Continuous Edge Chromatic Numbers of Abelian Group Actions

Su Gao School of Mathematical Sciences and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China [email protected] Ruijun Wang School of Mathematical Sciences and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China [email protected]  and  Tianhao Wang School of Mathematical Sciences and LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China [email protected]
Abstract.

We prove that for any generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the continuous edge chromatic number χc(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐺\chi^{\prime}_{c}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) of the Schreier graph of the Bernoulli shift action G=F(S,2n)𝐺𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛G=F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_G = italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is χ(G)+1=|S|+1superscript𝜒𝐺1𝑆1\chi^{\prime}(G)+1=|S|+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ) + 1 = | italic_S | + 1. In particular, for the standard generating set, the continuous edge chromatic number of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is 2n+12𝑛12n+12 italic_n + 1.

Key words and phrases:
Cayley graph, Schreier graph, Bernoulli shift action, edge chromatic number, marker region lemma
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 03E15; Secondary 05C15, 05C70
The first author acknowledges the partial support of his research by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grants 12250710128 and 12271263.

1. Introduction

In the seminal paper [13], Kechris, Solecki and Todorcevic initiated the study of descriptive combinatorics of locally finite Borel graphs. In particular, they considered general bounds for Borel chromatic numbers of locally finite Borel graphs. The Borel edge chromatic number was also considered, primarily as the Borel chromatic number of the dual graph, and they showed that any locally finite Borel graph G𝐺Gitalic_G has countable Borel edge chromatic number χB(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝐵𝐺\chi^{\prime}_{B}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ), and if G𝐺Gitalic_G is of bounded degree kabsent𝑘\leq k≤ italic_k, then χB(G)2k1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝐵𝐺2𝑘1\chi^{\prime}_{B}(G)\leq 2k-1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) ≤ 2 italic_k - 1. Subsequently, researchers computed the Borel chromatic numbers and Borel edge chromatic numbers of various Schreier graphs of countable group actions. For example, in [14], Marks studied combinatorics of free products of two marked groups, and showed that the Borel chromatic number χB(F(2𝔽n))=2n+1subscript𝜒𝐵𝐹superscript2subscript𝔽𝑛2𝑛1\chi_{B}(F(2^{\mathbb{F}_{n}}))=2n+1italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 2 italic_n + 1, where F(2𝔽n)𝐹superscript2subscript𝔽𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{F}_{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) denotes the Schreier graph on the free part of the Bernoulli shift action of 𝔽nsubscript𝔽𝑛\mathbb{F}_{n}blackboard_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the free group with n𝑛nitalic_n generators, on 2𝔽nsuperscript2subscript𝔽𝑛2^{\mathbb{F}_{n}}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For an overview of the entire field of descriptive combinatorics we refer the reader to the survey [12] by Kechris and Marks.

The continuous chromatic number was first studied by the first author of the present paper and Jackson. In [7], it was shown that there is a continuous proper 4444-coloring of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for each n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1. Later in [8], it was shown that there is no continuous proper 3333-coloring of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for each n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1. Thus the continuous chromatic number χc(F(2n))=4subscript𝜒𝑐𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛4\chi_{c}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=4italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 4 for each n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1. In contrast, it was shown in [4] and [9] by different methods that the Borel chromatic number χB(F(2n))=3subscript𝜒𝐵𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛3\chi_{B}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=3italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 3 for each n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1. This was the first time that the Borel and continuous chromatic numbers of a locally finite Borel graph were observed to be different.

