posaxioms ] summarize all of the information that can be extracted in this way from the grassmann - plcker relations .    if @xmath78 , write @xmath79 for the ordered set formed by removing @xmath62 from @xmath34 . [ posaxioms ] a set @xmath6 of circular pairs is an * electrical positroid * if it satisfies the following eight axioms :    1 .   for ordered sets @xmath80 and @xmath81 , with @xmath82 in clockwise order ( that is , @xmath29 is a circular pair ) , consider any @xmath83 , @xmath84 , @xmath85 , @xmath86 with @xmath87 and @xmath88 . then : 1 . [ axside ] if @xmath89 , then either @xmath90 or @xmath91 . [ axcross ] if @xmath90 , then @xmath89 . 3 .   [ axsep ] if @xmath91 , then @xmath89 .    1 .   for @xmath92 and @xmath81 , with @xmath93 in clockwise order , consider any @xmath83 , @xmath84 , @xmath94 , @xmath86 with @xmath95 . then : 1 . [ axmid ] if @xmath96 , then either @xmath97 or @xmath98 . [ axleft ] if @xmath97 , then @xmath96 . [ axright ] if @xmath99 , then @xmath96 . finally :    1 . [ axsub ] ( * subset axiom * ) for @xmath100 and @xmath101 with @xmath29 a circular pair , if @xmath54 , then @xmath102 . [ axempty ] @xmath103 . [ circposthm ] a set @xmath6 of circular pairs is an electrical positroid if and only if there exists a response matrix whose positive circular minors are exactly those corresponding to @xmath6 . given a response matrix @xmath9 , it is straightforward to check that the set @xmath6 of circular pairs corresponding to the positive circular minors of @xmath9 satisfies the first six axioms , by proposition [ gp ] . @xmath6 also satisfies the subset axiom , by theorem [ circularminorspositive ] . finally , adopting the convention that the empty determinant is equal to 1 , we have the last axiom . to prove theorem [ circposthm ] , we thus need to show that any electrical positroid @xmath6 may be realized as the set of positive circular minors of a response matrix , or equivalently the set of connections in a circular planar graph . we now prove theorem [ circposthm ] . first , recall the important convention that @xmath104 . we leave it to the reader to check , whenever appropriate , that all of the definitions and statements we make in this section are compatible with this convention . fix a boundary circle with @xmath0 boundary vertices , which we label @xmath105 in clockwise order . in this section , all labels are considered modulo @xmath0 . we have shown , via the grassmann - plcker relations , that the set of circular pairs corresponding to the positive circular minors of a response matrix is an electrical positroid . we now prove that , for all electrical positroids @xmath6 , there exists a critical graph @xmath51 for which @xmath106 , which will establish theorem [ circposthm ] . the idea of the argument is as follows . assume , for sake of contradiction , that there exists some electrical positroid @xmath6 for which there does not exist such a critical graph @xmath51 with @xmath106 . then , let @xmath107 have maximal size among all such electrical positroids . note that @xmath107 does not contain all circular pairs @xmath29 , because otherwise @xmath108 , where @xmath109 denotes a critical representative of the top - rank element of @xmath10 ( see @xcite ) .    we will then add circular pairs to @xmath107 according to the boundary edge and boundary spike properties ( cf . @xcite ) , discussed below , to form an electrical positroid @xmath110 . by the maximality of @xmath107 , @xmath111 for some critical graph @xmath112 . we will then delete a boundary edge or contract a boundary spike in @xmath112 to obtain a graph @xmath113 , and show that @xmath114 . we begin by defining two properties of circular pairs , the @xmath115-boundary edge property and the @xmath116-boundary spike property . let us first adopt a notational convention .    given a circular pair @xmath29 , let @xmath117 denote the unique circular pair ( if it exists ) with @xmath118 and @xmath119 as sets . in the ordered sets @xmath120 , @xmath121 are inserted in the appropriate positions so that @xmath117 is indeed a circular pair . given arbitrary @xmath122 , @xmath117 may not be a circular pair . however , whenever we make reference to a pair of this form without commenting on its existence , we assert implicitly that it is , in fact , a circular pair . we say that a set @xmath6 of circular pairs has the * @xmath115-bep ( boundary edge property ) * if , for all circular pairs @xmath54 , if @xmath123 is a circular pair , then @xmath124 .    according to remark [ flippq ] , if @xmath6 has the @xmath115-bep , then if @xmath54 and @xmath125 is a circular pair , then @xmath126 .    [ graphbepbsp ] recall the definitions of boundary edges and boundary spikes from @xcite . let @xmath51 be a circular planar graph , and write @xmath127 .    1 . there exists @xmath128 with a boundary edge @xmath115 if and only if @xmath6 has the @xmath115-bep . there exists @xmath128 has a boundary spike at @xmath116 if and only if @xmath6 has the @xmath116-bsp . we prove ( a ) ; the proof of ( b ) is similar . without loss of generality , we may assume that @xmath129 . it easy to check that if @xmath51 has a boundary edge , then @xmath6 must have the corresponding bep . conversely , suppose that @xmath6 has the @xmath130-bep . then , let @xmath131 be the graph obtained by adding an edge @xmath130 in @xmath51 such that the added edge does not cut through any faces of @xmath51 . clearly , @xmath132 consists only of circular pairs @xmath29 such that @xmath133 or @xmath134 . however , @xmath6 contains all such circular pairs , so in fact @xmath135 . then , by theorem [ equivalentconnections ] , @xmath136 . it is left to check that @xmath137 , for some circular planar graph @xmath138 with the boundary edge @xmath130 . let @xmath60 be the two medial boundary vertices between @xmath139 and @xmath140 in @xmath141 . note that adding the edge @xmath130 to @xmath51 corresponds to introducing an additional crossing in @xmath141 between the ( distinct ) wires with endpoints @xmath62 and @xmath63 . introducing this new crossing yields an equivalent medial graph , so it must have created it a lens . from here , it is easily seen , after applying ( * ? ? ? * lemma 6.3 ) , that motions may be applied in @xmath142 so that this lens corresponds to parallel edges between the boundary vertices @xmath139 and @xmath140 in some @xmath143 . the desired conclusion follows . [ allbepbsp ] if @xmath6 has all @xmath0 beps and all @xmath0 bsps , then @xmath6 contains all circular pairs . we proceed by induction on the size of @xmath29 that @xmath54 for all circular pairs @xmath29 . first , suppose that @xmath144 . first , @xmath145 for all @xmath116 , because it has all beps and @xmath103 . then , because @xmath6 has the @xmath116-bsp , and @xmath146 we obtain @xmath147 . continuing in this way gives that @xmath6 contains all circular pairs @xmath29 with @xmath144 . now , suppose that @xmath6 contains all circular pairs of size @xmath148 . let @xmath149 be a circular pair of size @xmath31 . by assumption , @xmath150 . because @xmath6 has all beps , @xmath151 and @xmath152 , so by the @xmath153-bsp , @xmath154 . continuing in this way gives @xmath155 , so we have the desired claim . in particular , lemma [ allbepbsp ] tells us that there exists an @xmath116 such that @xmath107 , as defined in the beginning of this section , either does not have the @xmath115-bep for some @xmath116 , or does not have the @xmath116-bsp for some @xmath116 . we first assume that @xmath107 does not have all beps ; without loss of generality , suppose that @xmath107 does not have the @xmath156-bep . we will now add circular pairs to @xmath107 to obtain an electrical positroid @xmath110 that does have the @xmath156-bep . specifically , we add to @xmath107 every circular pair @xmath157 , where @xmath158 has @xmath159 ( here @xmath160 ) , to obtain @xmath110 . according to remark [ flippq ] , this construction also puts any @xmath161 , where @xmath158 and @xmath162 . @xmath163 is an electrical positroid , and has the @xmath156-bep . the proof is straightforward , so it is omitted .    by assumption , @xmath107 is the maximal electrical positroid for which any circular planar graph @xmath51 has @xmath164 . thus , there exists a graph @xmath112 be a graph such that @xmath165 , and @xmath112 may be taken to have a boundary edge @xmath156 by lemma [ graphbepbsp ] . then , let @xmath113 be the result of deleting the boundary edge @xmath156 . to obtain a contradiction , it is enough to prove that @xmath166 . we now present a series of technical lemmas . [ completedef ] consider a circular pair @xmath158 for which @xmath167 . we will assume , for the rest of this section , that @xmath157 is a circular pair . @xmath29 is said to be is * incomplete * if @xmath168 , and * complete * if @xmath169 .    [ crossing ] let @xmath170 be an incomplete circular pair , such that @xmath157 is a circular pair ( and is not in @xmath107 ) . furthermore , assume that @xmath29 is * minimal * , that is , @xmath171 is complete . then , for all @xmath172 , @xmath173 .    immediate from axiom [ axside ] of definition [ posaxioms ] .    [ trip ] let @xmath174 be a circular pair . then , if @xmath175 , then @xmath176 . immediate from axiom [ axcross ] . [ walk ] if @xmath177 , @xmath178 , and @xmath179 appear in clockwise order , then @xmath180 . if @xmath181 and @xmath182 , the claim follows from axiom [ axleft ] , axiom [ axright ] and induction on @xmath0 . otherwise , it follows from axiom [ axside ] and induction on @xmath0 . [ min ] let @xmath170 be a complete circular pair . then , @xmath183 is complete for all @xmath184 . applying axiom [ axright ] with @xmath185 to @xmath186 gives @xmath187 . then another application of axiom [ axright ] , to @xmath188 with @xmath189 gives the desired result . [ rtol ] let @xmath190 be a circular pair , where @xmath191 are sequences of boundary vertices . suppose that @xmath192 then , @xmath193 . first , write @xmath194 , where @xmath195 and @xmath196 are the last elements of the ordered sets @xmath197 , respectively . then , if @xmath198 , an application of axiom [ axleft ] on @xmath199 with @xmath200 yields @xmath201 . similarly , we find by induction that @xmath202 . then , we have @xmath203 by axiom [ axleft ] applied to @xmath204 with @xmath205 . similarly , write @xmath206 , where @xmath207 are the first elements of @xmath208 , respectively . by axiom [ axleft ] applied to @xmath209 with @xmath210 , we see that @xmath211 . the lemma then follows from axiom [ axright ] applied to @xmath212 with @xmath213 . let @xmath191 be sequences of indices , and let @xmath214 be a circular pair . suppose @xmath215 then @xmath216 .    with the same notation as in the previous lemma , @xmath217 by axiom [ axright ] on @xmath218 with @xmath219 . then , an inductive argument shows that @xmath220 . a similar argument shows that @xmath221 . then , axiom [ axright ] applied to @xmath222 with @xmath223 implies that @xmath224 and applying axiom [ axright ] again to @xmath225 with @xmath226 yields the desired result . [ pa1qbn ] consider a circular pair @xmath227 , and let @xmath228 be an incomplete circular pair with @xmath229 in clockwise order . then , any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath231 contains @xmath232 . it is easy to see that any element of @xmath233 must be of the form @xmath234 , for some @xmath235 . by axiom [ axside ] , @xmath236 and @xmath237 implies that either @xmath238 , or @xmath239 and @xmath240 . we are done in the former case , so assume for sake of contradiction that we have the latter . @xmath241 are not of the form @xmath242 , so can not lie in @xmath243 ; thus , @xmath244 . finally , axiom [ axcross ] yields us @xmath245 , a contradiction , so we are done . two pairs of indices @xmath246 and @xmath247 are said to * cross * if @xmath248 and @xmath249 .    [ betternotation ] for ease of notation , denote the sequence of indices @xmath250 by @xmath251 . we now algorithmically construct a set @xmath252 of circular pairs , which we will call * primary * circular pairs . we will use this notion to eventually prove lemma [ uniclos ] , a key ingredient in our proof of the main theorem . the construction is as follows : begin by placing @xmath253 . then , for each @xmath254 , if we also have @xmath158 , perform the following operation . * let @xmath62 be the first index appearing clockwise from @xmath255 such that there exists @xmath64 with @xmath256 crossing @xmath257 , and also @xmath258 . if @xmath62 does not exist , stop . otherwise , with @xmath62 fixed , take @xmath64 to be the first index appearing counterclockwise from @xmath259 satisfying these properties . * if @xmath62 exists , add @xmath260 to @xmath252 , and remove @xmath261 . * similarly , let @xmath63 to be the largest index counterclockwise from @xmath259 such that there exists @xmath65 with @xmath262 crossing @xmath257 and @xmath263 . if @xmath63 does not exist , stop . otherwise , with @xmath63 fixed , take @xmath65 to be the first index clockwise from @xmath255 with these properties . * if @xmath264 and @xmath265 ( note that if @xmath266 , then @xmath267 ) , then add @xmath268 to @xmath252 . note that @xmath269 or else , by [ axside ] , @xmath64 could originally have been set to @xmath65 . it is easily seen that at any time , the algorithm may be performed on the elements of @xmath252 in any order , and that it will eventually terminate , when the operation described above results in no change in @xmath252 for all @xmath270 . [ connset ] for a circular pair @xmath271 , define @xmath272 . we will take @xmath273 to be an ordered set and abusively refer to its elements as * connections*.    [ pcpcont ] for any incomplete circular pair @xmath29 , there exists a circular pair @xmath274 such that any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath275 contains @xmath157 .    by lemma [ pa1qbn ] , we may assume that @xmath29 is a minimal incomplete circular pair . let @xmath276 ( see definition [ betternotation ] ) . consider the primary circular pairs whose first @xmath116 connections are the same as those of @xmath29 . by the construction of @xmath252 , there are at most two such primary circular pairs , which we denote by @xmath277 by lemma [ crossing ] and the construction of @xmath252 , we have that @xmath278 and @xmath279 or @xmath280 and @xmath281 ( or else we would have been able to set @xmath282 or @xmath283 ) . furthermore , exactly one of these pairs of inequalities holds . let us assume that the former holds , as the latter case is identical , and in this case , call @xmath284 the primary circular pair associated to @xmath29 . if , on the other hand , @xmath284 ( as above ) is the only primary circular pair sharing its @xmath116 connections with @xmath29 , then @xmath278 and @xmath279 , and we still refer to @xmath284 as the primary circular pair associated to @xmath29 . we now prove the lemma by retrograde induction on @xmath116 , where here @xmath116 is such that the first @xmath116 connections of @xmath29 are shared with some primary circular pair . if @xmath285 , we are done by lemma [ pa1qbn ] , and if the first @xmath116 connections of @xmath29 are exactly the primary circular pair in question , we are done by the subset axiom . otherwise , we first need @xmath286 , which follows from lemmas [ trip ] and [ rtol ] , where the conditions of these lemmas are satisfied as a result of lemma [ crossing ] . it is easy to see that the primary circular pair associated to @xmath287 is the same as that for @xmath29 . it follows , then , by the inductive hypothesis , that @xmath288 . when @xmath289 and @xmath290 , lemma [ ltol ] yields the desired result , and if one of @xmath291 or @xmath292 , we are done by a similar argument . [ unpcp ] there is exactly one circular pair in @xmath252 that does not lie in @xmath107 , which we call the * @xmath107-primary circular pair*.    by lemma [ pcpcont ] , @xmath293 has at least one element , because @xmath107 does not have the @xmath156-bep . assume , for sake of contradiction , that @xmath293 has two elements , of the form @xmath294 because @xmath295 and @xmath296 , we must have @xmath297 , by axiom [ axside ] . thus , @xmath298 , by the subset axiom . by the same argument applied to @xmath299 , we must have @xmath300 , so axiom [ axcross ] gives @xmath301 . however , because @xmath302 , we have a contradiction of the definition of @xmath65 . thus , @xmath303 . [ contpcp ] for any incomplete circular pair @xmath29 , any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath231 contains the @xmath107-primary circular pair . proceed by retrograde induction on @xmath116 , where @xmath116 is such that the first @xmath116 connections of @xmath29 are the same as those of some primary circular pair . by the subset axiom , we can assume that @xmath29 is minimal . the base case is immediate from the subset axiom , so suppose that @xmath304 . let @xmath305 then , we need to show that , if @xmath236 , then @xmath306 . first , suppose that both @xmath307 and @xmath308 . then , the desired claim is exactly lemma [ rtol ] , as long as @xmath309 . assume , then , that @xmath310 . first , an application of lemma [ rtol ] yields @xmath311 , which implies @xmath312 and @xmath313 . furthermore , if @xmath314 , then axiom [ axleft ] yields @xmath315 , a contradiction . similarly , we have @xmath316 . as a result , applying axiom [ axmid ] to @xmath317 with @xmath318 gives @xmath319 . one more application of axiom [ axmid ] to @xmath320 with @xmath321 yields the desired result . if one of the indices @xmath291 or @xmath292 , then we are also done by a similar argument . [ uniclos]for any two incomplete circular pairs @xmath29 and @xmath322 , any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath323 must also contain @xmath242 .    