Average size of connected components in grid

mXSCNT
Messages
310
Reaction score
1
Start with an infinite 2d grid of cells, with each cell randomly colored black or white (50% chance). Now take the graph G whose nodes are the cells, and with an edge (A, B) if A and B are adjacent in the grid, and the same color.

What is the average size of a connected component of G? Is it finite, or infinite?Specifically, let's say you have an nxn grid. G(n) is the graph whose nodes are the cells with an edge (A, B) if A and B are adjacent in the grid and the same color. Let f(n) be the expected number of connected components in G(n), so that \frac{n^2}{f(n)} is the expected average size of connected components in the grid. Find \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{n^2}{f(n)}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If we consider a row in the grid, it has a certain number of "runs" in it. My intuition is that there are no more connected components in the whole grid than there are total runs in its rows. Does the expected total number of runs in the rows provide any useful upper bound for the expected number of connected components?
 
Just for clarification: "Adjacent" means "same column, row differs by 1 OR same row, column differs by 1"? So each cell has 4 adjacent cells.

Stephen Tashi said:
My intuition is that there are no more connected components in the whole grid than there are total runs in its rows.
If that is true and I understand it correctly, the number of connected components grows just linearly with n, and the fraction components/tile goes to zero.

It is easy to find an upper bound for the average size (=lower limit for the components per tile): Consider non-overlapping 3x3 subgrids. Each subgrid has a probability of 1/16 to have an isolated cell in the middle. With a better pattern, you can get a "cross" every 6 tiles. Therefore, the maximal average size (as defined in post 1) is at most 16*6=96.
 
mfb said:
Just for clarification: "Adjacent" means "same column, row differs by 1 OR same row, column differs by 1"? So each cell has 4 adjacent cells.
Yeah

If that is true and I understand it correctly, the number of connected components grows just linearly with n, and the fraction components/tile goes to zero.

It is easy to find an upper bound for the average size (=lower limit for the components per tile): Consider non-overlapping 3x3 subgrids. Each subgrid has a probability of 1/16 to have an isolated cell in the middle. With a better pattern, you can get a "cross" every 6 tiles. Therefore, the maximal average size (as defined in post 1) is at most 16*6=96.
Cool! I should have thought of that.

I ran a simulation and got around 7.6 for average component size (random grids of 3000 x 3000). For grids of 300x300 it was 7.5-7.6 so it does seem to be roughly constant.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top