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: adic , or bratteli - vershik ( bv ) , systems represent all measure - preserving systems on nonatomic probability spaces and all minimal systems on the cantor set . they provide a convenient combinatorial description of the construction of systems by the cutting and stacking method , present tail fields of stochastic processes as the fields of adic - invariant sets , facilitate the study of measure - preserving and topological orbit equivalence , and present important and interesting particular systems for detailed study . we refer to the introductions of the papers in our references list and the survey @xcite for background and further details . for adic systems , invariant measures and orbit equivalence depend only on the graph - theoretic structure of the underlying diagram and are independent of the orders assigned to the edges entering each vertex , which determine the adic transformation ; further dynamical properties , such as the spectrum , isomorphism , or joinings , do depend on the particular ordering . some recent work has investigated how the orderings assigned to the edges can affect the sets of maximal and minimal paths . bezuglyi , kwiatkowski , and yassawi @xcite studied arbitrary reorderings of adic systems to determine which ones  the  perfect " orderings  allow the adic transformation to be defined as a homeomorphism . they showed that when orderings of a diagram of finite rank @xmath1 are chosen uniformly at random , there is a @xmath2 such that almost every ordering has @xmath3 maximal and @xmath3 minimal paths . medynets @xcite gave an example of a diagram for which no ordering is perfect . bezuglyi and yassawi @xcite pursue this question beyond the finite rank case and give necessary and sufficient conditions for a diagram to admit a perfect ordering . janssen , quas , and yassawi @xcite produce a class of systems for which @xmath4 and almost every ordering is imperfect . it is important to determine when coding the orbits of paths according to the natural partition into cylinder sets determined by the first @xmath0 edges produces an essentially faithful representation of the system as a subshift on a finite alphabet ; for then traditional methods of symbolic dynamics can be applied , and , even if the adic transformation can not be defined as a homeomorphism , nevertheless the corresponding subshift can be studied as a legitimate dynamical system . by  essential " we mean that the coding map is one - to - one except on a set of paths that has measure zero for each fully supported adic - invariant probability measure on the system . this property was proved for the pascal adic with a particular edge ordering ( namely one that is lexicographical from left to right at each vertex ) in @xcite and for a wider class of systems in @xcite . on the other hand , downarowicz and maass @xcite ( see also @xcite ) showed that each minimal finite topological rank adic system , namely one that can be represented up to topological conjugacy by an adic system with a bounded number of vertices on each level , with unique maximal and minimal paths , and having all orbits dense , either has a faithful coding by the first @xmath0 edges for some @xmath0 or else is topologically conjugate to an odometer . this result may be regarded as a generalization of previous work ( see @xcite ) on the relations among stationary adic systems , substitutions , and odometers . it was extended to aperiodic cantor minimal systems in @xcite . so far we have been lacking useful tests for when a general adic system allows an essentially faithful representation as a subshift or when it is topologically conjugate to an odometer . here we show ( theorem [ thm : coding ] ) that for the pascal system every edge ordering allows essentially faithful coding by the first three edges . further , extending the ideas in @xcite , we show that for every ordering the subshift defined by the coding is topologically weakly mixing ( theorem [ thm : weakmixing ] ) . we find this somewhat surprising , since the existence of eigenfunctions is highly sensitive to timing . we also establish a necessary and sufficient condition for an adic system of a fairly general kind to be topologically conjugate to an odometer ( theorem [ uoimpliesodometer ] ) . ( previously , sufficient conditions were known for systems with a bounded number of vertices per level @xcite . a similar condition has been given independently by durand and yassawi @xcite , and a necessary condition was mentioned in @xcite . ) we use this condition to determine the probability that a random order on a fixed diagram , or an ordered diagram constructed at random in a certain sense , is topologically conjugate to an odometer ( examples [ ex : odometerprob ] and [ ex : odometer2 ] ) . we also study the subshift that is the closure of the union of the subshifts determined by the pascal adic with all possible orderings : we estimate its complexity , prove that it is not topologically transitive , and show that its only periodic points are the two fixed points . on the other hand , the intersection over all orderings consists of just four orbits . the final section presents examples and further observations related to the questions under discussion . in this section we fix notation and terminology for the pascal adic system . similar concepts apply also to other adic systems . let @xmath5 denote the pascal graph , which is a directed graph with countably many vertices arranged into levels . the set of vertices is @xmath6 . the set @xmath7 of directed edges consists of edges from @xmath8 to @xmath9 and @xmath10 for each @xmath11 . the _ level _ of a vertex @xmath8 is @xmath12 . for each @xmath13 let @xmath14 denote the set of vertices at level @xmath15 , and , for @xmath16 , @xmath17 denote the set of edges with source in @xmath18 and range in @xmath19 . we specify an _ ordering _ of the incoming edges to all vertices other than @xmath20 by a function @xmath21 : the edge from @xmath22 to @xmath8 is defined to be less than the edge from @xmath23 to @xmath8 if and only if @xmath24 . as usual with adic systems , each such ordering determines a partial order on the set @xmath25 of infinite directed paths on @xmath5 , viewed as sequences of adjacent edges , that begin at the _ root _ , @xmath20 . paths @xmath26 and @xmath27 are _ comparable _ if they eventually coincide : there is an @xmath28 such that @xmath29 for all @xmath30 . if @xmath15 is the smallest such @xmath28 , then @xmath31 if and only if @xmath32 . then the adic transformation @xmath33 is defined on the complement of the set @xmath34 of paths that consist entirely of maximal edges by letting @xmath35 equal the smallest path @xmath36 that is larger than @xmath37 . similarly , @xmath38 is defined on the complement of the set @xmath39 of paths that consist entirely of minimal edges . edges connecting `` boundary vertices '' , i.e. from @xmath40 to @xmath41 and from @xmath42 to @xmath43 , are both maximal and minimal . define @xmath44 to be the path down the left boundary of the diagram and @xmath45 to be the path down the right boundary . the ordinary pascal adic system is determined by the ordering @xmath46 . when we are working with a fixed ordering , the subscript @xmath47 can be omitted . denote by @xmath48 the orbit under @xmath33 of @xmath49 . sometimes @xmath33 can be extended to a map from ( part of ) @xmath34 to @xmath39 .    for each @xmath50 we consider the partition @xmath51 of @xmath25 into the cylinder sets @xmath52 defined by specifying the first @xmath0 edges @xmath53 , @xmath54 . these are clopen sets that generate the topology of @xmath25 . for each @xmath0 there are @xmath55 cylinder sets of level @xmath0 . the elements of @xmath51 may be regarded as symbols and identified with the sets @xmath56 , the strings @xmath57 , or the corresponding initial paths of length @xmath0 . the set @xmath58 of two - sided infinite sequences with entries from @xmath51 is a compact metric space with distance @xmath59 ) .    for a fixed ordering @xmath47 , each path @xmath60 has a @xmath0-coding @xmath61 given by @xmath62 if and only if @xmath63 . we write @xmath64 as @xmath65 the subshift @xmath66 consists of the set @xmath67 of all sequences each of whose finite subblocks can be found in @xmath68 for some @xmath60 , together with the shift transformation @xmath69 defined by @xmath70 . there are natural factor maps from @xmath71 to @xmath72 for each @xmath73 . we say the @xmath0-coding is _ faithful _ if @xmath74 whenever @xmath75 . the system is expansive if and only if there is a @xmath0 such that the @xmath0-coding is faithful . the fully supported nonatomic adic - invariant ergodic probability measures on the path space @xmath25 are a one - parameter family @xmath76 . each edge from @xmath23 to @xmath8 is assigned weight @xmath77 , and each edge from @xmath22 to @xmath8 is assigned weight @xmath78 . the measure of a cylinder set @xmath79 as above is then the product of the weights on the edges that define the cylinder set . for a fixed vertex @xmath80 , all cylinder sets determined by paths from @xmath20 to @xmath80 then have the same measure ( see @xcite ) . changing the ordering of the edges just changes the order in which paths , or cylinder sets , are mapped to one another and does not change the set of fully supported adic - invariant ergodic probability measures . [ prop : maxpaths ] for each ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph and each fully supported adic - invariant probability measure @xmath81 , the set @xmath82 has measure 0 . let @xmath83 . for each vertex @xmath84 there is a unique ( finite ) reverse path from @xmath80 to the root @xmath20 that follows only minimal edges . ( the corresponding cylinder set @xmath85 corresponds to the base of a column in the cutting and stacking representation of the system . ) if @xmath80 is at level @xmath15 , then @xmath86 . thus @xmath87 since each infinite path that follows only minimal edges is in the decreasing intersection of the sets @xmath88 , the set of minimal paths has @xmath81 measure 0 . similarly , the set of maximal paths has measure @xmath89 , so @xmath48 is the countable union of sets of measure @xmath89 . we assign _ basic blocks _ @xmath90 on the alphabet @xmath91 to the vertices @xmath8 of @xmath5 as follows . the vertices @xmath92 , for all @xmath93 , are assigned the block @xmath94 ; the vertices @xmath95 , for all @xmath96 , are assigned the block @xmath97 ; and each vertex @xmath8 for which both @xmath98 and @xmath99 are at least 1 is assigned the block @xmath100 if @xmath101 , and @xmath102 if @xmath103 . we say that @xmath12 is the _ level _ of the basic block @xmath90 . the basic block @xmath90 is the initial block of length @xmath104 of the 1-coding of the minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath8 . the number of @xmath94 s in @xmath90 is given by the binomial coefficient @xmath105 , and the number of @xmath97 s by @xmath106 . if we are dealing with a fixed ordering , the subscript @xmath47 can be omitted .    for each @xmath50 basic blocks @xmath107 on the symbols of @xmath51 of the @xmath0-coding are defined in a similar way . we retain the meaning of the coordinates @xmath98 and @xmath99the diagram is not telescoped . when @xmath108 , for each @xmath109 there are @xmath110 paths from the root to the vertex at @xmath111 . since they are linearly ordered by @xmath47 , we may label them in order as @xmath112 . these labels @xmath113 , for all @xmath114 and @xmath115 , may be taken as the @xmath55 symbols of the alphabet @xmath51 . for each @xmath116 the basic block at the vertex @xmath111 is @xmath117 . to form the basic blocks at each level @xmath118 , the level @xmath119 basic blocks are concatenated according to the ordering @xmath47 , as above . note that while for @xmath120 , the corresponding alphabet for @xmath121 is not @xmath122 , we can still talk about counts of @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s associated to @xmath123 by considering the factor map @xmath124 . not only does each basic block @xmath125 determine the vertex @xmath8 , but also the @xmath0-symbol counts in @xmath125 determine @xmath8 . for any @xmath0 and any path @xmath37 in an arbitrary adic system , due to the structure of the diagram the @xmath0-coding of the orbit of @xmath37 has a natural hierarchical structure of factorings for each @xmath126 into basic blocks of level @xmath15 . this is evident for substitution subshifts and is especially simple ( periodic ) for odometers . when an iterate of @xmath37 under @xmath127 enters the cylinder determined by a minimal path from the root to a vertex @xmath80 at level @xmath15 , the coding at that instant begins an occurrence of the basic block at level @xmath15 . ( in the cutting and stacking version , the orbit of @xmath37 enters the base of a column and proceeds up the column . ) in the following we continue to focus on the pascal graph . fix an ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph @xmath5 , a coding length @xmath50 , and a sequence @xmath128 . for each @xmath126 the basic blocks of level @xmath15 are distinct ( since they determine different vertices ) , and thus for fixed @xmath12 , @xmath129 determines the vertex @xmath8 of @xmath5 to which it is associated . suppose that , for each @xmath126 , @xmath130 factors into a concatenation of basic blocks of level @xmath15 so that the factorizations are consistent across levels and respect the ordering , in the following sense : for all @xmath126 , each basic block of the level @xmath131 factorization is the concatenation according to the fixed ordering of two adjacent basic blocks of the level @xmath15 factorization . more precisely , suppose that for each @xmath132 we may write @xmath130 as a concatenation @xmath133 of blocks @xmath134 , in such a way that    1 . each @xmath134 is a basic block @xmath135 of level @xmath15 with respect to @xmath47 ; 2 . there is a function @xmath136 such that @xmath137 for all @xmath15 and @xmath138 , and , for each @xmath139 and each @xmath138 , @xmath140 ; 3 .   