by lemma [ contpcp ] , @xmath230 must contain the @xmath107-primary circular pair . the claim then follows by lemma [ pcpcont ] .    by the above results , if we start with our set @xmath107 and some incomplete circular pair @xmath158 , `` completing '' @xmath29 by adding @xmath157 to @xmath107 will require that we have completed every incomplete pair . we now finish the proof of theorem [ circposthm ] , in the boundary edge case . let @xmath324 denote the subset of circular pairs in @xmath107 without the connection @xmath325 , and define @xmath326 similarly for @xmath327 , respectively . by construction , it is easily seen that @xmath328 . while @xmath329 may not necessarily be an electrical positroid , we have :    [ findclos ] there exists an electrical positroid @xmath330 with @xmath331 . we give an algorithm to construct such an electrical positroid @xmath330 . we begin by setting @xmath332 ; note that @xmath330 satisfies the last two electrical positroid axioms , but may not satisfy the first six . each of the first six axioms are of the form @xmath333 , or otherwise @xmath333 or @xmath334 . at each step of the algorithm , if @xmath330 is an electrical positroid , we stop , and if not , we pick an electrical positroid axiom @xmath335 ( among the first six ) not satisfied by @xmath336 . we then show that we can add elements of @xmath337 to @xmath330 so that @xmath335 is satisfied by @xmath338 , and so that @xmath330 also still satisfies the subset axiom . it is clear that adding circular pairs to @xmath330 in this way is possible when @xmath335 is one of axioms [ axcross ] , [ axsep ] , [ axleft ] , and [ axright ] : we take the add circular pairs @xmath339 , as above , as well as all of the circular pairs formed by subsets of their respective connections . we will show that this operation is also possible when @xmath335 is one of axioms [ axside ] and [ axmid ] . from here , it will be clear that the algorithm must terminate , because we can only add finitely many elements to @xmath330 . therefore , we will eventually find @xmath330 with the desired properties .    in each of the cases below , the circular pairs added to @xmath330 are always assumed to be added along with each of their subsets , that is , the circular pairs formed by subsets of their connections . in this way , the subset axiom is satisfied by @xmath330 at all steps in the algorithm . we first consider axiom [ axside ] , which we assume to fail in @xmath330 when applied to @xmath340 . if @xmath341 , either @xmath342 or @xmath343 . it is easy to see that @xmath344 and @xmath345 ( or vice versa , but we can swap @xmath34 and @xmath37 and reverse their orders ) , or else axiom [ axside ] already would have been satisfied by @xmath340 . we proceed by casework :    * @xmath346 . then , because axiom [ axside ] fails , we have @xmath347 . thus , we may add @xmath348 to @xmath330 , and these lie in @xmath349 . * @xmath350 . we have @xmath351 . first , suppose that @xmath352 . because @xmath353 does not contain the connection @xmath325 , we have @xmath354 . then , @xmath355 , so we may add may @xmath29 to @xmath330 , so that axiom [ axside ] is satisfied with @xmath351 ( note that @xmath356 is already in @xmath330 ) . + now , suppose instead that @xmath357 . if @xmath358 , then @xmath359 by the subset axiom . then , @xmath355 , and so we may add @xmath29 to @xmath330 to satisfy axiom [ axside ] . now , assume that @xmath360 . for any electrical positroid @xmath361 , axiom [ axleft ] applied to @xmath362 and @xmath363 gives that @xmath364 and @xmath365 implies @xmath366 and @xmath367 . by the discussion above , we have @xmath368 , and so we may add @xmath369 to @xmath330 . the case in which @xmath370 is identical . * the case @xmath371 may be handled using similar logic ; the details are left to the reader . finally , consider axiom [ axmid ] , which we assume to fail for @xmath372 . as before , we may assume @xmath373 . * @xmath374 , or @xmath375 . similar to the first case above . * @xmath376 . then , we have @xmath377 . as in the second case for axiom [ axside ] , we may assume that we have @xmath378 and @xmath379 , or else both @xmath107 and @xmath380 would contain exactly one of @xmath381 and @xmath382 . moreover , we may assume that we have @xmath383 by similar logic . because @xmath384 and @xmath383 , we may apply axiom [ axsep ] to find that @xmath385 . thus , we can add @xmath386 to @xmath330 , so that we still have @xmath387 . the case @xmath388 is identical . * the cases @xmath389 and @xmath390 may be handled using similar logic ; we again omit the details . thus , in all cases , our algorithm is well - defined , and we are done .    by lemma [ uniclos ] , we must in fact have @xmath391 , provided that neither @xmath107 nor @xmath380 is equal to @xmath110 , which is true by construction ( recall that @xmath392 is critical ) . the proof is complete , in the boundary edge case . it is left to consider the case in which @xmath107 has the @xmath115-bep , for each @xmath116 , but fails to have the @xmath116-bsp , for some @xmath116 . without loss of generality , suppose that @xmath107 does not have the @xmath139-bsp . we now form @xmath110 as the union of @xmath107 and the set of all circular pairs @xmath117 such that @xmath393 , where @xmath29 is a circular pair with @xmath394 .    in appendix [ bspcase ] , we form a circular planar graph @xmath112 such that @xmath165 and @xmath112 has a boundary spike at 1 . then , contracting this boundary spike to obtain the graph @xmath113 , we find that @xmath114 . therefore , with the additional results of appendix [ bspcase ] , the theorem is proven . we now study the lp algebra @xmath11 . our starting point will be _ positivity tests _ ; a particular positivity test will form the initial seed in @xmath11 . we then proceed to investigae the algebraic and combinatorial properties of clusters in @xmath11 . let @xmath9 be a symmetric @xmath1 matrix with row and column sums equal to zero . in this section , we describe tests for deciding if @xmath9 is the response matrix for an electrical network @xmath14 in the top cell of @xmath10 , defined in @xcite . that is , we describe tests for deciding if all of the circular minors of @xmath9 are positive . these tests are similar to certain tests for total positivity described in @xcite . throughout the remainder of this section , all indices around the circle are considered modulo @xmath0 , and we will refer to circular pairs and their corresponding minors interchangeably . a set @xmath6 of circular pairs is a * positivity test * if , for all matrices @xmath9 whose minors corresponding to @xmath6 are positive , every circular minor of @xmath9 is positive ( equivalently , @xmath9 is the response matrix for a top - rank electrical network ) . we begin by describing a positivity test of size @xmath8 . fix @xmath0 vertices on a boundary circle , labeled @xmath105 in clockwise order .    for two points @xmath395 $ ] , let @xmath396 denote the number of boundary vertices on the arc formed by starting at @xmath62 and moving clockwise to @xmath63 , inclusive . a circular pair @xmath397 is called * solid * if both sequences @xmath398 and @xmath399 appear consecutively in clockwise order around the circle . write @xmath400 , and @xmath401 . we will call a solid circular pair @xmath29 * picked * if one of the following conditions holds :    * @xmath402 and @xmath403 , or * @xmath404 and @xmath405    let @xmath9 be a fixed symmetric @xmath1 matrix . define the set of * diametric pairs * @xmath12 to be the set of solid circular pairs @xmath29 such that either @xmath406 or @xmath407 and @xmath29 is picked . we will refer to the elements of @xmath12 as circular pairs and minors interchangeably . it is easily checked that @xmath408 .    for a solid circular pair @xmath29 , we have that @xmath409 , so @xmath12 consists of the solid circular pairs with @xmath410 when @xmath0 is odd , and the solid circular pairs with either @xmath411 , or @xmath407 and @xmath29 is picked when @xmath0 is even .    