A similar phenomenon occurs when considering the Borel and continuous edge chromatic numbers of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The Borel edge chromatic numbers were studied independently in [1] (for n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2), [3], [10] and [15]. The conclusion is that for the Schreier graph of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with the standard generating set, the Borel edge chromatic number χB(F(2n))subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝐵𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\chi^{\prime}_{B}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) equals the usual edge chromatic number χ(F(2n))superscript𝜒𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\chi^{\prime}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), which is 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n. It is worth noting that Weilacher [15] showed that for any symmetric generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where S𝑆Sitalic_S does not contain the identity, letting F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be the corresponding Schreier graph, we have χB(F(S,2n))=χ(F(S,2n))=|S|subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝐵𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝜒𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛𝑆\chi^{\prime}_{B}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=\chi^{\prime}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}% }))=|S|italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = | italic_S |. Thus the computation of the Borel edge chromatic numbers of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) was complete. As for the continuous edge chromatic number, we only had, from [8], the result for n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2 that χc(F(22))=5subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹superscript2superscript25\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{2}}))=5italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 5 for the standard generating set. This already showed that the Borel and continuous edge chromatic numbers could differ, but left the computation of a lot of cases open.

In this paper, we complete this line of research by showing that, for any symmetric generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT not containing the identity, the continuous edge chromatic number χc(F(S,2n))=χ(F(S,2n))+1=|S|+1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝜒𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛1𝑆1\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=\chi^{\prime}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}% }))+1=|S|+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 1 = | italic_S | + 1. In particular, we have χc(F(2n))=2n+1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛2𝑛1\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=2n+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 2 italic_n + 1. This answers Question 10.3 of [6].

Theorem 1.1.

For any integer n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1 and any symmetric generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT not containing the identity, let G=F(S,2n)𝐺𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛G=F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_G = italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then χc(G)=χ(G)+1=|S|+1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐺superscript𝜒𝐺1𝑆1\chi^{\prime}_{c}(G)=\chi^{\prime}(G)+1=|S|+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ) + 1 = | italic_S | + 1.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we fix the notation to be used throughout the paper. In Section 3 we prove the lower bound for the continuous edge chromatic number. Then in Section 4 we construct a proper edge coloring to witness Theorem 1.1, first by assuming S𝑆Sitalic_S to be the standard generating set and then generalizing to the general case.

Acknowledgment. We thank the anonymous referees for useful comments and suggestions which improved the paper.

2. Preliminaries

In this section we define our basic notions and fix notation. We use standard concepts and terminology from graph theory, which can be found in [2].

As usual, a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is a pair (V(G),E(G))𝑉𝐺𝐸𝐺(V(G),E(G))( italic_V ( italic_G ) , italic_E ( italic_G ) ), where V(G)𝑉𝐺V(G)italic_V ( italic_G ) is a set and E(G)𝐸𝐺E(G)italic_E ( italic_G ) is a set of unordered pairs of distinct elements of V(G)𝑉𝐺V(G)italic_V ( italic_G ). Thus our graphs are undirected. Here V(G)𝑉𝐺V(G)italic_V ( italic_G ) is the set of vertices of G𝐺Gitalic_G, and E(G)𝐸𝐺E(G)italic_E ( italic_G ) is the set of edges of G𝐺Gitalic_G. Throughout the paper, when there is no danger of confusion, the vertex operator V𝑉Vitalic_V of V(G)𝑉𝐺V(G)italic_V ( italic_G ) is sometimes omitted. If x,yV(G)𝑥𝑦𝑉𝐺x,y\in V(G)italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ) are distinct and e={x,y}E(G)𝑒𝑥𝑦𝐸𝐺e=\{x,y\}\in E(G)italic_e = { italic_x , italic_y } ∈ italic_E ( italic_G ), we also write e=(x,y)=(y,x)𝑒𝑥𝑦𝑦𝑥e=(x,y)=(y,x)italic_e = ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ( italic_y , italic_x ) and say that x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y are incident with the edge e𝑒eitalic_e. For any xV(G)𝑥𝑉𝐺x\in V(G)italic_x ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ), the degree of x𝑥xitalic_x is defined as the number of distinct edges incident with x𝑥xitalic_x. A graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is locally finite if for all xV(G)𝑥𝑉𝐺x\in V(G)italic_x ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ), the degree of x𝑥xitalic_x is finite. If x,yV(G)𝑥𝑦𝑉𝐺x,y\in V(G)italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ) are distinct, then a path p𝑝pitalic_p from x𝑥xitalic_x to y𝑦yitalic_y is a sequence x0,x1,,xksubscript𝑥0subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑘x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{k}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of distinct vertices of G𝐺Gitalic_G such that x0=xsubscript𝑥0𝑥x_{0}=xitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x, xk=ysubscript𝑥𝑘𝑦x_{k}=yitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_y, and for all 0i<k0𝑖𝑘0\leq i<k0 ≤ italic_i < italic_k, (xi,xi+1)E(G)subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥𝑖1𝐸𝐺(x_{i},x_{i+1})\in E(G)( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_E ( italic_G ); here k𝑘kitalic_k is the length of the path p𝑝pitalic_p.