if @xmath141 , then @xmath142 and @xmath143 , while if @xmath144 , then @xmath145 and @xmath146 . such a system of factorings will be called a _ @xmath47-consistent factoring scheme for @xmath130_. note that for every @xmath0 the @xmath0-coding of every path in @xmath25 ( even if one - sided ) has a natural @xmath47-consistent factoring scheme determined by the sequence of vertices through which it passes . in principle , for some @xmath0 a @xmath0-coding of a path might have more than one consistent factoring scheme . in the following proposition we show that each consistent factoring scheme determines a unique corresponding path . in theorem [ thm : coding ] and corollary [ cor : recognizability ] we show that the 3-coding of every path in @xmath147 has a unique factorization scheme since the 3-coding corresponds to a unique path . a path in @xmath48 ( in the orbit of a maximal or minimal path ) may have only a 1-sided @xmath0-coding . the following proposition covers this case as well . [ prop : consistentscheme ] suppose that an ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph @xmath5 , @xmath50 , and a sequence @xmath64 with a @xmath47-consistent factoring scheme are given . then there is a unique path @xmath37 such that the @xmath0-coding of the orbit of @xmath37 under the adic transformation @xmath33 , insofar as defined , is ( if necessary a truncation of ) the given sequence @xmath148 and the natural factoring defined by the path coincides with the given one . if @xmath149 , @xmath127 can be extended so as to give a complete @xmath150-orbit which has the complete @xmath0-coding @xmath148 . suppose that an ordering @xmath47 and @xmath64 with a @xmath47-consistent factoring scheme are given . denote by @xmath151 the central basic block of level @xmath15 in the given factorization , by which we mean the basic block that includes the coordinate 0 . let @xmath152 be such that @xmath153 has origin at the beginning of @xmath151 . form a path @xmath37 which at each level @xmath15 is at vertex @xmath154 determined by the level @xmath15 central block @xmath151 , and with initial segment of length @xmath15 equal to @xmath155 applied to the minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath154 . the central symbol of @xmath148 determines the vertices of @xmath37 at levels @xmath156 . then the @xmath0-coding @xmath68 of @xmath37 equals the given sequence @xmath148 on the range of coordinates @xmath157 $ ] for every @xmath15 . thus the coding and factorization determine the sequence of vertices through which the path passes , and no other path can have the same coding and natural factorization . if @xmath158 , then @xmath159 and the full coding @xmath68 equals the full sequence @xmath148 . otherwise , @xmath148 tells us how to define @xmath33 on a maximal or minimal path in such a way that @xmath148 is still the coding of a complete orbit . for example , suppose that @xmath160 for all @xmath15 , so that for each @xmath15 the path @xmath37 defined above is maximal from the root to @xmath154 and hence is in @xmath34 . apply the above procedure to @xmath161 to produce a path @xmath162 , and define @xmath163 . then the right half of @xmath148 is the @xmath0-coding of the forward orbit of @xmath164 under @xmath33 . so we may regard the full sequence @xmath148 as the @xmath0-coding of the orbit of @xmath37 under the extension of @xmath33 to part of @xmath48 . ( note that since the sequence @xmath64 is given , @xmath165 , so that @xmath166 . ) [ block containment ] fix an ordering @xmath47 of the pascal diagram , with path space @xmath25 . suppose @xmath37 , @xmath167 are distinct paths in @xmath25 that are determined by sequences @xmath168 with @xmath47-consistent factoring schemes and have full @xmath150-orbits under @xmath33 ( extended if necessary ) as in proposition [ prop : consistentscheme ] . suppose further that @xmath37 and @xmath167 follow only minimal edges from @xmath20 to distinct vertices @xmath8 and @xmath169 respectively , where @xmath170 for some @xmath171 . then the 3-codings of @xmath37 and @xmath167 are not the same . in other words , two such paths that follow only minimal edges starting at the root to different vertices at the same level do not have the same coding by initial path segments of length 3 . suppose @xmath37 and @xmath167 are as above . in particular , we may assume that the 1- ( and 2- ) codings of @xmath37 and @xmath167 are the same : @xmath172 and @xmath173 ( otherwise we are done ) . the longest minimal path from @xmath20 that is contained in both @xmath37 and @xmath167 ends at some vertex @xmath174 at level @xmath175 . in other words , @xmath37 and @xmath167 _ split _ at @xmath80 . if @xmath176 then @xmath37 and @xmath167 would disagree on one of their first three edges and we would be done ; we therefore consider only the cases where @xmath177 . we may assume that no paths with a lower level splitting occur ( at the same time ) in the forward orbits of @xmath37 and @xmath167 , respectively . specifically , find a smallest @xmath178 for which there exists an @xmath1 such that @xmath179 and @xmath180 are minimal until distinct vertices at level @xmath181 and contain the same edges until level @xmath178 , replace @xmath37 and @xmath167 by @xmath182 and @xmath183 , and define @xmath80 to be the vertex where this latter pair split . it is the minimality of @xmath178 that we will exploit in the following proof by contradiction . we consider several cases according to where in the diagram the vertex @xmath80 can occur . our first case is when @xmath80 is an interior vertex . in other words , let @xmath184 @xmath185 . since both paths are minimal until level @xmath186 , there exist two minimal edges with source @xmath80 ; label @xmath187 so that the left one is contained in @xmath37 and the right one contained in @xmath167 . let @xmath188 be the length of the basic block at @xmath80 and consider the paths @xmath189 and @xmath190 . then at level @xmath178 , @xmath189 passes through vertex @xmath191 and @xmath190 passes through vertex @xmath192 , and both are minimal until level @xmath175 . therefore the split between the two paths in the orbits of @xmath37 and @xmath167 occurred at some level @xmath193 where @xmath194 . this contradicts the minimality of @xmath178 . ( see figure [ interior ] , where we indicate minimal edges by dashed lines and maximal edges by solid lines . ) ( 8,4 )  + ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 8,4 )  + ( -1,-1 ) ; ( 6,4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 10,4)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 8,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 9,3 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 7,3 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 8,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 10,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; at ( 8,4 ) @xmath195 ; at ( 6,4 ) @xmath191 ; at ( 10,4 ) @xmath192 ; at ( 8.5,3.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 7.5,3.5)@xmath37 ; at ( 9.5,3.5)@xmath190 ; at ( 6.5,3.5)@xmath189 ;    now consider the case when @xmath80 is on the left side of the diagram ( i.e. @xmath196 for some @xmath197 ) . since @xmath198 ( @xmath44 and @xmath45 do not have a @xmath47-consistent coding scheme ) , both @xmath37 and @xmath167 must leave the left side of the diagram . consider first the case when both leave the left side via minimal edges . see figure [ stepa ] . then @xmath199 and we label so that @xmath37 contains the minimal path to @xmath200 and @xmath167 contains the minimal path to @xmath201 . since @xmath37 leaves the left side of the diagram , it passes through a vertex @xmath202 , and this edge is minimal . in this case , we will examine the first edge coding of @xmath37 and @xmath167 . we first note that @xmath203 where @xmath204 . ( in general , the basic block at @xmath205 for any @xmath206 is of the form @xmath207 for some @xmath208 , and @xmath138 and @xmath209 are nondecreasing as @xmath98 increases . ) since the edge connecting vertices @xmath210 and @xmath202 is minimal , @xmath211 . since @xmath212 , @xmath213 contains @xmath214 ( the blocks are the same if @xmath215 ) . therefore @xmath216 with @xmath217 and @xmath218 . since @xmath37 and @xmath167 are minimal into @xmath202 and @xmath201 respectively , @xmath219 immediately follows the decimal in @xmath220 ( i.e. beginning in the origin position ) and @xmath221 immediately follows the decimal in @xmath222 . however , @xmath217 contradicts our assumption that @xmath37 and @xmath167 have the same 1-coding . ( 0,0 )  + ( 6,6 ) ; ( 5,5)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,5 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 3,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; at ( 5,5 ) @xmath223 ; at ( 6,4 ) @xmath224 ; at ( 5.5,4.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 1,1 ) @xmath210 ; at ( 1.5,.5 ) @xmath37 ; at ( 2,0 ) @xmath225 ;    ( an analogous argument rules out the case where @xmath37 and @xmath167 split along the diagonal @xmath226 and contain minimal paths from the root to @xmath227 . ) our final and most complex case is the case when @xmath80 is on the left side of the diagram and @xmath167 leaves along a minimal edge while @xmath37 leaves along a maximal edge at some later level . thus @xmath196 , for some @xmath228 , @xmath199 , @xmath37 contains the minimal path to @xmath200 , @xmath167 contains the minimal path to @xmath201 and @xmath37 exits the left side at @xmath210 , for some @xmath229 . if @xmath37 is not in @xmath34 it does not continue along maximal edges forever . let @xmath230 at level @xmath231 be the range of the first minimal edge in @xmath37 after @xmath202 . note that @xmath232 . since the edge connecting @xmath223 and @xmath201 is the first non - maximal edge in @xmath167 , @xmath233 passes through vertex @xmath234 . in particular , @xmath233 contains the minimal path from the root vertex into @xmath234 . in order not to contradict the minimality of @xmath178 , @xmath235 must also pass through vertex @xmath234 . since @xmath37 did not pass through @xmath201 , @xmath235 must contain the edge connecting @xmath234 and @xmath236 and this edge must be minimal according to the edge ordering . see figure [ stepb ] . on the other hand , if @xmath37 is in @xmath34 , then by assumption @xmath37 has a complete orbit determined by a complete code with a consistent factorization scheme ( see proposition [ prop : consistentscheme ] ) . in this case , @xmath235 is in @xmath39 . in either case , @xmath235 actually consists of all minimal edges up to level @xmath237@xmath238 and therefore either passes through @xmath239 or @xmath240 along a minimal edge . it is this fact that we will use to arrive at a contradiction . ( 0,0 )  + ( 6,6 ) ; ( 1,1 )  + ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 4,4) + ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 6,4 )  + ( -1,-1 ) ; ( 6,4) + ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 4,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,3 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 7,3 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; at ( 4,4 ) @xmath223 ; at ( 5,3 ) @xmath201 ; at ( 6,4 ) @xmath234 ; at ( 7,3 ) @xmath236 ; at ( 4.5,3.