recall ( see remark [ flippq ] ) that the circular pairs @xmath29 and @xmath32 will be regarded as the same . note , for example , that @xmath412 if and only if @xmath413 , so the definition of @xmath12 is compatible with this convention .    [ initialseed ] if @xmath9 is taken to be an @xmath1 symmetric matrix of indeterminates , any circular minor is a positive rational expression in the determinants of the elements of @xmath12 . we will make use of the grassmann - plcker relations , ( [ p1 ] ) and ( [ p2 ] ) , so we repeat them here :    for @xmath73 a circular pair , @xmath414 and for @xmath415 in clockwise order , @xmath416    we will first show , by induction on @xmath417 , that any solid circular pair is a positive rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 . there is nothing to check when @xmath417 is equal to 0 ( when @xmath0 is even ) or 1 ( when @xmath0 is odd ) . if @xmath418 is a solid circular pair such that @xmath407 ( hence , @xmath0 is even ) and @xmath29 is not picked , then either @xmath419 or @xmath420 is a solid circular pair with @xmath407 , and it must be picked . assume , without loss of generality , that it is the former , and let @xmath421 , @xmath422 . letting @xmath423 , we have , by ( [ p1 ] ) , that :    @xmath424    because @xmath425 is not picked , @xmath426 corresponds to a picked circular pair with @xmath407 , and @xmath427 and @xmath428 all have @xmath411 , so we have that @xmath29 is a rational expression of elements of @xmath12 . now , for @xmath429 , assume that all solid pairs with @xmath430 are positive rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 , and consider a solid pair @xmath29 with @xmath431 . then , either @xmath419 or @xmath420 is a solid circular pair with @xmath430 . assume , without loss of generality , that the former is the case . then , we may again set @xmath421 , @xmath422 , and @xmath432 , and ( [ apply1 ] ) still holds . each term on the right hand side corresponds to a solid pair with a smaller value of @xmath433 , so @xmath29 is a positive rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 , by the inductive hypothesis . we now show that any circular pair is a positive rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 . for a sequence @xmath434 of points ordered clockwise around the circle , let @xmath435 be the largest index such that @xmath436 are consecutive . if @xmath437 , then define @xmath438 and @xmath439 . if , on the other hand , @xmath440 , define @xmath441 . similarly , for a sequence @xmath442 of points ordered counterclockwise around the circle , let @xmath443 be the smallest index such that @xmath444 are consecutive . if @xmath445 , then define @xmath446 and @xmath447 . if , on the other hand , @xmath448 , define @xmath441 . for a circular pair @xmath29 , define @xmath449 , and note that @xmath450 , so @xmath451 is well - defined when we impose the convention @xmath104 . we finish the proof by showing that any circular pair is a positive rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 by induction on @xmath451 . if @xmath452 , then @xmath29 is solid and hence a rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 . now , assume that for any @xmath453 , every circular pair @xmath322 with @xmath454 is a rational expression in the elements of @xmath12 , and consider a circular pair @xmath29 with @xmath455 . assume , without loss of generality , that @xmath456 , and let @xmath457 . applying ( [ p1 ] ) to @xmath458 , we get :    @xmath459    each term on the right hand side is easily seen to have a smaller value of @xmath451 than @xmath460 , so we are done by induction . [ postestcor ] @xmath12 is a positivity test . the positive rational expressions from the previous section are reminiscent of a cluster algebra structure ( see @xcite for definitions ) . in fact , ( [ p1 ] ) and ( [ p2 ] ) are exactly the exchange relations for the local moves in double wiring diagrams ( * ? ? ? * figure 9 ) . due to parity issues similar to those encountered when attempting to associate a cluster algebra to a non - orientable surface in @xcite , the structure of positivity tests is slightly different from a cluster algebra . we present the structure in two different ways : first , as a laurent phenomenon ( lp ) algebra @xmath11 ( see @xcite for definitions ) , and secondly as a cluster algebra @xmath13 similar to the double cover cluster algebra in @xcite . @xmath11 , we will find , is isomorphic to the polynomial ring on @xmath8 variables , but more importantly encodes the information of the positivity of the circular minors of a fixed @xmath1 matrix . we begin by describing an undirected graph @xmath461 that encodes the desired mutation relations among our initial seed . the vertex set of @xmath461 will be @xmath462 . a solid circular pair @xmath463 is called * maximal * if @xmath464 or @xmath465 and @xmath466 . a solid circular pair @xmath467 is called * limiting * if @xmath407 , @xmath29 is picked , and @xmath468 or @xmath469 . let us now describe the edges of @xmath470 : see figure [ q8 ] for an example . for each @xmath471 that is not maximal , limiting , or empty ( that is , equal to @xmath472 ) , there is a unique way to substitute values in [ p1 ] such that @xmath29 appears on the left hand side , and all four terms on the right hand side are in @xmath473 . we draw edges from @xmath29 to these four vertices in @xmath461 . finally , if @xmath474 are limiting , we draw an edge between them if their sizes differ by @xmath139 . the edges drawn in these two cases constitute all edges of @xmath475 .    for any maximal circular pair @xmath29 , it can be proven that there exists a symmetric matrix @xmath3 such that @xmath3 is positive on any circular pair except @xmath476 . in fact , if @xmath29 is maximal and has @xmath406 , then the set of all circular pairs other than @xmath29 is an electrical positroid . hence , in our quivers , we will take the vertices corresponding to the maximal circular pairs and @xmath472 to be frozen . @xmath461 can then be embedded in the plane in a natural way with the circular pairs of size @xmath31 lying on the circle of radius @xmath31 centered at @xmath472 , and all edges except those between vertices corresponding to limiting circular pairs either along those circles or radially outward from @xmath472 . depicting the desired exhange relations among @xmath477 . vertices marked as squares correspond to frozen variables . @xmath478 , @xmath479 and @xmath480 are the limiting circular pairs . ] if we could orient the edges of @xmath461 such that they alternate between in- and out - edges at each non - frozen vertex , then the resulting quiver would give a cluster algebra such that mutations at vertices whose associated cluster variables are neither frozen not limiting correspond to the relation grassmann - plcker relation ( [ p1 ] ) . furthermore , these mutation relations among the vertices of @xmath473 constitute all of the grassmann - plcker relations for which five of the six terms on the right hand side are elements in @xmath473 , and the term which is not in @xmath475 is on the left hand side of the relation ( [ p1 ] ) or ( [ p2 ] ) . however , for @xmath481 , such an orientation of the edges of @xmath470 is impossible , because the dual graph of @xmath470 contains odd cycles . we thus define :    [ deflmn ] let @xmath11 be the lp algebra constructed as follows : the initial seed @xmath482 has cluster variables equal to the minors in @xmath473 , with the maximal pairs and @xmath472 frozen , and , for any other @xmath471 , the exchange polynomial @xmath483 is the same as what is obtained from a quiver with underlying graph @xmath470 , such that the edges around the vertex associated to @xmath29 in @xmath461 alternate between in- and out - edges .    for example , in @xmath484 , the exchange polynomial associated to the cluster variable @xmath485 is @xmath486 . we need the additional technical condition that @xmath483 is irreducible as a polynomial in the cluster variables @xmath475 , but the irreducibility is clear . we next define a cluster algebra @xmath13 which is a double cover of positivity tests , in the following sense : we begin consider an @xmath1 matrix @xmath57 , which we no longer assume to be symmetric . we write * non - symmetric circular pairs * in the row and column sets of @xmath57 as @xmath487 , so that @xmath487 and @xmath488 now represent different circular pairs . we will say that two expressions @xmath489 in the entries of @xmath57 * correspond * if swapping the rows and columns for each entry in @xmath3 gives @xmath490 , and we will write @xmath491 . for instance , @xmath492 . the set of cluster variables @xmath493 in our initial seed will consist of pairs @xmath487 such that @xmath494 . note that @xmath495 , as @xmath493 contains @xmath487 and @xmath488 for each @xmath496 , and finally @xmath472 . @xmath487 will be frozen in @xmath497 if @xmath29 was frozen in @xmath473 . we construct the undirected graph @xmath498 with vertex set @xmath497 by adding edges in the same way that @xmath461 was constructed . the only difference in our description is that if @xmath474 are limiting , then they will be adjacent only if their sizes differ by @xmath139 and @xmath499 . see figure [ qp ] for an example .    . in the quiver @xmath500 , the edges alternate directions around a non - frozen vertex . ]    unlike in @xmath461 , the edges of @xmath498 can be oriented such that they are alternating around each non - frozen vertex . let @xmath501 be the quiver from either orientation . then , let @xmath502 be the cluster algebra with initial quiver @xmath501 . breaking the symmetry of @xmath57 removed the parity problems from @xmath461 , so that we could define a cluster algebra , but we are still interested in using @xmath498 to study @xmath9 when @xmath9 is symmetric . toward this goal , we can restrict ourselves so that whenever we mutate at a cluster variable @xmath503 , we then mutate at @xmath504 immediately afterward . call this restriction the * symmetry restriction*.    [ symm ] after the mutation sequence @xmath505 from the initial seed in @xmath502 , the number of edges from @xmath506 to @xmath507 in the quiver is equal to the number of edges from @xmath508 to @xmath509 for each @xmath121 in the final quiver . we proceed by induction on @xmath196 ; for @xmath510 , we have the claim by construction . now , suppose that we have performed the mutations @xmath511 and currently have the desired symmetry property . by the inductive hypothesis , @xmath512 and @xmath513 are not adjacent , or else we would have had edges between them in both directions , which would have been removed after mutations . thus , no edges incident to @xmath513 are created or removed upon mutating at @xmath512 . hence , mutating at @xmath513 afterward makes the symmetric changes to the graph , as desired . let @xmath514 $ ] and @xmath515 $ ] denote the polynomial rings in the off - diagonal entries of @xmath9 and @xmath57 respectively ; recall that @xmath9 is symmetric , so @xmath516 . then , we can define the * symmetrizing homomorphism * @xmath517 \to { \mathbb{c}}[m]$ ] by its action on the off - diagonal entries of @xmath57 : @xmath518 if @xmath6 is a set of polynomials in @xmath515 $ ] , then write @xmath519 . [ isom ] let @xmath520 be the cluster of @xmath502 that results from starting at the initial cluster and performing the sequence of mutations @xmath505 . let @xmath521 be the cluster of @xmath522 that results from starting at the initial cluster and performing the sequence of mutations @xmath523 . then , @xmath524 .    using lemma [ symm ] , the proof is similar to ( * ? ? ? * proposition 4.4 ) .    in light of lemma [ isom ] , we may understand the clusters in @xmath11 by forming `` double - cover '' clusters in @xmath13 . a sequence @xmath525 of mutations in @xmath11 corresponds to a sequence @xmath526 of twice as many mutations in @xmath13 , where we impose the symmetry restriction , and the cluster variables in @xmath11 after applying @xmath525 are the symmetrizations of those in @xmath13 after applying @xmath526 . [ lppos ] any cluster @xmath6 of @xmath11 consisting entirely of circular pairs is a positivity test .    in @xmath502 , the exchange polynomial has only positive coefficients , so each variable in any cluster is a rational function with positive coefficients in the variables of any other cluster . in particular , each non - symmetric circular pair in @xmath527 is a rational function with positive coefficients in the variables of any cluster reachable under the symmetry restriction . hence , by lemma [ isom ] , each circular pair in @xmath528 can be written as a rational function with positive coefficients of the variables in @xmath6 . the desired result follows easily .    as with double wiring diagrams for totally positive matrices @xcite , and plabic graphs for the totally nonnegative grassmannian @xcite , we now restricting ourselves to certain types of mutations in @xmath522 . a natural choice is mutations with exchange relations of the form [ p1 ] or [ p2 ] . these mutations keep us within clusters consisting entirely of circular minors , the `` plcker clusters . '' we begin by restricting ourselves only to mutations with exchange relations of the form [ p1 ] . because the initial seed @xmath529 consists only of solid circular pairs , we will only be able to mutate to other clusters consisting entirely of solid circular pairs . our goal is to chracterize these clusters . we will be able to write down such a characterization using corollary [ symallconsec ] and lemma [ isom ] , and give a more elegant description of the clusters in proposition [ wsconsec ] . let @xmath530 be a non - symmetric , non - empty circular pair . define the statistics @xmath531 , @xmath532 , and @xmath533 by : @xmath534    a non - symmetric solid circular pair @xmath487 is uniquely determined by the triple @xmath535 . a necessary condition for a triple @xmath536 to correspond to a non - symmetric solid circular pair is that @xmath537 . when the terms are non - symmetric solid circular pairs , ( [ p1 ] ) can be written using these triples as : @xmath538     after a mutation at @xmath539 , with non - symmetric solid circular pairs labeled by triples @xmath536 . in the quiver , the edges alternate directions around each non - frozen vertex . ]     after a mutation at @xmath539 , with non - symmetric solid circular pairs labeled by triples @xmath536 . in the quiver , the edges alternate directions around each non - frozen vertex . ] we call two non - symmetric solid circular pairs corresponding to the triples @xmath540 and @xmath541 * adjacent * if @xmath542 and @xmath543 , or @xmath544 and @xmath545 . we call @xmath487 and @xmath546 * diagonally adjacent * if there are two non - symmetric solid circular pairs @xmath547 which are both adjacent to both @xmath487 and @xmath546 . we call @xmath547 the * connection * of @xmath548 . note that , in the initial quiver @xmath500 , adjacent and diagonally adjacent circular pairs correspond to vertices which are adjacent in particular ways . specifically , adjacent circular pairs correspond to vertices which are adjacent on the same concentric circle , or along the same radial spoke of @xmath549 . diagonally adjacent circular pairs correspond to those which are adjacent via all other edges , the `` diagonal '' edges . we can now classify clusters of @xmath13 which can be reached only using the mutations with exchange relation ( [ p1 ] ) . [ solidcluster ] we call a set @xmath6 of @xmath550 non - symmetric solid circular pairs a * solid cluster * if it has the following properties :    * @xmath551 , * for each integer @xmath552 , and each @xmath553 , unless @xmath554 and @xmath330 is an integer , there is a @xmath15 such that the non - symmetric solid circular pair corresponding to @xmath536 is in @xmath6 , and * if @xmath555 and @xmath487 is adjacent to @xmath546 , then @xmath556 .    [ embed ] there is a natural embedding of a solid cluster @xmath6 in the plane , similar to our embedding of @xmath498 . we place @xmath557 at any point , and then pairs of size @xmath31 on the circle of radius @xmath31 centered at that point . moreover , we place adjacent pairs of the same size consecutively around each circle , and adjacent pairs of different sizes collinear with @xmath557 .    for a solid cluster @xmath6 of @xmath13 and associated quiver @xmath558 , we call @xmath559 a * solid seed * if it has the following properties :    * vertices corresponding to maximal non - symmetric solid circular pairs are frozen , * there is an edge between any pair of adjacent vertices that are not both frozen , * there is an edge between diagonally adjacent vertices @xmath548 if their connection @xmath560 satisfies @xmath561 , * there is an edge from a size 1 vertex @xmath487 to @xmath557 if it would make the degree of @xmath487 even , * all edges of @xmath558 are in drawn in one of the four ways described above , and * all edges are oriented so that , in the embedding described in remark [ embed ] , edges alternate between in- and out - edges around any non - frozen vertex .    if , furthermore , @xmath562 if and only if @xmath563 , or equivalently , the non - symmetric solid circular pair corresponding to @xmath536 is in @xmath6 if and only if that corresponding to @xmath564 is , then we call @xmath565 a * symmetric solid seed*.    