For a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G and a set κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ of colors, a proper edge κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ-coloring of G𝐺Gitalic_G is a map c:E(G)κ:𝑐𝐸𝐺𝜅c:E(G)\to\kappaitalic_c : italic_E ( italic_G ) → italic_κ such that c((x,y))c((z,w))𝑐𝑥𝑦𝑐𝑧𝑤c((x,y))\neq c((z,w))italic_c ( ( italic_x , italic_y ) ) ≠ italic_c ( ( italic_z , italic_w ) ) if the distinct edges (x,y),(z,w)𝑥𝑦𝑧𝑤(x,y),(z,w)( italic_x , italic_y ) , ( italic_z , italic_w ) have a vertex in common. In the sequel, we write c(x,y)𝑐𝑥𝑦c(x,y)italic_c ( italic_x , italic_y ) for c((x,y))𝑐𝑥𝑦c((x,y))italic_c ( ( italic_x , italic_y ) ) for simplicity. The edge chromatic number of G𝐺Gitalic_G, denoted by χ(G)superscript𝜒𝐺\chi^{\prime}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ), is the least cardinality of a set κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ such that there exists a proper edge κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ-coloring for G𝐺Gitalic_G. When the graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is a topological graph, i.e., when V(G)𝑉𝐺V(G)italic_V ( italic_G ) is a topological space, we may consider continuous (or Borel) proper edge colorings of G𝐺Gitalic_G, and define its continuous edge chromatic number, denoted as χc(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐺\chi^{\prime}_{c}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ), and its Borel edge chromatic number, denoted as χB(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝐵𝐺\chi^{\prime}_{B}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ). Similarly, we define proper (vertex) colorings and the continuous and Borel chromatic numbers, denoted by χc(G)subscript𝜒𝑐𝐺\chi_{c}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) and χB(G)subscript𝜒𝐵𝐺\chi_{B}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) respectively.

On any locally finite graph G𝐺Gitalic_G, we define the path distance ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ on G𝐺Gitalic_G as follows. If x,yV(G)𝑥𝑦𝑉𝐺x,y\in V(G)italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ) are in the same connected component (i.e. there is a path from x𝑥xitalic_x to y𝑦yitalic_y), then let ρ(x,y)𝜌𝑥𝑦\rho(x,y)italic_ρ ( italic_x , italic_y ) be the length of a shortest path from x𝑥xitalic_x to y𝑦yitalic_y; otherwise let ρ(x,y)=𝜌𝑥𝑦\rho(x,y)=\inftyitalic_ρ ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ∞. Recall that a locally finite graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is regular if the degrees of all vertices of G𝐺Gitalic_G are the same.