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 1.5,.5)@xmath37 ; at ( 5.5,3.5)@xmath233 ; at ( 6.5,3.5)@xmath235 ;    we now consider @xmath189 where @xmath241 , in other words , the path in the forward orbit of @xmath235 which first contains the maximal edge from @xmath242 to @xmath236 . it contains the unique minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath242 . by an argument similar to the above , we now know that @xmath190 must also contain the unique minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath242 ( since otherwise the orbits of @xmath37 and @xmath167 would split earlier than level @xmath178 ) , but then continue along the edge with range @xmath243 , which is necessarily minimal . see figure [ stepc ] . ( 3,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1 ) +(-1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; at ( 1,1 ) @xmath223 ; at ( 3,1 ) @xmath234 ; at ( 5,1 ) @xmath242 ; at ( 4,0 ) @xmath236 ; at ( 6,0 ) @xmath243 ; at ( 3.5,.5)@xmath235 ; at ( 4.5,.5)@xmath189 ; at ( 5.5 , .5)@xmath190 ; ( 1,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 3,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ;    the issue comes at the next stage when we consider @xmath244 and @xmath245 , where @xmath246 . we see that @xmath245 passes through vertex @xmath247 . however , since the edge contained in @xmath189 leaving vertex @xmath236 is minimal , we see from the ordering on the edges that has been established thus far that @xmath244 must pass either through vertex @xmath223 or vertex @xmath242 at level @xmath199 . see figure [ stepd ] . therefore we again contradict the minimality of @xmath178 . ( 3,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1 ) +(-1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 7,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 3,-1)+(-1,1 ) ; ( 3,-1)+(1,1 ) ; at ( 1,1 ) @xmath223 ; at ( 3,1 ) @xmath234 ; at ( 5,1 ) @xmath242 ; at ( 3,-1 ) @xmath240 ; at ( 6,0 ) @xmath243 ; at ( 4.5,.5)@xmath189 ; at ( 6.5 , .5)@xmath245 ; at ( 1.5,.5)@xmath244 ; ( 1,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 3,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 7,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ;    ( 3,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1 ) +(-1,-1 ) ; ( 5,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 7,1)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( 5,-1)+(1,1 ) ; ( 5,-1)+(-1,1 ) ; at ( 1,1 ) @xmath223 ; at ( 3,1 ) @xmath234 ; at ( 5,1 ) @xmath242 ; at ( 5,-1 ) @xmath239 ; at ( 6,0 ) @xmath243 ; at ( 4.5,.5)@xmath189 ; at ( 6.5 , .5)@xmath245 ; at ( 5.5,.5)@xmath244 ; ( 1,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 3,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 6,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 7,1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 5,-1 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ;    [ rem : max ] replacing @xmath127 by @xmath248 in the above argument shows that two paths that are maximal until different vertices at the same level also do not have the same coding by initial segments of length 3 . [ thm : coding ] fix an ordering @xmath47 of the pascal diagram , with path space @xmath25 . suppose @xmath37 , @xmath167 are distinct paths in @xmath25 that are determined by sequences @xmath249 with @xmath47-consistent factoring schemes and have full @xmath150-orbits under @xmath33 ( extended if necessary ) as in proposition [ prop : consistentscheme ] . then the 3-codings of @xmath37 and @xmath167 are not the same . in other words , for such paths the 3-coding is faithful . suppose , to the contrary , that there are two such distinct paths @xmath37 and @xmath167 whose codings by initial segments of length 3 are the same . there exists an @xmath250 such that @xmath251 and @xmath252 share the same minimal path until vertex @xmath174 , for some @xmath253 with @xmath254 , and then follow different edges out of that vertex . replacing @xmath37 and @xmath167 by @xmath251 and @xmath252 , we may assume that @xmath37 and @xmath167 have this property . if @xmath80 is on the left or right side of the diagram , then @xmath37 and @xmath167 are minimal ( or maximal ) to different vertices , and so , by lemma [ block containment ] ( or remark [ rem : max ] respectively ) , this can not happen . thus @xmath255 ; in other words , @xmath80 is an `` internal '' vertex . if the first edges after @xmath80 in @xmath37 and @xmath167 are both maximal , then either @xmath256 contains a maximal path from @xmath20 to @xmath191 and @xmath257 contains a maximal path to @xmath192 , or vice versa . it then follows from remark [ rem : max ] that the 3-codes for @xmath256 and @xmath257 ( and hence for @xmath37 and @xmath167 ) can not be the same . if the first edges after @xmath80 in @xmath37 and @xmath167 are both minimal , then by lemma [ block containment ] @xmath37 and @xmath167 have different 3-codings . so , without loss of generality , we may assume that the first edge in @xmath37 after @xmath80 is maximal and the first in @xmath167 is minimal . assume further that the coordinate axes are chosen so that @xmath37 goes from @xmath80 to @xmath258 and @xmath167 goes from @xmath80 to @xmath259 . now @xmath260 begins with a minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath192 . so @xmath261 has the same property , where it is possible that @xmath261 is determined by @xmath262 according to proposition [ prop : consistentscheme ] . ( if these paths were at different vertices at level @xmath178 , the lemma would tell us that they had distinct 3-codings . ) so these paths pass through the vertex @xmath192 . note that if @xmath37 is not in the orbit of a maximal path , then there is a finite string of maximal edges in @xmath37 descending from @xmath80 and followed by a single minimal edge from a vertex @xmath263 to a vertex @xmath264 . see figure [ pascal_1 ] . ( 0,1 ) to ( 0,0 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) to ( 2,0 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-2,-2)++(1,-1)++(-1,-1)++(2,-2 ) ; ( 0,-6)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-7 ) to ( 2,-6 ) ; ( 2,-6 ) ++(1,1)++(-1,1)++(2,2)++(-2,2 ) ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( -1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 0,-6 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 1,-7 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,-6 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; at ( 0,0)@xmath195 ; at ( -.5,-.5)@xmath37 ; at ( .5,-.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 4,-3)@xmath261 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath258 ; at ( 1,-1)@xmath259 ; at ( 2,0)@xmath192 ; at ( 1,-7)@xmath265 ; at ( 0,-6)@xmath266 ;    we claim that the next edge in @xmath167 after @xmath259 is minimal . if this were not the case , then @xmath257 would contain a maximal path from @xmath20 to either @xmath267 or @xmath195 , whereas @xmath256 would contain a maximal path to @xmath191 . see figure [ pascal_2 ] . again , this would mean that the 3-codings for @xmath37 and @xmath167 are different . ( 0,1 ) to ( 0,0 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) to ( 2,0 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-1,-1 ) ; ( -2,0 ) to ( 0,-2 ) ; ( 0,-2 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; at ( .5,-1.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 0,0)@xmath195 ; ( -2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( -1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 0,-2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( -2,0)@xmath191 ; at ( -.5,-.5)@xmath37 ; at ( .5,-.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 2.5,-.5)@xmath261 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath258 ; at ( 1,-1)@xmath259 ; at ( 2,0)@xmath192 ; ( 2,0 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ;    .2 in    ( 0,1 ) to ( 0,0 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) to ( 2,0 ) ; ( -2,0 ) to ( -1,-1 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1)to ( 2,-2 ) ; ( 2,-2 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ; ( 3,-1 ) to ( 4,0 ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( 4,0)@xmath267 ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( -1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 2,-2 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( -2,0 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; at ( 0,0)@xmath195 ; at ( 3,-1)@xmath268 ; at ( -.5,-.5)@xmath37 ; at ( .5,-.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 1.5,-1.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 2.5,-.5)@xmath261 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath258 ; at ( .5,-1)@xmath259 ; at ( 2,0)@xmath192 ; ( 2,0 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ;    ( 0,1 ) to ( 0,0 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) to ( 2,0 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-1,-1 ) ; ( -2,0 ) to ( -1,-1 ) ; ( -1,-1 ) to ( 0,-2 ) ; ( 0,-2 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 3,-1 ) to ( 4,0 ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; at ( 4,0)@xmath267 ; at ( 3.5,-.5)@xmath269 ; at ( .5,-1.5)@xmath167 ; at ( -1.5,-.5)@xmath270 ; ( -2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( -1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 0,-2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( 0,0)@xmath195 ; at ( -2,0)@xmath191 ; at ( -.5,-.5)@xmath37 ; at ( .5,-.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 2.5,-.5)@xmath261 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath258 ; at ( 1,-1)@xmath259 ; at ( 2,0)@xmath192 ; ( 2,0 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ;    .2 in    ( 0,1 ) to ( 0,0 ) to ( 1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) to ( 2,0 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1)to ( 2,-2 ) ; ( 2,-2 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ; ( 3,-1 ) to ( 4,0 ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( 4,0)@xmath267 ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( -1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,-1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,-1 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; ( 2,-2 ) circle ( 2pt ) ; at ( 0,0)@xmath195 ; at ( 3,-1)@xmath268 ; at ( -.5,-.5)@xmath37 ; at ( .5,-.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 1.5,-1.5)@xmath167 ; at ( 2.5,-.5)@xmath261 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath258 ; at ( .5,-1)@xmath259 ; at ( 2,0)@xmath192 ; ( 2,0 ) to ( 3,-1 ) ; at ( 3.5 , -.5)@xmath179 ;    so the next edge in @xmath167 after @xmath259 is minimal . letting @xmath271 it follows that @xmath269 contains a minimal path from @xmath20 to @xmath267 , whereas @xmath270 contains a minimal path to either @xmath191 or @xmath192 . see figure [ pascal_3 ] . this is ruled out by applying the lemma to @xmath269 and @xmath270 . [ cor : recognizability ] for each ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph @xmath5 and each path @xmath159 , the 3-coding @xmath272 has a unique @xmath47-consistent factoring scheme . fix a particular ordering @xmath47 on the pascal graph @xmath5 . that for each @xmath273 , @xmath274 has such a natural factoring scheme is clear from the definitions of @xmath274 and the basic blocks @xmath275 , as mentioned previously . by proposition [ prop : consistentscheme ] there is a unique path that has the same 3-coding and natural factoring scheme . another factoring of the 3-coding of @xmath37 would determine a different path which would have the same 3-coding as @xmath37 , contradicting the theorem . [ rem : recognizability ] the preceding corollary helps to clarify the relationship among paths , factorizations of codings , and factorizations of basic blocks . suppose we have an ordering @xmath47 on _ any _ bratteli diagram and know that there is a subset @xmath48 of the path space @xmath25 such that for each path @xmath159 and each @xmath132 the @xmath0-coding @xmath68 admits a unique factorization into basic blocks of level @xmath15 . ( perhaps @xmath48 has measure 0 for each fully supported ergodic invariant measure . ) suppose further that the basic blocks at each level are distinct . then it follows that distinct paths in @xmath276 have distinct @xmath0-codings , since , as in the argument above , the factorization would determine the path . further , each basic block @xmath277 would have a unique factorization into basic blocks of level @xmath15 for each @xmath15 with @xmath278 , although basic blocks of level @xmath73 might not have unique factorizations . ( the central symbol specifies the path up to the root and hence a preferred factorization of the basic blocks of levels @xmath73 . ) thus under such hypotheses we would have unique factorization of basic blocks of levels greater than or equal to @xmath0 , as shown for the case of the pascal diagram , @xmath279-codings , and special orderings in lemma [ lem : decomp ] . recall that for a fixed ordering @xmath47 , @xmath71 denotes the subshift on @xmath55 symbols generated by coding paths according to their first @xmath0 edges . this is a legitimate topological dynamical system  a compact metric space together with a homeomorphism . ( we use the metric @xmath280 ) . by theorem [ thm : coding ] the coding