see , for example , figure [ bluesmutate ] . [ canmut ] in a solid seed @xmath566 , a variable @xmath567 has an exchange polynomial of the form ( [ p1 ] ) whenever its corresponding vertex in @xmath558 , and has edges to the vertices corresponding to its four adjacent variables in @xmath558 , and no other vertices . [ allconsec ] in @xmath502 , from the initial seed with cluster @xmath493 and quiver @xmath568 , mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) may be applied to obtain the seed @xmath569 if and only if @xmath569 is a solid seed . here , we do _ not _ impose the symmetry restriction . first , assume that @xmath569 via mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) . first , it is easy to check that @xmath570 is a solid seed . then , our mutations do indeed turn non - symmetric solid circular pairs into other non - symmetric solid circular pairs . furthermore , when we perform a mutation of the form ( [ p1 t ] ) at the vertex @xmath503 , the values of @xmath330 and @xmath31 do not change , and the value of @xmath15 changes from being either 2 more than the values of @xmath15 at the vertices adjacent to @xmath503 to being 2 less , or vice versa . hence , the resulting seed is also solid , so , by induction , @xmath569 is solid . conversely , assume @xmath569 is solid . we begin by noting that , by remark [ canmut ] , whenever the four terms on the right hand side of ( [ p1 t ] ) and one term on the left hand side are in our cluster , then we can perform the corresponding mutation .    now , define @xmath571 to be the unique symmetric solid seed such that , for each @xmath572 , @xmath573 . for any solid seed @xmath569 , we give a mutation sequence @xmath574 using only mutations of the form ( [ p1 t ] ) that transforms @xmath569 into @xmath575 . hence , we will be able to get from the seed @xmath570 to @xmath569 by performing @xmath576 , followed by @xmath574 in reverse order . it is left to construct the desired mutation sequence . we define @xmath574 as follows : while the current seed is not @xmath571 , choose a vertex @xmath503 of the quiver , with associated cluster variable @xmath487 , for which the value of @xmath577 is maximized . we must have @xmath578 , and by maximality , for each vertex @xmath546 adjacent to @xmath487 , we must have @xmath579 . hence , we can mutate at @xmath29 to reduce @xmath577 by at least 2 . this process may be iterated to decrease the sum , over all cluster variables @xmath487 in our seed , of the @xmath577 , until we reach the seed @xmath571 . the proof is complete . [ symallconsec ] in @xmath502 , from our initial seed with cluster @xmath493 and quiver @xmath568 , we can apply symmetric pairs of mutations ( that is , mutations with the symmetry restriction ) of the form ( [ p1 ] ) to obtain the seed @xmath569 if and only if @xmath569 is a symmetric solid seed .    the proof is almost identical to that of lemma [ allconsec ] . it suffices to note that in a symmetric solid seed , @xmath487 has a maximal value of @xmath580 if and only if @xmath581 does , so the mutation sequence @xmath574 can be selected to obey the symmetry restriction .    using corollary [ symallconsec ] and lemma [ isom ] , we could also prove a similar result for the lp algebra @xmath522 . however , we will wait to do so until lemma [ wsconsec ] where we will describe it more elegantly using the notion of weak separation . we have now have the required machinery to prove our main theorem of this section . [ lpalg ] fix a symmetric @xmath1 matrix @xmath9 of distinct indeterminates . then , the @xmath582-laurent phenomenon algebra @xmath11 is isomorphic to the polynomial ring ( over @xmath582 ) on the @xmath8 non - diagonal entries of @xmath9 . we may directly apply the analogue of ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.6 ) for lp algebras ( for which the proof is identical ) to @xmath522 as defined in definition [ deflmn ] . it is well - known that minors of a matrix of indeterminates are irreducible , so we immediately have that all of our seed variables are pairwise coprime . we also need to check that each initial seed variable is is coprime to the variable obtained by mutating its associated vertex in @xmath500 , and that this new variable is in the polynomial ring generated by the non - diagonal entries of @xmath9 . for non - limiting ( and non - frozen ) minors , this is clear , because each such mutation replaces a minor with another minor via ( [ p1 ] ) . for limiting minors , this is not the case , and we defer the proof to appendix [ nonplucker ] . it remains to check , then that each of the @xmath583 non - diagonal entries of @xmath57 appear as cluster variables in some cluster of @xmath13 . however , because @xmath74 minors are solid , the result is immediate from lemma [ symallconsec ] and lemma [ isom ] . because all @xmath74 minors are solid , mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) were sufficient to establish theorem [ lpalg ] . once we allow mutations of the form ( [ p2 ] ) , the clusters become more difficult to describe . however , let us propose the following conjecture , which has been established computationally for @xmath584 . [ getall ] every cluster of @xmath522 consisting entirely of circular pairs can be reached from the initial cluster using only mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) or ( [ p2 ] ) . we next introduce an analogue of weakly separated sets from @xcite for circular pairs . we recall the definition used in @xcite , @xcite , which is more natural in this case :    two sets @xmath585 $ ] are * weakly separated * if there are no @xmath586 and @xmath587 such that @xmath588 or @xmath589 . our analogue is as follows :    two circular pairs @xmath29 and @xmath590 are * weakly separated * if @xmath591 is weakly separated from @xmath592 , and @xmath593 is weakly separated from @xmath594 . note that @xmath29 is weakly separated from itself and from @xmath32 . furthermore , @xmath29 is weakly separated from @xmath590 if and only if @xmath32 is , so under the convention @xmath104 , weak separation is well - defined . [ wsconj ] let @xmath595 be a set of circular minors , for an @xmath1 generic response matrix . * @xmath595 is a minimal positivity test . * @xmath595 is a maximal set of pairwise weakly separated circular pairs . * @xmath595 is a cluster of @xmath11 . conjecture [ wsconj ] has been computationally verified for @xmath596 . we now prove various weak forms of this conjecture . first , for all clusters @xmath595 of @xmath11 that are reachable from the initial seed via grasmann - plcker relations ( cf . conjecture [ getall ] ) , the elements of @xmath595 are pairwise weakly separated :    [ pluckerpreservesws ] if @xmath595 is a set of pairwise weakly separated circular pairs such that , for some substitution of values into ( [ p1 ] ) or ( [ p2 ] ) , all the terms on the right hand side , and one term @xmath29 on the left hand side , are in @xmath595 , then the remaining term @xmath590 on the left hand side is weakly separated from all of @xmath597 . let @xmath415 be as in ( [ p1 ] ) or ( [ p2 ] ) . it is clear that @xmath590 can only be non - weakly separated from an element of @xmath597 , if @xmath415 are boundary vertices forcing the non - weak separation .. however , this is easily seen to be impossible .    when restricting ourselves to clusters of solid minors , the analogue of corollary [ symallconsec ] for @xmath522 matches exactly with a weak form of the equivalence @xmath598 in conjecture [ wsconj ] . [ wsconsec ] a set @xmath595 of solid circular pairs can be reached ( as a cluster ) from the initial cluster @xmath529 in @xmath522 using only mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) if and only if @xmath595 is a set of @xmath8 pairwise weakly separated solid circular pairs . the elements of the initial cluster @xmath529 in @xmath522 , which consists of the diametric pairs @xmath12 , are easily seen to be pairwise weakly separated . then , by proposition [ pluckerpreservesws ] , any cluster we can reach from @xmath529 using only mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) must also be pairwise weakly separated . conversely , consider any set @xmath595 of @xmath8 pairwise weakly separated solid circular pairs . let @xmath599 , and notice that @xmath600 . by corollary [ symallconsec ] and lemma [ isom ] , it is enough to prove that that @xmath601 is a solid cluster ( see definition [ solidcluster ] ) in @xmath13 . from here it will follow by definition that @xmath602 is a symmetric solid seed , meaning @xmath595 can be reached from @xmath529 in @xmath522 using only mutations of the form ( [ p1 ] ) , as desired .    