An important class of regular topological graphs consists of the graphs induced by actions of finitely generated groups. A marked group is a pair (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S ), where ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a group and S𝑆Sitalic_S is a finite generating set of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ. Usually we also require S=S1𝑆superscript𝑆1S=S^{-1}italic_S = italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 1ΓSsubscript1Γ𝑆1_{\Gamma}\not\in S1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∉ italic_S. In this paper this is assumed tacitly. When the generating set is standard or otherwise understood, we omit specifying the set S𝑆Sitalic_S and say that ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a marked group. For example, for any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1, nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has a standard generating set {±ei:1in}conditional-setplus-or-minussubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{\pm e_{i}\colon 1\leq i\leq n\}{ ± italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n } where each eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has the i𝑖iitalic_i-th coordinate 1111 and j𝑗jitalic_j-th coordinate 00 for ji𝑗𝑖j\neq iitalic_j ≠ italic_i. The Cayley graph C(Γ,S)𝐶Γ𝑆C(\Gamma,S)italic_C ( roman_Γ , italic_S ) of a marked group (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S ) is defined by

V(C(Γ,S))=Γ𝑉𝐶Γ𝑆ΓV(C(\Gamma,S))=\Gammaitalic_V ( italic_C ( roman_Γ , italic_S ) ) = roman_Γ

and

E(C(Γ,S))={(g,h)Γ2:sSh=sg}.𝐸𝐶Γ𝑆conditional-set𝑔superscriptΓ2𝑠𝑆𝑠𝑔E(C(\Gamma,S))=\{(g,h)\in\Gamma^{2}\,:\,\exists s\in S\ h=sg\}.italic_E ( italic_C ( roman_Γ , italic_S ) ) = { ( italic_g , italic_h ) ∈ roman_Γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ∃ italic_s ∈ italic_S italic_h = italic_s italic_g } .

When there is an action of a marked group ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ on a set X𝑋Xitalic_X, the Schreier graph of the action ΓXΓ𝑋\Gamma\curvearrowright Xroman_Γ ↷ italic_X on X𝑋Xitalic_X, denoted G(Γ,S,X)𝐺Γ𝑆𝑋G(\Gamma,S,X)italic_G ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ), is defined by

V(G(Γ,S,X))=X𝑉𝐺Γ𝑆𝑋𝑋V(G(\Gamma,S,X))=Xitalic_V ( italic_G ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) ) = italic_X

and

E(G(Γ,S,X))={(x,y)X2:sSy=sx}.𝐸𝐺Γ𝑆𝑋conditional-set𝑥𝑦superscript𝑋2𝑠𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑥E(G(\Gamma,S,X))=\{(x,y)\in X^{2}\,:\,\exists s\in S\ y=s\cdot x\}.italic_E ( italic_G ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) ) = { ( italic_x , italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ∃ italic_s ∈ italic_S italic_y = italic_s ⋅ italic_x } .

The Schreier graph will be particularly nice when the action is free; in this case the Schreier graph on each orbit of the action will be a copy of the Cayley graph C(Γ,S)𝐶Γ𝑆C(\Gamma,S)italic_C ( roman_Γ , italic_S ). Let F(Γ,X)={xX:g1Γ(gxx)}𝐹Γ𝑋conditional-set𝑥𝑋for-all𝑔subscript1Γ𝑔𝑥𝑥F(\Gamma,X)=\{x\in X\colon\forall g\neq 1_{\Gamma}\ (g\cdot x\neq x)\}italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_X ) = { italic_x ∈ italic_X : ∀ italic_g ≠ 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_g ⋅ italic_x ≠ italic_x ) } be the free part of the action ΓXΓ𝑋\Gamma\curvearrowright Xroman_Γ ↷ italic_X. F(Γ,X)𝐹Γ𝑋F(\Gamma,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_X ) is an invariant set and the induced action of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ on F(Γ,X)𝐹Γ𝑋F(\Gamma,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_X ) is free. We denote by F(Γ,S,X)𝐹Γ𝑆𝑋F(\Gamma,S,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) the Schreier graph on F(Γ,X)𝐹Γ𝑋F(\Gamma,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_X ). We write F(X)𝐹𝑋F(X)italic_F ( italic_X ) for F(Γ,X)𝐹Γ𝑋F(\Gamma,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_X ) and F(S,X)𝐹𝑆𝑋F(S,X)italic_F ( italic_S , italic_X ) for F(Γ,S,X)𝐹Γ𝑆𝑋F(\Gamma,S,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) if the group ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ and its action on X𝑋Xitalic_X are understood. Furthermore, when the generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S is standard or otherwise understood, we will abuse notation and simply write F(X)𝐹𝑋F(X)italic_F ( italic_X ) for the Schreier graph F(S,X)𝐹𝑆𝑋F(S,X)italic_F ( italic_S , italic_X ).