is essentially faithful if @xmath281 . denote by @xmath282 the set of bounded complex - valued functions on @xmath121 whose set of continuity points is residual . in order to prove that @xmath71 is topologically weakly mixing , we follow the plan in @xcite to check the condition of keynes and robertson @xcite : a topological dynamical system which is  closed ergodic " ( there is an invariant borel probability measure on the space for which every closed invariant set has measure 0 or 1 ) is topologically weakly mixing if and only if every @xmath283 for which there is @xmath284 such that @xmath285 everywhere must be constant on a dense set . for this purpose we have to go beyond the polynomial equidistribution theorem of weyl and quote instead a theorem of f. hahn @xcite . in our situation @xmath71 is closed ergodic , since there are fully supported ergodic measures on @xmath121 ( the measures @xmath286 , mentioned above ) . our system is topologically ergodic ( there exist dense orbits ) . we aim to prove that if @xmath283 and @xmath284 satisfy @xmath285 everywhere , then @xmath287 . then it will follow from another theorem of keynes and robertson @xcite ( since then @xmath288 everywhere ) that @xmath289 is constant on a dense set , and consequently the system is topologically weakly mixing . we also use the fact ( * ? ? ? * lemma 4.18 ) that if @xmath283 and @xmath284 satisfy @xmath285 everywhere , then every point which has both its forward and backward orbit dense is a point of continuity of @xmath289 . another essential ingredient is the following extension of the  kink lemma " of @xcite taking into account the unknown ordering of edges . [ lem : kink ] let @xmath25 denote , as above , the set of infinite directed paths on the pascal graph , and fix an ordering @xmath47 . let @xmath290 , with @xmath291 denoting the edge of @xmath37 from level @xmath292 to level @xmath1 , be a path to a vertex @xmath293 , with @xmath294 and @xmath295 , which continues to the vertex @xmath296 in such a way that the edge @xmath297 of @xmath37 that enters @xmath296 is minimal . let @xmath298 and denote by @xmath299 the edge with source @xmath293 that is not equal to @xmath300 . we have to consider eight cases , labeled by triples @xmath301 , depending on whether @xmath300 is maximal ( @xmath302max ) or minimal ( @xmath302min ) , @xmath299 is maximal ( @xmath303max ) or minimal ( @xmath303min ) , and @xmath300 has range @xmath304 ( @xmath305lr ) or @xmath306 ( @xmath305rl ) . let @xmath307 then @xmath308 and @xmath37 agree on their first @xmath15 edges . consequently , if @xmath98 is a path that begins with the minimal path to @xmath293 , @xmath309 is a path that begins with the maximal path to @xmath293 , @xmath310 , and @xmath311 , then @xmath312 . let @xmath309 denote the path which is maximal to the vertex @xmath293 and agrees with @xmath37 after level @xmath313 , so that @xmath314 for some @xmath315 . suppose first that the edge @xmath300 is maximal and @xmath299 is minimal . then in both cases ( max , min , lr ) and ( max , min , rl ) ( whether @xmath300 has range @xmath304 or @xmath306 ) @xmath316 begins with the minimal path to @xmath293 . then choosing @xmath317 so that @xmath318 yields that @xmath319 agrees with @xmath37 on their first @xmath15 edges . then @xmath320 has the stated property . see figure [ fig : lem4.1 ] . ( 0,0)++(-2,3)++(1,1)++(-1,2)++(1,1)++(-1,1 ) ; ( 0,0)++(2,2)++(-1,1)++(1,2)++(-1,2)++(1,1 ) ; ( 0,0)+(-2,-2 ) ; ( -2,-2)++(2,-2 ) ; ( 0,0)+(2,-2 ) ; ( 2,-2)+(-2,-2 ) ; ( 0,0 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( -2,-2 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 2,-2 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,-4 ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; at ( 0,0)@xmath293 ; at ( -2,-2)@xmath304 ; at ( 2,-2)@xmath306 ; at ( 0,-4)@xmath296 ; at ( -2.5,4 ) @xmath37 ; at ( 3,4 ) @xmath321 ; at ( -1,-1)@xmath300 ; at ( 1,-1)@xmath299 ;    the other cases are similar but differ in the details , and the particular values of @xmath322 that we find are important for the following theorem , so we go through them all . suppose now that the edge @xmath299 is maximal and @xmath300 is maximal and has range @xmath304 ( case ( max , max , lr ) ) . in this case @xmath316 begins with the minimal path to the vertex @xmath323 followed by the minimal edge to @xmath306 and the maximal edge to @xmath296 . then @xmath324 begins with the maximal path to @xmath323 , and @xmath325 begins with the minimal path to @xmath293 followed by the maximal edge to @xmath306 . choose @xmath317 so that @xmath318 . then @xmath326 agrees with @xmath37 on their first @xmath15 edges . we have @xmath327 , so @xmath328 acts as stated .    if the edge @xmath299 is maximal and @xmath300 is maximal and has range @xmath306 ( case ( max , max , rl ) ) , the argument is the same as the immediately preceding one , except that @xmath209 is replaced by @xmath329 . namely , @xmath316 begins with the minimal path to @xmath330 , @xmath331 begins with the maximal path to @xmath330 , @xmath325 begins with the minimal path to @xmath293 followed by the maximal edge to @xmath304 . again choose @xmath317 so that @xmath318 . then @xmath326 and @xmath37 agree on their first @xmath15 edges , so we obtain @xmath332 . consider now the case ( min , max , lr ) . then @xmath316 begins with the minimal path to @xmath330 , @xmath331 begins with the maximal path to @xmath330 , and @xmath333 begins with the minimal path to @xmath323 followed by a minimal and then a maximal edge . then @xmath334 begins with the minimal path to @xmath293 extended by two maximal edges . thus choosing @xmath317 so that @xmath318 yields that @xmath335 agrees with @xmath37 on the first @xmath15 edges ..    next , consider the case ( min , max , rl ) . then @xmath316 is minimal to @xmath323 , @xmath336 is maximal to @xmath323 , and @xmath337 is minimal to @xmath304 extended by a maximal edge . then @xmath338 is maximal to @xmath330 , so that @xmath339 is minimal to @xmath293 . thus if we choose @xmath114 so that @xmath318 , we will have @xmath340 and @xmath37 agreeing on their first @xmath15 edges . now consider the case ( min , min , lr ) . then @xmath316 starts with the minimal path to @xmath330 , @xmath331 starts with the maximal path to @xmath330 , @xmath325 is minimal to @xmath293 followed by a minimal and then a maximal path ; and if we choose @xmath114 so that @xmath318 , then @xmath341 and @xmath37 agree on the first @xmath15 edges . the final case is ( min , min , rl ) . then @xmath316 is minimal to @xmath323 and extends from there by a maximal edge followed by a minimal edge . then @xmath336 is maximal to @xmath323 , from where it extends with a maximal and then a minimal edge . thus @xmath325 is minimal to @xmath293 and extends by the minimal edge @xmath299 followed by a maximal edge ; and , if we choose @xmath114 so that @xmath318 , then @xmath342 and @xmath37 agree on their first @xmath15 edges .    the final statement in the lemma follows from the fact that @xmath343 and @xmath344 agree on their first @xmath126 edges for @xmath345 . [ thm : weakmixing ] for each ordering and each @xmath50 , the subshift @xmath71 is topologically weakly mixing . fix an ordering @xmath47 . we deal only with paths in @xmath25 whose orbit does not contain any paths that are eventually diagonal or eventually consist of only maximal or only minimal edges . by proposition [ prop : maxpaths ] the set of such paths has measure 1 for each ergodic @xmath127-invariant probability measure on @xmath25 . the coding @xmath68 of any such path @xmath37 has both its forward and backward orbit dense in @xmath121 and hence , as noted above , is a point of continuity of any eigenfunction @xmath283 . suppose that @xmath346 , and @xmath285 everywhere on @xmath121 ; we want to show that then @xmath347 . fix a point @xmath68 that is the coding of a path @xmath37 as described above and hence is a point of continuity of @xmath289 . for each @xmath15 let @xmath348 denote the vertex through which @xmath37 passes at level @xmath15 , i.e. the range of the edge @xmath349 . for each @xmath15 , the path @xmath37 can be modified if necessary below level @xmath15 to a path @xmath167 that satisfies the hypotheses of lemma [ lem : kink ] , is not eventually diagonal , and does not eventually consist of only maximal or minimal edges . this determines @xmath350 so that @xmath351 , and @xmath37 agree on their first @xmath15 edges , and @xmath352 . since @xmath353 and @xmath354 are unbounded this implies that @xmath355 as @xmath356 . since @xmath357 for all @xmath15 , we have @xmath358 as @xmath359 . in particular @xmath360 . suppose that @xmath361 is a root of unity , so that @xmath362 for two relatively prime integers @xmath94 and @xmath97 . let @xmath363 be a prime that divides @xmath97 . in the pascal triangle we can find infinitely many @xmath15 for which there is a @xmath209 such that none of @xmath364 , @xmath365 , @xmath366 is divisible by @xmath363 . for example , by lemma 5.1 of @xcite @xmath367 for @xmath368 . therefore , for each @xmath115 the entire row @xmath369 , is not divisible by @xmath363 , and in the preceding row there are many entries @xmath370 , that are not divisible by @xmath363 as well as many that are , so choosing @xmath371 and @xmath209 so that @xmath372 is not divisible by @xmath363 but @xmath373 is divisible by @xmath363 will do . ( if @xmath372 is not divisible by @xmath363 , then neither is @xmath374 , while if @xmath373 is divisible by @xmath363 , then so is @xmath375 . ) we can arrange that our path @xmath37 hits such vertices for infinitely many @xmath15 , and then @xmath376 for all of these values of @xmath15 , contradicting that @xmath358 . thus there are no roots of unity besides @xmath279 among the eigenvalues of @xmath69 . suppose now that @xmath361 is not a root of unity , say @xmath377 for an irrational @xmath378 . according to the theorem of f. hahn ( * ? ? ? * theorem 5 ) the transformation @xmath379 ( mod @xmath279 ) on the infinite torus is minimal , in fact strictly ergodic , with haar measure the unique invariant probability measure . then the orbit of @xmath380 is dense , and @xmath381 . we use this result to construct a continuity point @xmath68 of @xmath289 that is the coding of a path @xmath37 such that , denoting by @xmath348 the vertex through which @xmath37 passes at level @xmath15 , there are infinitely many @xmath15 for which all of @xmath382 , and @xmath383\beta \mod 1 $ ] are a fixed distance from @xmath89 and @xmath279 , again making it impossible that @xmath358 . given an initial segment of @xmath37 ending at a vertex @xmath384 , extend @xmath37 several steps so as to use both some maximal and some minimal edges as well as some edges that increase the first ( @xmath138 ) coordinate and the second ( @xmath209 ) coordinate , arriving at a vertex @xmath385 . then add edges that increase the @xmath138 coordinate until we arrive at a vertex @xmath293 for which @xmath386 ( say @xmath387 , etc . , with @xmath388 denoting @xmath389 ) . then @xmath390 and @xmath391 are in the interval @xmath392 , while @xmath393\beta \mod 1 $ ] is in the interval @xmath394 . continue , making it impossible that @xmath358 . according to the theorem of downarowicz and maass @xcite mentioned above , every minimal adic system with finite topological rank is either expansive or topologically conjugate to an odometer . for systems with a bounded number of vertices per level some sufficient conditions for topological conjugacy to an odometer are known ( see the remarks in the introduction ) . in this section we give a necessary and sufficient condition for a fairly general adic system to be topologically conjugate to an odometer . the condition is then used to determine when , with probability 1 , an adic system with a random ordering , or an adic system constructed according to a random process , is topologically conjugate to an odometer .    in this section we deal with an arbitrary bratteli diagram @xmath395 . as usual the vertices are arranged into levels , so that @xmath396 , @xmath397 , and there are directed edges from each level to the next : there are a range map @xmath1 and a source map @xmath115 from @xmath7 to @xmath398 such that @xmath399 for all @xmath93 , @xmath400 for all @xmath93 , @xmath401 for all @xmath402 , and @xmath403 for all @xmath404 . we assume that @xmath405 consists of a single vertex , @xmath406 , and @xmath407 for all @xmath15 .    