before proceeding , it is straightforward to check that circular pairs @xmath603 and @xmath604 are weakly separated if and only if the following four intersections are non - empty : @xmath605    we now prove that @xmath606 is a solid cluster . first , notice that if non - symmetric circular pairs @xmath607 and @xmath608 are such that @xmath609 and @xmath610 , but @xmath611 , then @xmath29 and @xmath612 are not weakly separated . hence , at most one of @xmath487 and @xmath546 is in @xmath602 . as there are exactly @xmath613 choices of @xmath330 and @xmath31 that give valid non - symmetric solid circular pairs , there must be one element of @xmath602 corresponding to each choice of @xmath614 . second , consider any adjacent @xmath487 and @xmath546 in @xmath602 . without loss of generality , one of    * @xmath609 and @xmath615 , * @xmath610 and @xmath616 .    holds . in either case , because @xmath487 and @xmath546 are weakly separated , we can see that @xmath556 . it follows that @xmath601 is a solid cluster , so we are done . we now relate @xmath617 and @xmath618 . recall that , by lemma [ lppos ] , any if @xmath595 satisfies @xmath617 , then @xmath595 is a positivity test . furthermore , @xmath619 . we can prove , similarly to ( * ? ? ? * theorem 1.2 ) , that :    [ bound ] if @xmath595 satisfies @xmath620 , then @xmath621 . in fact , we can prove a slightly stronger result by interpreting a circular pair as a set of edges . for a circular pair @xmath271 , define @xmath272 ( cf . definition [ connset ] ) . similarly , for a set @xmath622 of edges such that no two edges in @xmath15 cross , let @xmath623 be the circular pair for which @xmath624 . [ strongbound ] if @xmath595 is a set of pairwise weakly separated circular pairs with @xmath625 then @xmath626 . procced by induction on @xmath627 . the case @xmath628 is trivial , so assume the result is true for @xmath629 . suppose that we have @xmath630 with @xmath631 , and assume for sake of contradiction that @xmath632 . choose some @xmath633 such that , for any other @xmath634 , @xmath64 and @xmath65 do not both lie on the arc drawn from @xmath62 to @xmath63 in the clockwise direction ( this arc is taken to include both @xmath62 and @xmath63 ) . now , letting @xmath635 , define the projection map @xmath636 by : @xmath637 we may define @xmath638 for circular pairs analogously : @xmath639 , and let @xmath640 . let us now prove two lemmas . [ wsinj ] the elements of @xmath602 are pairwise weakly separated . assume , for sake of contradiction , that we have @xmath641 , such that @xmath642 and @xmath643 are not weakly separated . if @xmath644 or @xmath645 , the claim is clear . thus , we may assume without loss of generality , that @xmath646 , @xmath647 , and @xmath648 . because @xmath642 and @xmath643 are not weakly separated , suppose , without loss of generality , that @xmath649 and @xmath650 such that @xmath651 are in clockwise order , and furthermore @xmath652 and @xmath653 . note that , if @xmath654 , then @xmath651 would also show that @xmath29 is not weakly separated from @xmath590 . assume that @xmath655 ; the other cases are similar . first , suppose that @xmath656 . then , we must have @xmath657 , and we obtain a similar contradiction to before . on the other hand , if @xmath658 , then @xmath659 and @xmath660 . but , since @xmath648 , @xmath62 and @xmath63 are in distinct non - intersecting edges in @xmath661 . because these edges are also in @xmath662 , we have a contradiction of the construction of @xmath76 . the lemma follows . [ atmost1j ] there is at most one @xmath663 with @xmath664 and @xmath665 . assume for sake of contradiction that we have distinct circular pairs @xmath641 , with @xmath666 , and @xmath667 . without loss of generality , assume that @xmath668 and @xmath669 . by the fact that @xmath667 and the construction of @xmath76 , there exist two points @xmath670 on the clockwise arc from @xmath63 to @xmath62 not containing its endpoints , which are both in exactly one of @xmath671 . first , if @xmath672 and @xmath673 , then the points @xmath674 force @xmath642 and @xmath590 not to be weakly separated . however , @xmath675 , so we have a contradiction .    if @xmath672 and @xmath676 , then we get a similar contradiction if @xmath677 , so we have that @xmath674 are in clockwise order . because @xmath678 and @xmath679 , there must be an @xmath506 such that @xmath680 but @xmath681 . we have four cases for the position of @xmath506 , relative to @xmath674 . if @xmath682 are in clockwise order , then we get a contradiction of our construction of @xmath76 . if @xmath683 are in clockwise order , then @xmath684 either contradicts that @xmath29 is a circular pair or that @xmath29 is weakly separated from @xmath643 . the case in which @xmath685 are in clockwise order is similar . finally , if @xmath686 are in clockwise order , then either @xmath687 or @xmath688 contradicts that either @xmath29 is weakly separated from @xmath643 or that @xmath642 is weakly separated from @xmath590 . the other cases follow similarly . we can now finish the proof of proposition [ strongbound ] . by lemma [ wsinj ] , the elements of @xmath602 are pairwise weakly separated , and we also have @xmath689 . thus , by the inductive hypothesis , @xmath690 . however , it is easy to see from lemma [ atmost1j ] that @xmath691 , so the induction is complete . now , proposition [ bound ] follows easily by taking @xmath692 in proposition [ strongbound ] . proposition [ strongbound ] also has another natural corollary :    for any set @xmath6 of pairwise weakly separated circular pairs , there is an injective map @xmath693 such that @xmath694 for each @xmath695 . proposition [ strongbound ] gives exactly the condition required to apply hall s marriage theorem . this work was undertaken at the reu ( research experiences for undergraduates ) program at the university of minnesota - twin cities , supported by nsf grants dms-1067183 and dms-1148634 . the authors thank joel lewis , gregg musiker , pavlo pylyavskyy , and dennis stanton for their leadership of the program , and are especially grateful to joel lewis and pavlo pylyavskyy for introducing them to this problem and for their invaluable insight and encouragement . the authors also thank to thomas mcconville for many helpful discussions . finally , the authors thank vic reiner , jonathan schneider , and dennis stanton for suggesting references , and damien jiang and ben zinberg for formatting suggestions . we now finish the proof of theorem [ circposthm ] . recall that @xmath107 is an electrical positroid for which no circular planar graph @xmath51 has @xmath696 , and that @xmath107 is chosen to be maximal among electrical positroids with this property . by assumption , @xmath107 has the @xmath115-bep for each @xmath116 , and does not have the @xmath139-bsp . furthermore , recall the construction of @xmath110 from the end of  [ posproof ] . then , we have :    @xmath110 is an electrical positroid , and has the @xmath139-bsp . straightforward .    by assumption , @xmath111 , for some circular planar graph @xmath112 , which has a boundary spike at 1 . let @xmath113 be graph obtained after contracting the boundary spike in @xmath112 . we will prove that @xmath114 , which will yield the desired contradiction . the proof is similar to the case handled in  [ posproof ] . recall the notation from definition [ betternotation ] , where we let @xmath251 denote the sequence @xmath250 . a circular pair @xmath697 is said to be * incomplete * if @xmath698 but @xmath699 and @xmath700 . if , on the other hand , @xmath54 in addition to @xmath701 and @xmath702 , @xmath29 is said to be * complete*.    we also define the set @xmath252 of * primary * circular pairs as in  [ posproof ] , where we take circular pairs of the form @xmath697 with the property that @xmath703 . it is easy to see that the analogue of lemma [ crossing ] holds when @xmath29 is incomplete . then , because @xmath107 has all beps , the primary circular pairs @xmath704 will all have @xmath705 . we now prove a series of lemmas , mirroring those in [ posproof ] . for an incomplete circular pair @xmath706 , any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath707 con @xmath228 with @xmath708 when @xmath228 is incomplete . first by axiom [ axside ] in @xmath230 , @xmath709 and @xmath710 implies that we either have our claim , or we have @xmath711 and @xmath712 . we first apply axiom [ axmid ] to @xmath713 on the circular pair @xmath714 . we have @xmath715 by definition , and we also have @xmath712 , so this implies that we either have our claim , or we have @xmath716 . the latter then implies that @xmath717 . a similar argument for axiom [ axmid ] on @xmath718 gives either our claim or that @xmath719 . then , axiom [ axmid ] implies that @xmath54 , a contradiction . thus , we have our claim .    [ pcpsp ] for any incomplete circular pair @xmath29 , there exists a circular pair @xmath274 such that any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath707 contains @xmath29 . proceed by induction on @xmath116 , where @xmath116 is such that the first @xmath116 connections ( see definition [ connset ] ) of @xmath29 are the same as those of a primary circular pair . the base case may be handled similarly as in the proof of lemma [ pcpcont ] . now , let @xmath720 be the primary circular pair such that if @xmath721 , then @xmath722 for all @xmath116 ; @xmath723 exists by an identical argument as in the proof of lemma [ pcpcont ] . call @xmath723 the primary circular pair associated to @xmath29 .    recalling that @xmath705 , we first need to show that @xmath724 . the same result replacing @xmath725 with @xmath325 would follow from an identical argument . by the definition of the @xmath130-bep , we need to show that @xmath726 . in the case that @xmath727 , we do so by applying lemmas [ crossing ] and lemma [ rtol ] . in the case that @xmath728 , we may apply the subset axiom . finally , in the case that @xmath129 , we may apply lemma [ walk ] . we now claim that , if @xmath729 , then @xmath730 . the lemma will then follow , because @xmath287 and @xmath29 are easily seen to have the same primary associated circular pair . if @xmath731 , the proof of the claim is identical to that of [ pcpcont ] , so assume that @xmath728 . in this case , we have @xmath732 . if @xmath733 , axiom [ axcross ] implies that we have @xmath734 . then , as @xmath735 , we are done by axiom [ axcross ] . [ primarybsp ] there is exactly one circular pair in @xmath252 that does not lie in @xmath107 , which we call the * @xmath107-primary circular pair . *    the argument is the same to that of lemma [ unpcp ] . [ sppcp ] for any incomplete circular pair @xmath29 , any electrical positroid @xmath230 satisfying @xmath707 contains the @xmath107-primary circular pair . proceed by retrograde induction on @xmath116 , where @xmath116 is such that the first @xmath116 connections of @xmath29 are the same as those of the @xmath107-primary circular pair . if @xmath731 , we can argue exactly as in the proof of lemma [ contpcp ] . thus , assume that @xmath728 . let @xmath736 be the @xmath107-primary circular pair . by lemma [ primarybsp ] , @xmath737 has the property that @xmath722 for all @xmath116 . also , by how the construction of @xmath110 , for any circular pair @xmath738 , @xmath739 and @xmath740 . therefore , it follows that @xmath741 . then , by axiom [ axside ] , @xmath742 , and another application of axiom [ axside ] yields @xmath743 , completing the proof .    [ uniclossp ] for any two incomplete circular pairs @xmath29 and @xmath322 any electrical positroid @xmath230 containing @xmath6 and contained in @xmath163 with @xmath29 must contain @xmath322 .    by lemma [ pcpsp ] , @xmath230 contains the primary circular pair . the claim then follows by lemma [ sppcp ] . let @xmath744 . then , @xmath330 is an electrical positroid . the proof follows the same outline as that of lemma [ findclos ] ; here , we verify that @xmath330 satisfies each electrical positroid axiom . by construction , @xmath107 and @xmath380 only differ in the circular pairs @xmath29 for which @xmath745 . in particular , @xmath746 . @xmath330 is easily seen to satisfy the electrical positroid axioms other than [ axside ] and [ axmid ] . we first consider axiom [ axside ] : suppose that @xmath351 ; we show that either @xmath747 or @xmath748 . we have the following cases :    * @xmath749 . suppose that @xmath750 . then , either @xmath751 or @xmath752 . axiom [ axcross ] applied to @xmath753 with @xmath754 gives @xmath751 . similarly , the roles of @xmath380 and @xmath107 may be swapped , and we may apply the same argument with @xmath369 . thus , either @xmath107 and @xmath380 both contain @xmath353 and @xmath369 or both do not , in which case they both contain @xmath29 and @xmath356 . * @xmath755 . suppose that @xmath750 and @xmath756 . then , @xmath757 . if @xmath751 , we are done . otherwise , if @xmath758 , as @xmath107 is an electrical positroid , we find @xmath158 and @xmath759 . then , we must have @xmath760 , in which case we are done , or either @xmath761 or @xmath762 . in the latter case , axiom [ axleft ] applied to @xmath763 with @xmath764 gives that @xmath761 . thus , @xmath107 and @xmath380 contain @xmath356 and @xmath29 , so we are done in this case as well . * the cases @xmath765 and @xmath766 are handled by similar logic ; the details are omitted . the case @xmath767 is symmetric with @xmath768 . we now consider axiom [ axmid ] : suppose that @xmath372 ; we show that either @xmath97 or @xmath769 . we have the following cases :    * @xmath770 . if @xmath771 , then either @xmath772 or @xmath773 then , an application of axiom [ axcross ] to @xmath774 with @xmath754 yields that @xmath772 . the same argument holds if @xmath772 to show that @xmath771 does as well . now , suppose @xmath775 . then , either @xmath776 , which case we are done , or @xmath777 . then , the subset axiom , @xmath778 . applying axiom [ axsep ] to @xmath362 with @xmath779 then yields that @xmath776 , as desired . the same argument holds if we swap the roles of @xmath107 and @xmath380 . * @xmath780 . if @xmath771 , by the same argument as with the case @xmath781 , we have @xmath772 . if @xmath782 as well , then either @xmath776 , in which case we are done , or @xmath783 . in the latter case , because @xmath107 is an electrical positroid , @xmath784 . then , applying axiom [ axleft ] to @xmath785 with @xmath786 gives that @xmath776 , so we are done . * the cases @xmath768 and @xmath787 are handled with similar logic ; the details are omitted . we have exhausted all cases , so the proof of the lemma is complete . now , by lemma [ uniclossp ] , we have @xmath788 , so the proof of theorem [ circposthm ] is complete . recall that , to complete the proof of theorem [ lpalg ] , we need an additional technical result , which we state and prove here . [ mutlimit ] from the initial cluster of @xmath522 , mutating at a non - frozen limiting solid circular pair @xmath29 gives a new cluster variable which is a polynomial in the entries of @xmath9 , and relatively prime to @xmath29 . consider the limiting solid circular pair @xmath29 of size @xmath31 . fix the ground set @xmath789 so that @xmath20 denotes the determinant of the submatrix of @xmath9 with rows indexed by @xmath790 and columns indexed by @xmath638 . furthermore , let @xmath791 then , the cluster variable associated to the vertex @xmath29 is @xmath792 , and its corresponding exchange polynomial in the initial seed of @xmath11 is @xmath793 the new cluster variable from mutating at @xmath29 is @xmath794 where the last equality may be checked directly . we wish to show that @xmath795 is relatively prime to @xmath792 , which is irreducible , so it is enough to check that @xmath792 does not divide @xmath796 . let us outline the argument . if it is the case that @xmath792 divides @xmath797 , then each term in the expansion of @xmath797 must be divisible by a monomial in the expansion of @xmath792 . however , we claim that this can not be true . indeed , any monomial in the expansion of @xmath792 contains exactly one factor of a variable @xmath798 in the row of @xmath9 corresponding to @xmath63 , and the column of @xmath9 corresponding to @xmath799 . however , it is easily checked that there are terms of @xmath797 , after expanding and collecting like terms , containing variables @xmath800 with @xmath801 , so the claim is established .
Abstract:

Answer: curtis - ingerman - morrow characterize response matrices for circular planar electrical networks as symmetric square matrices with row sums zero and non - negative circular minors . in this paper , we study this positivity phenomenon more closely , from both algebraic and combinatorial perspectives . extending work of postnikov , we introduce electrical positroids , which are the sets of circular minors which can simultaneously be positive in a response matrix . we give a self - contained axiomatic description of these electrical positroids . in the second part of the paper , we discuss a naturally arising example of a laurent phenomenon algebra , as studied by lam - pylyavskyy . we investigate the clusters in this algebra , building off of initial work by kenyon - wilson , using an analogue of weak separation , as was originally introduced by leclerc - zelevinsky .