In this paper, we will work with the setup where X𝑋Xitalic_X is a Polish space, i.e., a separable and completely metrizable space, ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a finitely generated group with the discrete topology, and the action ΓXΓ𝑋\Gamma\curvearrowright Xroman_Γ ↷ italic_X is continuous.

The Bernoulli shift action induces a natural Schreier graph. Let A𝐴Aitalic_A be a finite set with the discrete topology. Assume |A|2𝐴2|A|\geq 2| italic_A | ≥ 2. For a countable discrete group ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, the space AΓsuperscript𝐴ΓA^{\Gamma}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equipped with the usual product topology and is homeomorphic to the Cantor space 2={0,1}superscript2superscript012^{\mathbb{N}}=\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { 0 , 1 } start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which is compact Polish.

The Bernoulli shift action ΓAΓΓsuperscript𝐴Γ\Gamma\curvearrowright A^{\Gamma}roman_Γ ↷ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is defined by

(gx)(h)=x(hg)𝑔𝑥𝑥𝑔(g\cdot x)(h)=x(hg)( italic_g ⋅ italic_x ) ( italic_h ) = italic_x ( italic_h italic_g )

for g,hΓ𝑔Γg,h\in\Gammaitalic_g , italic_h ∈ roman_Γ and xAΓ𝑥superscript𝐴Γx\in A^{\Gamma}italic_x ∈ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This action is continuous. The free part F(Γ,AΓ)𝐹Γsuperscript𝐴ΓF(\Gamma,A^{\Gamma})italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is an invariant dense Gδsubscript𝐺𝛿G_{\delta}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT subset of AΓsuperscript𝐴ΓA^{\Gamma}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, hence is a Polish space.

We are now ready to compute the continuous edge chromatic number χc(F(S,2n))subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) for a generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

3. The Lower Bound

In this section we prove that for any generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, χc(F(S,2n))>χ(F(S,2n))subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝜒𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))>\chi^{\prime}(F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}% }))italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) > italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). We will need some results of [8]. To state the results we need to review some related concepts.

Let (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S ) be a marked group. We will consider the Bernoulli shift action of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ on AΓsuperscript𝐴ΓA^{\Gamma}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some finite set A𝐴Aitalic_A. A ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-subshift Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a closed invariant subset of AΓsuperscript𝐴ΓA^{\Gamma}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. A ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-pattern is a map p:FA:𝑝𝐹𝐴p:F\to Aitalic_p : italic_F → italic_A for some finite FΓ𝐹ΓF\subseteq\Gammaitalic_F ⊆ roman_Γ. If p𝑝pitalic_p is a ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-pattern and xAΓ𝑥superscript𝐴Γx\in A^{\Gamma}italic_x ∈ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we say that p𝑝pitalic_p occurs in x𝑥xitalic_x if pgx𝑝𝑔𝑥p\subseteq g\cdot xitalic_p ⊆ italic_g ⋅ italic_x for some gΓ𝑔Γg\in\Gammaitalic_g ∈ roman_Γ. Note that this is an invariant notion, that is, if p𝑝pitalic_p occurs in x𝑥xitalic_x then p𝑝pitalic_p occurs in any hx𝑥h\cdot xitalic_h ⋅ italic_x for hΓΓh\in\Gammaitalic_h ∈ roman_Γ. A ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-subshift of finite type is a ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-subshift YAΓ𝑌superscript𝐴ΓY\subseteq A^{\Gamma}italic_Y ⊆ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for which there is a finite set {p1,,pk}subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘\{p_{1},\dots,p_{k}\}{ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-patterns such that for any xAΓ𝑥superscript𝐴Γx\in A^{\Gamma}italic_x ∈ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, xY𝑥𝑌x\in Yitalic_x ∈ italic_Y if and only if none of the patterns p1,,pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1},\dots,p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT occur in x𝑥xitalic_x. In this case we say that Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is described by (A;p1,,pk)𝐴subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘(A;p_{1},\dots,p_{k})( italic_A ; italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