the _ path space _ @xmath25 is the space of infinite paths @xmath408 such that @xmath409 and @xmath410 for all @xmath138 . to avoid degenerate cases , we assume that @xmath25 with the usual metric ( in which two infinite paths are close if they agree on long initial segments ) is homeomorphic to the cantor set . an _ ordering _ @xmath47 of the diagram is an assignment of a linear order to the set @xmath411 of edges entering each vertex @xmath84 . @xmath412 consists of the set of paths all of whose edges are maximal in the ordering @xmath47 , and @xmath413 of all the paths all of whose edges are minimal . as with the pascal diagram , the ordering @xmath47 determines the adic transformation @xmath414 , which is a homeomorphism . see @xcite , @xcite , or @xcite for the definitions of _ telescoping _ and _ isomorphism _ for diagrams and ordered diagrams . _ equivalence _ of diagrams or ordered diagrams is the equivalence relation generated by isomorphism and telescoping . two diagrams @xmath415 and @xmath416 are diagram equivalent if and only if there is a diagram @xmath417 such that telescoping @xmath417 to odd levels yields a telescoping of one of @xmath418 and telescoping @xmath417 to even levels yields a telescoping of the other one ; similarly for ordered diagrams . if two ordered diagrams are equivalent , then the topological dynamical systems that they define by means of their adic transformations are topologically conjugate . recall that a bratteli diagram is called _ simple _ if there is a telescoping for which every pair of vertices @xmath419 and @xmath420 there is an edge between @xmath154 and @xmath421 . that the converse holds also , for simple adic systems that are properly ordered ( with unique maximal and minimal paths ) , follows from theorem 4.4 of @xcite . ( for suppose that simple and properly ordered diagrams @xmath422 and @xmath423 determine adic systems @xmath424 and @xmath425 , respectively , that are topologically conjugate under an adic - commuting homeomorphism @xmath426 . each @xmath427 has a natural sequence of kakutani - rokhlin partitions @xmath428 corresponding to its diagram structure . then @xmath429 is a sequence of kakutani - rokhlin partitions for @xmath424 that is admissible as in theorem 4.2 of @xcite . this sequence determines @xmath423 according to the process in @xcite , so by theorem 4.4 of @xcite @xmath422 and @xmath423 are diagram equivalent . ) ( note that in the proof of theorem 4.4 of @xcite the tops @xmath430 and @xmath431 of the tower diagrams have the property that given @xmath15 we can find @xmath114 such that @xmath432 is contained in @xmath430 , and vice versa . ) an _ odometer _ is any topological dynamical system that is topologically conjugate to the system defined by the adic transformation on the path space of an ordered diagram which has exactly one vertex at every level . ( 0,1 ) (1.4,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 1.6,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 2,1 ) (2.4,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 2,1 )  ( 2.6,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 2,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 4,1 ) (3.6,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 4,1 )  ( 3.4,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 4,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 0,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 2,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 4,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 1,0 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 3,0 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; at ( .8,.2)2 ; at ( 1.2,.2)1 ; at ( 1.5,.15)3 ; at ( 2.2,.2)2 ; at ( 2.5,.2)5 ; at ( 2.65,.25)1 ; at ( 2.85,.225)4 ; at ( 3.15,.25)3 ; at ( 3.4,.25)6 ; at ( 0,1)@xmath266 ; at ( 2,1)@xmath265 ; at ( 4,1)@xmath433 ; at ( 1,0)@xmath434 ; at ( 3,0)@xmath435 ;    for each @xmath15 and each @xmath436 , there is an associated coding in terms of vertices in @xmath18 . ( this is the `` morphism read on @xmath19 '' in @xcite . ) more precisely , if @xmath437 , where the subscripts correspond directly to the ordering given by @xmath47 , then the coding of @xmath438 by vertices in @xmath18 is given by @xmath439 . we call @xmath440 and the level @xmath15 _ uniformly ordered _ if there is a string @xmath441 , with each @xmath442 in @xmath443 , such that for every @xmath438 in @xmath444 , @xmath445 for some @xmath446 . see figure [ uniformlyordered ] . note that if any level has only one vertex , then it is automatically uniformly ordered .    for a bratteli - vershik system @xmath395 , define an _ ordered shape at level @xmath15 _ to consist of @xmath18 , @xmath444 , @xmath440 , and a partial order on @xmath440 which is a total order on each @xmath447 . we say that a shape is _ uniformly ordered _ if @xmath440 is uniformly ordered . [ tpuo ] if a diagram @xmath395 with an ordering @xmath47 has infinitely many levels for which @xmath17 is uniformly ordered , then ( 1 ) there is a telescoping @xmath448 of @xmath449 for which every level is uniformly ordered , and ( 2 ) @xmath395 is simple and properly ordered .    first note that if an ordered bratteli diagram is telescoped from level @xmath450 to level @xmath451 , the new coding of the vertices at level @xmath451 in terms of the vertices at level @xmath450 results from decomposing the original @xmath452 coding of vertices in @xmath453 by vertices in @xmath454 in an inductive manner into a level @xmath450 coding . then note that if @xmath455 and @xmath17 is uniformly ordered , then the new set of edges arising from telescoping from level @xmath450 to level @xmath451 will be uniformly ordered . indeed , since all vertices @xmath436 have codings @xmath445 in terms of the vertices at level @xmath119 , decomposing the level @xmath452 codings of vertices in @xmath453 into level @xmath119 codings will lead to repeated concatenations of @xmath80 . furthermore , the ordering @xmath47 will lead to a unique decomposition of @xmath80 in terms of vertices at level @xmath450 , and therefore the new set of edges will be uniformly ordered . see figure [ everyleveluo ] .    in order for a level to be uniformly ordered , every vertex in @xmath456 must connect to every vertex in @xmath457 . hence any diagram with infinitely many uniformly ordered levels is simple . for every @xmath15 there is a unique vertex @xmath458 in @xmath459 such that every edge in @xmath460 which is maximal has @xmath458 as its source . therefore any path in @xmath461 must go through these vertices , and there is a unique path which travels along maximal edges at every level . ( 0,1 ) (1.4,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 1.6,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 2,1 ) (2.4,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 2,1 )  ( 2.6,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 2,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 4,1 ) (3.6,.4 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 4,1 )  ( 3.4,.6 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 4,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 1,2 )  ( 0,1 ) ; ( 1,2 )  ( 2,1 ) ; ( 3,2 )  ( 2,1 ) ; ( 3,2 )  ( 4,1 ) ; ( 1,2 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 3,2 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 0,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 2,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 4,1 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 1,0 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; ( 3,0 ) circle ( 1 pt ) ; at ( .8,.2)2 ; at ( 1.2,.2)1 ; at ( 1.5,.15)3 ; at ( 2.2,.2)2 ; at ( 2.5,.2)5 ; at ( 2.65,.25)1 ; at ( 2.85,.225)4 ; at ( 3.15,.25)3 ; at ( 3.4,.25)6 ; at ( 1,2)@xmath94 ; at ( 3,2)@xmath97 ; at ( 0,1)@xmath94 ; at ( 2,1)@xmath462 ; at ( 4,1)@xmath97 ; at ( 1,0)@xmath463 ; at ( 3,0)@xmath464 ;    it is possible for two non - uniformly ordered levels to telescope to one that is uniformly ordered . indeed , suppose that @xmath465 and the level @xmath119 coding of vertices at level @xmath15 is such that @xmath466 for @xmath467 in @xmath444 . then suppose that the level @xmath15 coding of vertices in @xmath468 is such that the only difference in the codings of different vertices is that @xmath469 and @xmath470 are interchanged in two codings . then neither @xmath17 nor @xmath471 is uniformly ordered . however , once one telescopes between levels @xmath119 and @xmath131 , the new set of edges will be uniformly ordered . see figure [ nuo ]    . ( 0,1 ) ; ( 2,2 )  ( 0,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 4,2 )  ( 2,1) ( 1,0 ) ; ( 4,2 )  ( 4,1 ) ; ( 2,2 )  ( 2,1 ) ; ( 2,2 )  ( 3,0 ) ; ( 0,1 )  ( 1,0 ) ; ( 0,2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 4,2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 0,1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 2,1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 4,1 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 1,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; ( 3,0 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( 0,2)@xmath266 ; at ( 2,2)@xmath265 ; at ( 4,2)@xmath433 ; at ( 0,1)@xmath472 ; at ( 2,1)@xmath473 ; at ( 4,1)@xmath474 ; at ( 1,0)@xmath475 ; at ( 3,0)@xmath476 ;    [ uoimpliesodometer ] if an ordered bratteli diagram @xmath477 has a telescoping for which there are infinitely many uniformly ordered levels then the associated adic system is topologically conjugate to an odometer . conversely , any simple properly ordered bratteli diagram @xmath478 that is topologically conjugate to an odometer has a telescoping for which there are infinitely many uniformly ordered levels . suppose that we have a diagram @xmath479 for which there is a telescoping with infinitely many uniformly ordered levels . by lemma [ tpuo ] we may assume that the diagram is uniformly ordered at every level @xmath139 ; also note that the diagram is simple and properly ordered . one can see then that all the @xmath0-codings ( coding @xmath33-orbits according to the initial path segments of length @xmath0 ) are periodic , so that the system is not expansive and hence , by @xcite , is topologically conjugate to an odometer  in case the system has finite topological rank . we give here an explicit proof in the general case by constructing an intermediate ordered bratteli diagram , @xmath480 , with the property that telescoping to odd levels yields the given diagram , @xmath417 , and telescoping to even levels yields a system with a single vertex at every level . thus @xmath417 is equivalent to the diagram of an odometer , and hence its associated topological dynamical system is topologically conjugate to an odometer .    to construct @xmath480 , for each @xmath16 let @xmath481 and @xmath482 . let @xmath483 . for every @xmath16 , denote the single vertex in @xmath484 by @xmath485 and set up a one - to - one correspondence between @xmath486 and @xmath19 . fix @xmath16 . since @xmath417 is uniformly ordered at level @xmath131 , there is a string @xmath487 with entries from @xmath444 such that for each @xmath438 in @xmath468 the coding of @xmath438 by vertices in @xmath444 is @xmath445 . to define @xmath488 let @xmath489 , label the edges @xmath490 in @xmath491 so that for each @xmath138 @xmath492 is the vertex @xmath493 in @xmath486 which corresponds to @xmath494 , and order these edges according to their labels . to define @xmath495 , note that each @xmath496 corresponds to a @xmath497 ; we let the number of edges from @xmath485 to @xmath493 be @xmath498 for the @xmath438 corresponding to @xmath493 and order these edges arbitrarily . then telescoping @xmath480 to odd levels yields @xmath417 , and telescoping to even levels yields a system with just one vertex at every level , an odometer . see figure [ i d ] . conversely , suppose that @xmath479 is a simple properly ordered diagram whose associated adic system is topologically conjugate to an odometer . as mentioned above , then the diagram is equivalent to an odometer : there is an intermediate diagram @xmath499 , which when telescoped to odd levels yields a telescoping @xmath500 of @xmath417 and when telescoped to even levels yields a system with just one vertex at each level , or vice versa . for each @xmath15 , @xmath501 and hence level @xmath502 of @xmath480 is automatically uniformly ordered . then as in the proof of lemma [ tpuo ] , the telescoping of @xmath480 from level @xmath503 to level @xmath504 will yield a set of edges whose ranges form a uniformly ordered level . therefore in @xmath500 every level @xmath17 must be uniformly ordered . ( 0,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 0,2 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 0,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 0,6 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 2,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 2,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 2,7 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 4,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 4,2 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 4,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 10,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 10,2 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 10,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 10,6 