A graph H𝐻Hitalic_H is a (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S )-graph if there is an action of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ on V(H)𝑉𝐻V(H)italic_V ( italic_H ) such that H=G(Γ,S,V(H))𝐻𝐺Γ𝑆𝑉𝐻H=G(\Gamma,S,V(H))italic_H = italic_G ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_V ( italic_H ) ). The Schreier graphs G(Γ,S,X)𝐺Γ𝑆𝑋G(\Gamma,S,X)italic_G ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) and F(Γ,S,X)𝐹Γ𝑆𝑋F(\Gamma,S,X)italic_F ( roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_X ) are examples of (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S )-graphs, but we will also consider finite (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S )-graphs. When the generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S is standard, (Γ,S)Γ𝑆(\Gamma,S)( roman_Γ , italic_S )-graphs are also simply called ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ-graphs.

We will work with the following example of a finite nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-graph. Given positive integers q1,,qnsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛q_{1},\dots,q_{n}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the vertex set of the graph Tq1,,qnsubscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the quotient of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by the relation (a1,,an)(b1,,bn)similar-tosubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏𝑛(a_{1},\dots,a_{n})\sim(b_{1},\dots,b_{n})( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∼ ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) if and only if a1b1modq1subscript𝑎1modulosubscript𝑏1subscript𝑞1a_{1}\equiv b_{1}\!\mod q_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_mod italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, ,anbnmodqnsubscript𝑎𝑛modulosubscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑞𝑛\dots,a_{n}\equiv b_{n}\!\mod q_{n}… , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_mod italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The group nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acts naturally on Tq1,,qnsubscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and this action induces a nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-graph on Tq1,,qnsubscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the standard generating set of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Note that Tq1,,qnsubscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has cardinality q1qnsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛q_{1}\cdots q_{n}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

If Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-subshift of finite type described by (A;p1,pk)𝐴subscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘(A;p_{1},\dots p_{k})( italic_A ; italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), then we say that a map φ:Tq1,,qnA:𝜑subscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛𝐴\varphi\colon T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}\to Aitalic_φ : italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_A respects Y𝑌Yitalic_Y if none of p1,,pksubscript𝑝1subscript𝑝𝑘p_{1},\dots,p_{k}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT occur in φπAn𝜑𝜋superscript𝐴superscript𝑛\varphi\circ\pi\in A^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}italic_φ ∘ italic_π ∈ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where π:nTq1,,qn:𝜋superscript𝑛subscript𝑇subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛\pi\colon\mathbb{Z}^{n}\to T_{q_{1},\dots,q_{n}}italic_π : blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the quotient map.

If a group ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ acts on both X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, we say a map θ:XY:𝜃𝑋𝑌\theta\colon X\to Yitalic_θ : italic_X → italic_Y is equivariant if θ(gx)=gθ(x)𝜃𝑔𝑥𝑔𝜃𝑥\theta(g\cdot x)=g\cdot\theta(x)italic_θ ( italic_g ⋅ italic_x ) = italic_g ⋅ italic_θ ( italic_x ) for all gΓ𝑔Γg\in\Gammaitalic_g ∈ roman_Γ and xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X.

Theorem 3.1.