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,1 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,3 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,5 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 12,7 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 14,0 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 14,2 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 14,4 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 14,6 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 20,1 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 20,3 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 20,5 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 20,7 ) circle ( 4 pt ) ; ( 2,7)(0,6)(0,4)(0,2)(0,0 ) ; ( 2,7)(4,6)(4,4)(4,2 ) ; ( 0,6)(4,4)(0,2)(2,0 ) ; ( 4,6)(0,4)(4,2)(0,0 ) ; ( 0,6 )  ( .5,5 )  ( 2,4 ) ; ( 0,6 )  ( 1.5,5 )  ( 2,4 ) ; ( 4,6 )  ( 2.5,5 )  ( 2,4 ) ; ( 4,6 )  ( 3.5,5 )  ( 2,4 ) ; ( 2,4)(0,2 ) ; ( 2,4)(4,2)(2,0 ) ; ( 0,2 )  ( 2.5,1 )  ( 4,0 ) ; ( 0,2 )  ( 1.5,1 )  ( 4,0 ) ; ( 4,2 )  ( 4.25,1 )  ( 4,0 ) ; ( 4,2 )  ( 3.75,1 )  ( 4,0 ) ; ( 12,7)(10,6)(12,5)(10,4)(12,3)(10,2)(12,1)(10,0 ) ; ( 12,7)(14,6)(12,5)(14,4)(12,3)(14,2)(12,1)(12,0 ) ; ( 12,5)(11.75,4.5)(12,4 ) ; ( 12,5)(12.25,4.5)(12,4)(12,3 ) ; ( 12,1)(12.75,.25)(14,0 ) ; ( 12,1)(13.25,.75)(14,0 ) ; ( 20,7)(19.75,6)(20,5)(19.5,4)(20,3)(19.75,2)(20,1 ) ; ( 20,7)(20.25,6)(20,5)(20.5,4)(20,3)(20.25,2)(20,1 ) ; ( 20,5)(20.2,4)(20,3 ) ; ( 20,5)(19.8,4)(20,3 ) ; at(2,7)@xmath417 ; at ( 12,7)@xmath480 ; at(20,7)odometer ;    we are seeking conditions that will allow one to determine when bv systems are expansive or not , conjugate to odometers or not , and of finite topological rank or not . as mentioned above , downarowicz and maass @xcite ( see also @xcite ) showed that every properly ordered minimal bv system of finite topological rank is either expansive or else conjugate to an odometer . gjerde and johansen @xcite give an example of a simple properly ordered bv system that is not expansive , yet not conjugate to an odometer , thus necessarily of infinite topological rank . we note in the following proposition that the key properties of this example are enjoyed by a wide class of systems , which we call `` standard nonexpansive '' , and which therefore are nonexpansive and , by essentially the same argument as in @xcite , not of finite topological rank , in particular not conjugate to odometers . recall that given @xmath505 , every path in an ordered bv system @xmath479 has a @xmath28-coding of its orbit according to the partition @xmath506 into cylinder sets to level @xmath28 . for each vertex @xmath507 , the edges with range @xmath80 are assigned labels indicating their positions in the ordering determined by @xmath47 . so any path @xmath37 has an infinite _ sequence of edge labels _ associated with it . specifically , the @xmath138th entry in the sequence is the label assigned to the @xmath138th edge of @xmath37 . we say that the bv system is _ standard nonexpansive _ if for every natural number @xmath28 there exist distinct paths @xmath508 and @xmath509 that are assigned the same sequence of edge labels , agree from the root to some level @xmath510 , and at any level the vertices met by the two paths have the same basic block in the @xmath28-coding . in this case , @xmath508 and @xmath509 have the same @xmath28-coding . standard nonexpansive implies expansive . [ sne ] every standard nonexpansive simple properly ordered bv system has infinite rank . by @xcite , for any bv system @xmath417 that is conjugate to the odometer there is a bv system @xmath480 that telescopes on odd levels to a telescoping of @xmath417 and on even levels to a telescoping of the odometer . there is then a telescoping of @xmath417 in which every vertex is uniformly ordered . this , however , can not occur when there are paths with the same sequence of edge labels . so if @xmath417 is standard nonexpansive , then it not conjugate to the odometer . it then follows , by @xcite , that @xmath417 does not have finite topological rank . we consider now what might happen if a diagram is ordered randomly , or if a diagram is somehow chosen at random . suppose that we are given a simple diagram @xmath449 as above . denote the set of orderings of the edges entering a vertex @xmath84 by @xmath511 . the set of all orderings of @xmath417 is @xmath512 . we consider probability measures @xmath513 on @xmath514 , for example the uniform and independent measure @xmath515 which is the product over all @xmath80 of the uniform measures on the discrete spaces @xmath511 . for each @xmath516 let @xmath517 denote the set of orderings of @xmath417 which are uniformly ordered at level @xmath15 , and let @xmath518 denote the set of orderings which have infinitely many uniformly ordered levels . by the preceding theorem , if @xmath519 then an ordering selected randomly according to @xmath513 will with probability 1 produce an adic system topologically conjugate to an odometer . [ ex : odometerprob ] suppose that @xmath417 is a diagram such that for every @xmath171 there is an @xmath322 such that the number of edges between every pair of vertices @xmath520 and @xmath521 is @xmath322 . ( then @xmath417 is simple . ) . then there are @xmath523 orderings of the edges into each vertex at level @xmath15 and thus @xmath524 ways to order the unordered shape at level @xmath15 . there are @xmath523 uniform orderings at level @xmath15 , since we must have the same ordering at each vertex on a fixed level . by the borel - cantelli lemma , if @xmath525 then @xmath526 , and so with probability 1 the system is topologically conjugate to an odometer . for example , if the @xmath322 and @xmath527 are bounded , and @xmath417 is as described , then selecting orderings uniformly and independently yields an odometer with probability 1 . this is consistent with corollary 5.3 of @xcite , according to which a diagram with bounded number of vertices and edges per level will have a `` perfect '' ordering ( an ordering which admits a vershik map as a homeomorphism ) with probability 1 . [ ex : odometer2 ] we can also consider assembling a random ordered diagram from a sequence of shapes , that fit together , generated by a stochastic process . generalizing the definition above , define an _ ordered shape _ @xmath528 to be a bipartite directed graph together with a partial order on its set of edges such that ( 1 ) the vertex set is the disjoint union of two finite sets @xmath529 and @xmath530 ; ( 2 ) for each @xmath531 and @xmath532 ; ( 3 ) for each @xmath533 is a total order on @xmath534 ; ( 4 ) for @xmath535 with @xmath536 , the edges in @xmath537 and @xmath538 are not comparable . let @xmath539 be the set of sequences of ordered shapes @xmath540 , such that @xmath541 for all @xmath15 , so that the shapes can  fit together " . if @xmath513 is a probability measure on @xmath539 that assigns full measure to the set of sequences which have infinitely many uniformly ordered shapes , then constructing an adic system at random with respect to @xmath513 produces an odometer with probability 1 . for example , if @xmath513 is an ergodic shift - invariant probability measure on @xmath539 such that @xmath542 , then by the poincar recurrence theorem @xmath543 will have infinitely many uniformly ordered shapes and hence will describe an odometer . for a subshift @xmath544 , denote by @xmath545 the _ language _ of @xmath546 , that is , the set of finite blocks seen in sequences in @xmath546 . define for each ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph @xmath5 the subshift @xmath547 to consist of all doubly infinite sequences , each of whose subblocks can be found in the 1-coding of some @xmath60 ( the set of infinite paths on the pascal graph ) for the ordering @xmath47 , and define the  big subshift " @xmath548 by @xmath549 . equivalently , we can define the big subshift @xmath550 to be the closure of the union over all orderings @xmath47 of @xmath551 : @xmath552 what is the asymptotic complexity of @xmath550 ? what are other dynamical properties of @xmath553 ? is this system topologically transitive ( i.e. , does it have a dense orbit ) ? are there periodic points ? recall the basic blocks @xmath554 defined above . basic blocks are determined by the orderings on the edges above them . see figure [ fig : determineblocks ] . ( 3,3)(4,2)(6,4)(5,5 ) ; ( 5,5 )  ( 0,0 ) ; ( 5,5 )  ( 10,0 ) ; ( 4,2 ) circle ( 2 pt ) ; at ( 4,2 ) @xmath8 ; ( 6,4) ( 4,2 ) ; ( 3,3) ( 4,2 ) ;    however , a block may be generated by different orderings . for example , there exist two distinct orderings , @xmath555 and @xmath556 such that @xmath557 . this can continue throughout the diagrams . see figure [ fig : differentblocks ] .    in 0, ... ,6 in 0 , ... , ( 2 * -,- ) coordinate ( v ) ; ( v ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) ++(6,-6 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-6,-6 ) ; ( 1,-1 ) ++(-1,-1);(0,-2 ) to ( -1,-3);(-1,-3 ) to ( -2,-4);(-2,-4 ) to ( -3,-5 ) ; ( -1,-1 )  + + ( 2,-2 ) ; ( 2,-2 ) ++(-3,-3);(-1,-5 ) to ( -2,-6 ) ; ( -2,-2)++(1,-1);(-1,-3)++(1,-1 ) ; ( -3,-3)++(2,-2 ) ; ( -4,-4)++(2,-2 ) ; at ( -2,-6)@xmath558 ; at ( -3,-2.5)@xmath555 ;    .25 in    in 0, ... ,6 in 0 , ... , ( 2 * -,- ) coordinate ( v ) ; ( v ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) ++(6,-6 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-6,-6 ) ; ( -1,-1)++(2,-2 ) ; ( -2,-2)++(1,-1);(-1,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -3,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -2,-4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -4,-4)+(2,-2 ) ; ( 1,-1)+(-2,-2);(-1,-3)+(-2,-2 ) ; ( 2,-2)+(-1,-1);(1,-3)+(-1,-1);(0,-4)+(-1,-1);(-1,-5)+(-1,-1 ) ; at(-2,-6)@xmath558 ; at ( 3,-2.5)@xmath556 ;    assuming a fixed ordering @xmath47 , the basic blocks @xmath559 , for @xmath560 , will be used frequently in the following and we will give them the special name @xmath561 . in a similar fashion , for @xmath562 define the block @xmath563 .    in the following we will consider the set of diagrams for which @xmath564 in other words , the ordering on the edges coming into vertices @xmath205 and @xmath565 is left to right for all values of @xmath566 and @xmath567 . this means that @xmath568 and @xmath569 for @xmath570 . in the following we will show that for such orderings basic blocks have unique factorizations . [ lem : decomp ] given @xmath8 with @xmath560 and @xmath562 , there is a one - to - one correspondence between the set of possible basic blocks @xmath571 and the set of orderings of edges into each vertex @xmath572 with @xmath573 and @xmath574 : @xmath575 if and only if @xmath576 for all @xmath572 with @xmath573 and @xmath574 . the reverse direction is clear from the definition of @xmath577 . we will therefore consider a @xmath577 and show that it gives rise to a unique @xmath47 , given the appropriate restrictions . assume @xmath578 and we are given a basic block @xmath90 . starting from the left in @xmath90 , find the first occurrence of a block of the form , for some @xmath579 , @xmath580 , or @xmath581 if no @xmath580 is to be found . because of the restriction on @xmath47 , we know that it is either the case that @xmath582 and @xmath583 or @xmath584 and @xmath585 . in the first case , @xmath581 corresponds to the block @xmath586 , and in the second to @xmath587 . continue left to right in this fashion to decompose @xmath90 completely into a sequence of @xmath588 s and @xmath589 s . note that there is a unique path between @xmath205 and @xmath8 , and therefore @xmath561 appears only once in @xmath90 . furthermore , if @xmath590 then there is no path from @xmath591 to @xmath8 , and therefore @xmath588 can not be a subblock of @xmath592 . a similar argument gives the result for the @xmath593 . so @xmath561 and @xmath593 each appear exactly once , and if @xmath588 ( or @xmath589 ) appears in @xmath90 , then @xmath594 ( or @xmath595 ) . now , @xmath90 decomposes into the concatenation of @xmath596 and @xmath597 . note that the unique @xmath561 in @xmath90 is a subblock of the @xmath597 portion of @xmath577 . likewise , @xmath593 is a aubblock of the @xmath596 portion of @xmath90 . therefore , if @xmath561 appears before @xmath593 , then @xmath598 , and vice versa . this determines the order that @xmath47 gives to the edges with range @xmath8 . we also know the lengths of each of @xmath599 and @xmath600 . once we know which one comes first , we know exactly where the juxtaposition between the two occurs . we repeat this process on each word above @xmath592 to conclude that no ordering besides @xmath47 could have produced the block @xmath90 . we work through an example . consider the following block : @xmath601 because we know the structure of the @xmath588 and @xmath589 , we see that the first set of @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s is @xmath602 . this must be @xmath603 . then the next set of @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s is @xmath604 . this must be @xmath423 . we continue in this manner to see that the above block decomposes into @xmath605 . by the above lemma , this must be block @xmath606 . because the @xmath603 appears before the @xmath607 , @xmath606 must decompose into @xmath608 , which implies there was a right to left ordering on the edges with range @xmath609 . we need only to know that @xmath610 to see that @xmath611 and @xmath612 . we continue in this manner until we have placed an order on the incoming edges of all 6 unordered vertices that are above @xmath609 . see figure [ fig : decomposition ] .    in 0, ... ,7 in 0 , ... , ( 2 * -,- ) coordinate ( v ) ; ( v ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) ++(7,-7 ) ; ( 0,0)++(-7,-7 ) ; ( -1,-1)+(3,-3 ) ; ( -2,-2)+(1,-1);(-1,-3)+(2,-2 ) ; ( -3,-3)+(2,-2);(-1,-5)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -4,-4)+(2,-2);(-2,-6)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1)+(-4,-4 ) ; ( 2,-2)+(-1,-1);(1,-3)+(-1,-1);(0,-4)+(-2,-2 ) ; ( 3,-3)+(-1,-1);(2,-4)+(-3,-3 ) ;    given left to right ordering on edges terminating at vertices @xmath613 and @xmath614 for all @xmath615 , then for all @xmath616 there are @xmath617 distinct blocks @xmath90 as we vary the orderings @xmath47 . [ prop : distinctb ]    by the lemma , each ordering @xmath47 of the edges entering vertices @xmath572 above @xmath8 ( @xmath618 ) gives rise to a distinct @xmath90 . there are @xmath619 such vertices @xmath572 above @xmath8 and two choices of ordering for each vertex , yielding @xmath617 distinct orderings and hence that many blocks @xmath90 .    for the big subshift , the complexity function @xmath620 is superpolynomial : for each @xmath621 there are at least @xmath622 blocks of length @xmath623 in the big subshift . let @xmath621 and @xmath624 . note that the binomial coefficient @xmath625 . then for any ordering @xmath47 , @xmath626 has length @xmath15 since the length of @xmath627 is the binomial coefficient @xmath628 . then the coarse lower bound above is given by just looking at the @xmath622 unique ways to form @xmath629 and applying proposition [ prop : distinctb ] . we will show next that the big subshift @xmath550 is not topologically transitive and that the  small subshift " whose language is @xmath630 consists of only the two fixed points and the orbits of the points @xmath631 and @xmath632 . [ lem : ba^9 ] ( 1 ) there are orderings @xmath47 and @xmath633 of the pascal graph such that @xmath634 and @xmath635 . ( 2 ) for every ordering @xmath47 and every @xmath636 , the basic block @xmath554 does not contain both @xmath637 and @xmath638 .    to prove ( 1 ) , we proceed to define the orderings @xmath47 and @xmath633 called for in the lemma . define @xmath639 , so that @xmath640 . further , choose @xmath47 and @xmath633 so that @xmath641 and @xmath642 . continuing , define @xmath47 and @xmath633 so that @xmath643 , @xmath644 , and @xmath645 , while @xmath646 , @xmath647 , and @xmath648 . then define @xmath649 ( so that the ordering by @xmath47 is `` left - right '' at these vertices ) and @xmath650 ( so that the ordering by @xmath633 is `` right - left '' at these vertices ) . we then have @xmath634 and @xmath635 . see figure [ fig : ab9ba9 ] .    in 0, ... ,6 in 0 , ... , ( 2 * -,- ) coordinate ( v ) ; ( v ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) ++(6,-6);(0,0)++(-6,-6 ) ; ( -1,-1)+(-1,-1);(-1,-1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1)+(-1,-1);(1,-1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -2,-2)+(-1,-1);(-2,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 0,-2)[dashed]+(-1,-1);(0,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 2,-2)[dashed]+(-1,-1);(2,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -3,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -1,-3)+(-1,-1);(-1,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-3)[dashed]+(-1,-1);(1,-3)[dashed]+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,-3)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( -2,-4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 0,-4)+(-1,-1);(0,-4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 2,-4)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( -1,-5)[dashed]+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-5)+(-1,-1 ) ; at ( -3,-2.5)@xmath47 ;    in 0, ... ,6 in 0 , ... , ( 2 * -,- ) coordinate ( v ) ; ( v ) circle ( 3 pt ) ; ( 0,0 ) ++(6,-6);(0,0)++(-6,-6 ) ; ( -1,-1)+(-1,-1);(-1,-1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-1)+(-1,-1);(1,-1)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -2,-2)+(-1,-1);(-2,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 0,-2)[dashed]+(-1,-1);(0,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 2,-2)[dashed]+(-1,-1);(2,-2)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -3,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( -1,-3)+(-1,-1);(-1,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-3)+(-1,-1);(1,-3)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 3,-3)[dashed]+(-1,-1 ) ; ( -2,-4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 0,-4)+(-1,-1);(0,-4)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 2,-4)+(-1,-1 ) ; ( -1,-5)+(1,-1 ) ; ( 1,-5)[dashed]+(-1,-1 ) ; at ( 3,-2.5)@xmath633 ;    to prove ( 2 ) , we want to focus on strings of alternating @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s that appear in the language of @xmath651 for some ordering @xmath47 of the pascal graph and hence in a basic block @xmath90 for some @xmath636 . so we provide a systematic way to ignore subblocks of the @xmath90 that can not be used , when @xmath90 is concatenated with @xmath652 or @xmath653 , to create a longer string @xmath654 than has been created previously . specifically , for each @xmath655 we let @xmath656 ( respectively @xmath657 ) be the longest string in which @xmath94 and @xmath97 alternate that is a prefix of @xmath90 ( respectively suffix of @xmath90 ) . for example , if @xmath658 , then @xmath659 and @xmath660 . we add the new symbol @xmath661 to our alphabet and define the `` condensed form '' of @xmath90 to be @xmath662 . ( if the block @xmath577 is made up entirely of alternating @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s there is no @xmath661 in @xmath663 . ) we want to show that if @xmath47 is an ordering such that @xmath664 , then @xmath665 ) , and vice versa ; that is , no @xmath90 can ever contain both @xmath637 and @xmath638 . we begin with two observations . the first is that for @xmath666 , @xmath667 can not have length greater than 3 . ( specifically , @xmath667 can be @xmath668 but can not be any longer . ) the same is true for @xmath669 , and similarly for @xmath670 and @xmath671 for @xmath672 . the second observation is that if a basic block @xmath415 has condensed form @xmath673 and a second basic block @xmath416 has condensed form @xmath674 , then the concatenation @xmath675 has condensed form @xmath676 . therefore , in order to determine the highest power of @xmath654 that can be formed by a concatenation of any two basic blocks one needs to look only far enough down to a level @xmath15 for which the condensed forms of all the basic blocks @xmath577 with @xmath677 and @xmath616 contain the symbol * . we can then determine the highest power of @xmath654 in @xmath678 by considering all possible concatenations @xmath679 with @xmath680 and @xmath681 . without loss of generality we assume that @xmath682 . then depending on the choice among the four partial orders on the edges with range in @xmath683 there are the following possibilities for the basic blocks at level @xmath684 : @xmath685 , @xmath686 or @xmath668 , @xmath687 or @xmath688 and @xmath689 . it is straightforward to check that for three of the four possible orderings all the condensed blocks @xmath663 with @xmath690 and @xmath616 necessarily contain the symbol @xmath661 . since every basic block at level 4 has length no more than 6 , for these three orderings it is impossible that @xmath637 or @xmath638 is contained within any of these blocks or , since they all contain a @xmath661 , any of their concatenations . hence the only way that @xmath637 or @xmath638 could be formed is in the case of the fourth ordering at level 3 , when @xmath691 and @xmath692 . in this case the possibilities are @xmath693 or @xmath694 , @xmath695 or @xmath696 , and @xmath697 or @xmath698 . for each of the 8 possible orderings at the vertices @xmath8 with @xmath699 and @xmath616 the condensed blocks @xmath663 all necessarily contain a @xmath661 . therefore 5 is the last level at which we need to look in order to determine which orderings give rise to either @xmath637 or @xmath638 .    the only two blocks on level 5 that could concatenate to give a word of length @xmath700 are @xmath701 and @xmath702 , both of length 10 . further , since each of @xmath703 and @xmath704 contains a @xmath661 , the maximum length of @xmath705 is 9 . in order to form either @xmath637 or @xmath638 , we would need both @xmath706 and @xmath707 to be of length 9 , or both @xmath708 and @xmath709 to be of length 9 . in the situation to which we have reduced , there is exactly one ordering down to level 5 for which both @xmath706 and @xmath707 have length 9 ; for this ordering @xmath710 and @xmath711 . in this case it is possible to concatenate @xmath701 and @xmath702 to form the word @xmath638 . however , because these two blocks contain the longest possible strings of alternating @xmath94 s and @xmath97 s down to level 5 , there is no way , given this ordering , ever to create the word @xmath637 . similarly , there is exactly one case for which @xmath708 and @xmath709 are of length 9 , namely when @xmath712 and @xmath713 . the string @xmath637 can be made with the ordering corresponding to this case , but @xmath638 can not . therefore , any ordering which gives rise to the block @xmath637 can not also give rise to @xmath638 , and vice versa . there is no dense orbit in @xmath550 .    by the lemma , both of the blocks @xmath637 and @xmath638 are in @xmath714 . but no sequence in @xmath550 can contain both of these blocks , since any block containing both of them would have to be a subblock of @xmath90 for some @xmath715 , and @xmath99 .    [ prop : periodicpoints ] the only periodic points in the big subshift @xmath548 are the two fixed points @xmath716 and @xmath717 . suppose that @xmath148 is a periodic sequence . if @xmath148 is not one of the two fixed points , then the runs of @xmath94 and @xmath97 in @xmath148 are of bounded length : there is @xmath718 such that if @xmath719 or @xmath720 appear in @xmath148 , then @xmath721 . for each ordering @xmath47 the two basic blocks @xmath722 and @xmath723 each contain strings of length @xmath1 of @xmath94 or @xmath97 , respectively . if @xmath724 , then every basic block @xmath90 with @xmath677 and @xmath655 , which is a concatenation of basic blocks at level @xmath725 , contains one of the basic blocks @xmath723 or @xmath722 from level @xmath725 . denote by @xmath726 the maximum of the lengths of basic blocks at level @xmath727 . every block in the language @xmath728 of length greater than @xmath729 must contain either a basic block of length greater than @xmath279 from level @xmath727 , and hence @xmath719 or @xmath720 for some @xmath730 , or one of the strings @xmath731 or @xmath732 . the later can not occur since @xmath733 . thus no block in @xmath148 of length greater than @xmath729 can be in @xmath728 , and @xmath148 can not be in @xmath550 unless it is one of the two fixed points . [ lem : fixedpts ] the small subshift @xmath734 contains the points @xmath735 , and @xmath736 . if @xmath737 is not eventually constant , then for every @xmath738 there is an @xmath98 such that @xmath739 and @xmath740 . then @xmath741 and @xmath716 are in @xmath651 . suppose then that @xmath737 is eventually constant , say @xmath742 for all @xmath743 . then @xmath744 for some @xmath745 and all @xmath743 . the block @xmath746 is a concatenation of the blocks @xmath747 , @xmath748 , @xmath749 and @xmath750 in some order , each with multiplicity one . by the the pigeonhole principle it is necessary that either @xmath748 is concatenated with @xmath749 , or @xmath748 is concatenated with @xmath750 , or @xmath749 is concatenated with @xmath750 . it follows that for @xmath751 the block @xmath752 necessarily appears in @xmath746 . letting @xmath98 tend to infinity shows that @xmath741 and @xmath716 are in @xmath651 . that @xmath753 follows by symmetry . [ thm : smallsubshift ] the small subshift @xmath734 consists of only the two fixed points and the orbits of the points @xmath754 and @xmath632 . we fix the orderings @xmath47 and @xmath633 used in lemma [ lem : ba^9 ] : @xmath755    for notational ease , let @xmath756 be denoted by @xmath757 , let @xmath758 be denoted by @xmath759 , and let @xmath760 . likewise , let @xmath761 be denoted by @xmath762 , let @xmath763 be denoted by @xmath764 , and let @xmath765 . for all @xmath766 ,    @xmath767    and @xmath768 note that if @xmath769 , @xmath577 and @xmath770 have at most one @xmath97 ; and if @xmath771 , then each of these blocks has at most one @xmath94 . we first determine ways that for @xmath772 , @xmath773 may occur in @xmath577 , for any @xmath8 . because of the preceding observation , it suffices to consider only @xmath774 . if @xmath775 , @xmath577 can be decomposed into a concatenation of @xmath757 , @xmath759 , and @xmath776 with @xmath777 as follows . since @xmath101 for all @xmath778 , @xmath779 . continue factoring in this manner , reducing @xmath98 and @xmath99 , until each block in the factorization is one of @xmath780 , or @xmath781 , for some @xmath777 . the concatenation that we arrive at must have the following structure . @xmath782 can be followed only by @xmath776 . for @xmath783 , @xmath757 can be followed only by @xmath784 . @xmath785 can be preceded only by @xmath776 . for @xmath786 , @xmath759 can be preceded only by @xmath787 . note that for all @xmath788 the concatenation @xmath789 does occur in some @xmath90 , for example in @xmath790 . none of the blocks @xmath791 end with @xmath792 ; for all @xmath793 , @xmath794 , @xmath759 and @xmath776 do not contain @xmath795 . so if @xmath772 and @xmath773 appears in @xmath90 , then the majority of the @xmath795 portion of @xmath773 must appear within one of the factors @xmath757 of @xmath90 for some @xmath796 . we can then see that @xmath773 appears in one of only four possible ways :    1 .   across a concatenation @xmath797 for some @xmath794 , 2 .   across a concatenation @xmath798 , 3 .   across a concatenation @xmath799 , 4 .   entirely within a block @xmath757 for some @xmath800 .    in the first two cases , the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath801 , while in the second two cases the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath802 . therefore , @xmath773 appears in any sequence in @xmath803 only as a subblock of one of the two longer blocks @xmath801 or @xmath802 . we next determine ways that for @xmath772 , @xmath773 may occur in @xmath770 , for any @xmath8 . again , it suffices to consider only @xmath774 . if @xmath775 , @xmath770 can be decomposed into a concatenation of @xmath762 , @xmath764 and @xmath804 with @xmath805 as follows . since @xmath806 for all @xmath778 , @xmath807 . continue factoring in this manner , reducing @xmath98 and @xmath99 , until each block in the factorization is one of @xmath808 , or @xmath809 , for some @xmath777 . the concatenation that we arrive at must have the following structure . @xmath810 can be preceded only by @xmath804 . for @xmath783 , @xmath762 can be preceded only by @xmath811 . @xmath812 can be followed only by @xmath804 . for @xmath786 , @xmath764 can be followed only by @xmath787 . note that for all @xmath788 the concatenation @xmath813 does occur in some @xmath770 , for example , in @xmath814 . none of the blocks @xmath804 , @xmath762 , @xmath764 begin with @xmath792 ; for all @xmath793 , @xmath794 , @xmath764 and @xmath804 do not contain @xmath795 . so if @xmath772 and @xmath773 appears in @xmath770 , then the majority of the @xmath795 portion of @xmath773 must appear within one of the factors @xmath762 of @xmath770 for some @xmath815 . we can then see that @xmath773 appears in one of only four possible ways :    1 .   across a concatenation @xmath816 for some @xmath817 , 2 . across a concatenation @xmath818 , 3 .   across a concatenation @xmath819 , 4 .   entirely within a block @xmath762 for some @xmath800 .    in the first case , the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath820 for some @xmath817 , while in the second case we see that the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath821 . in the third case the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath822 . in the final case if @xmath823 the appearance of @xmath773 is within the block @xmath824 . however , if @xmath825 , @xmath826 is not long enough to gather enough information about how @xmath773 is extended to the right and we must examine which blocks can follow @xmath826 . these are @xmath827 , and @xmath828 . these give rise to the longer words @xmath820 for some @xmath817 , @xmath829 , and @xmath830 , respectively . therefore , @xmath773 appears in any sequence in @xmath831 only as a subblock of one of these four longer words . most significantly , we see that any extension of @xmath773 in @xmath832 will not be in @xmath833 . we use a similar argument to determine ways that , for @xmath772 , @xmath834 may occur in any @xmath577 with @xmath774 . we find that @xmath834 appears in any sequence in @xmath803 only at the end of the longer block @xmath835 or as a subblock of @xmath836 . similarly , for @xmath772 , @xmath834 may occur in @xmath770 for @xmath774 only as a subblock of one of the four longer blocks @xmath837 for some @xmath815 , @xmath838 , @xmath839 , or @xmath840 . most significantly , we see that any extension of @xmath834 in @xmath832 will not be in @xmath833 . let @xmath841 and suppose that @xmath148 is not in the orbit of any of the sequences @xmath842 we will show that then a block @xmath773 or @xmath834 with @xmath772 appears in @xmath148 , contradicting what was just established above . since @xmath843 is not in one of the four special orbits listed above , there are at least three distinct values of @xmath138 for which @xmath844 , say for @xmath845 ; in other words , @xmath148 contains at least 3  switches " from @xmath94 to @xmath97 or vice versa . let @xmath846 be such a block which contains exactly three switches , so that @xmath543 has the form @xmath847 or @xmath848 for some @xmath849 . let @xmath530 = @xmath850 ; in other words , @xmath530 extends in @xmath148 to the left and the right of the three places @xmath851 , where switches are known to occur , by 100 entries . in addition , let @xmath852 be the subblock of @xmath148 that extends @xmath530 by 20 letters to the left and 20 letters to the right . since @xmath853 , there is a block @xmath577 that contains @xmath852 ( with @xmath854 , since otherwise @xmath90 contains only two switches ) . moreover , the block @xmath776 does not appear in @xmath148 , so @xmath852 does not contain the entirety of @xmath776 as a subblock . therefore , when @xmath90 is written according to the above scheme as a concatenation of @xmath855 for certain choices of @xmath856 , the portion of @xmath577 containing @xmath530 does not overlap any part of an appearance of @xmath776 in the factorization ( meaning that the intervals of indices of @xmath90 at which any copies of @xmath530 and @xmath776 appear are disjoint ) . in other words , @xmath530 is contained in its entirety within concatenations of the blocks @xmath757 and @xmath759 according to the structure given above .    consider the factorization of @xmath90 as described above , with @xmath777 . the block @xmath846 must overlap some blocks @xmath757 and @xmath759 of the factorization , and this can happen only with @xmath857 . this is because @xmath858 can appear in any sequence in @xmath651 only as part of the string @xmath859 ; but we know that @xmath530 does not overlap any portion of @xmath776 , and the length of @xmath860 is 100 . similarly , @xmath543 can not overlap @xmath861 or @xmath782 . and if @xmath543 overlaps a block @xmath759 of the factorization , it must happen with @xmath862 , since @xmath863 can occur in any sequence in @xmath651 only at the end of a string @xmath864 , which also has length 100 ; and similarly for @xmath865 and @xmath785 .    as mentioned above , @xmath543 is either of the form @xmath847 or @xmath848 . if either @xmath114 or @xmath15 is greater than 6 , then @xmath773 or @xmath834 , with @xmath772 , appears in @xmath543 , a subblock of @xmath530 , a subblock of @xmath148 . suppose that both @xmath866 and @xmath543 overlaps @xmath757 for some @xmath867 or @xmath543 overlaps @xmath759 for some @xmath868 . then inspection of the blocks @xmath757 and @xmath759 with @xmath869 shows that @xmath543 must necessarily overlap the suffix of @xmath757 of length 45 , or the prefix of length 45 of @xmath759 , or both , for some @xmath869 . however , if @xmath543 overlaps the last 45 entries of an appearance of a block @xmath757 with @xmath867 , then the block @xmath870 appears in the block @xmath871 . similarly , if @xmath543 overlaps the first 45 entries of an appearance of a block @xmath759 with @xmath862 , then the block @xmath872 appears in the block @xmath873 . thus at least one of the blocks @xmath870 or @xmath872 appears in @xmath148 . we conclude that it is impossible that any @xmath841 is not in the orbit of one of the sequences @xmath874 . is coding orbits by the _ first _ edge also essentially faithful for every ordering of the pascal diagram ? in other words , under the hypotheses of theorem [ thm : coding ] , is the coding of @xmath37 by initial segments of length @xmath279 not the same as the coding of @xmath167 by initial segments of length @xmath279 ? [ ex : uncountablymanymax ] it is possible to assign an ordering to the pascal graph in such a way that there are uncountably many minimal paths . it suffices to find a binary tree embedded in the graph , for then we can define the ordering in such a way that all edges in the tree are minimal , the other edges to vertices in the tree are maximal , and the orderings at remaining vertices are assigned arbitrarily . let the tree include the vertex @xmath20 at level 0 and nonintersecting paths to vertices @xmath875 and @xmath876 at level 3 . continue inductively as follows . suppose that @xmath877 and the tree from level 0 to level @xmath878 contains every other vertex at level @xmath878 and no other vertices at that level or at higher levels . ( if these vertices are labeled @xmath879 , we are including @xmath880 . ) extend the tree to contain @xmath881 nonintersecting paths from these vertices to every fourth vertex at level @xmath882 . then from each of these vertices at level @xmath882 extend two paths to form nonintersecting paths to every other vertex at level @xmath883 . we can simultaneously embed another dyadic tree which shares no edges with the first tree  if necessary , spread out the construction of the first tree even more . then declaring that all edges in the second tree are maximal will produce an ordering for which there are uncountably many maximal paths as well as uncountably many minimal paths . we do not know whether it is possible for an ordering to have countably many maximal paths and uncountably many minimal paths , or vice versa . ( but no ordering on the pascal graph can have only finitely many maximal or minimal paths , since from each vertex there is a unique path up to the root consisting entirely of maximal ( or entirely of minimal ) edges . ) we are interested in asymptotic estimates of the complexity function @xmath884 which counts the number of @xmath15-blocks seen in the 1-codings of all sequences in the adic system @xmath885 on the pascal graph with a fixed ordering @xmath47 . it is known @xcite that for the ordinary pascal system , determined by @xmath46 , @xmath886 . can some orderings produce asymptotically larger or smaller complexity functions ? if orderings are chosen at random , for example by independent choices at each vertex of @xmath89 with some probability @xmath887 and @xmath279 with probability @xmath888 , what is the expected asymptotic complexity of the set of resulting codings ?
Abstract:

Answer: we consider arbitrary orderings of the edges entering each vertex of the ( downward directed ) pascal graph . each ordering determines an adic ( bratteli - vershik ) system , with a transformation that is defined on most of the space of infinite paths that begin at the root . we prove that for every ordering the coding of orbits according to the partition of the path space determined by the first three edges is essentially faithful , meaning that it is one - to - one on a set of paths that has full measure for every fully supported invariant probability measure . we also show that for every @xmath0 the subshift that arises from coding orbits according to the first @xmath0 edges is topologically weakly mixing . we give a necessary and sufficient condition for any adic system to be topologically conjugate to an odometer and use this condition to determine the probability that a random order on a fixed diagram , or a diagram constructed at random in some way , is topologically conjugate to an odometer . we also show that the closure of the union over all orderings of the subshifts arising from codings of the pascal adic by the first edge has superpolynomial complexity , is not topologically transitive , and has no periodic points besides the two fixed points , while the intersection over all orderings consists of just four orbits .