([8, Theorem 2.7.1]) Let A𝐴Aitalic_A be a finite set and let YAn𝑌superscript𝐴superscript𝑛Y\subseteq A^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}italic_Y ⊆ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-subshift of finite type. If there is a continuous equivariant map θ:F(2n)Y:𝜃𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛𝑌\theta\colon F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\to Yitalic_θ : italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → italic_Y, then for all q1,,qn2subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞𝑛2q_{1},\dots,q_{n}\geq 2italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 and all sufficiently large k𝑘kitalic_k there is φ:Tq1k,,qnkA:𝜑subscript𝑇subscriptsuperscript𝑞𝑘1subscriptsuperscript𝑞𝑘𝑛𝐴\varphi\colon T_{q^{k}_{1},\dots,q^{k}_{n}}\to Aitalic_φ : italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_A which respects Y𝑌Yitalic_Y.

Recall that a matching of a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is a subset ME(G)𝑀𝐸𝐺M\subseteq E(G)italic_M ⊆ italic_E ( italic_G ) such that every vertex of G𝐺Gitalic_G is incident with at most one of the edges of M𝑀Mitalic_M. A matching M𝑀Mitalic_M of G𝐺Gitalic_G is a perfect matching if every vertex of G𝐺Gitalic_G is incident with exactly one edge in M𝑀Mitalic_M. We may view a perfect matching of a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G as a function μ:V(G)V(G):𝜇𝑉𝐺𝑉𝐺\mu:V(G)\to V(G)italic_μ : italic_V ( italic_G ) → italic_V ( italic_G ) with the property that for any xV(G)𝑥𝑉𝐺x\in V(G)italic_x ∈ italic_V ( italic_G ), (x,μ(x))E(G)𝑥𝜇𝑥𝐸𝐺(x,\mu(x))\in E(G)( italic_x , italic_μ ( italic_x ) ) ∈ italic_E ( italic_G ) and μ2(x)=xsuperscript𝜇2𝑥𝑥\mu^{2}(x)=xitalic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = italic_x. In this sense we may speak of continuous perfect matchings for topological graphs G𝐺Gitalic_G. The following theorem is a generalization of [8, Theorem 3.1.3] with a similar proof.

Theorem 3.2.

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a generating set of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then there is no continuous perfect matching of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Proof.

Suppose S={±s1,±s2,,±sm}𝑆plus-or-minussubscript𝑠1plus-or-minussubscript𝑠2plus-or-minussubscript𝑠𝑚S=\{\pm s_{1},\pm s_{2},\cdots,\pm s_{m}\}italic_S = { ± italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ± italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , ± italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, where none of the sisubscript𝑠𝑖s_{i}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the identity 0¯¯0\bar{0}over¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG. Rewrite S={u1,,u2m}𝑆subscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2𝑚S=\{u_{1},\dots,u_{2m}\}italic_S = { italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Assume a continuous perfect matching μ𝜇\muitalic_μ of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) exists. Note that the vertex set of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the same as that of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Define η:F(2n)S:𝜂𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛𝑆\eta:F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\rightarrow Sitalic_η : italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → italic_S by letting η(x)𝜂𝑥\eta(x)italic_η ( italic_x ) to be the unique element gS𝑔𝑆g\in Sitalic_g ∈ italic_S such that μ(x)=gx𝜇𝑥𝑔𝑥\mu(x)=g\cdot xitalic_μ ( italic_x ) = italic_g ⋅ italic_x. Then η𝜂\etaitalic_η is continuous.

Now define

θ:F(2n)Sn:𝜃𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝑆superscript𝑛\theta:F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\rightarrow S^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}italic_θ : italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

by θ(x)(g)=η(gx)𝜃𝑥𝑔𝜂𝑔𝑥\theta(x)(g)=\eta(g\cdot x)italic_θ ( italic_x ) ( italic_g ) = italic_η ( italic_g ⋅ italic_x ) for xF(2n)𝑥𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛x\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_x ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and gn𝑔superscript𝑛g\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}italic_g ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ is a continuous equivariant map.

Let YSn𝑌superscript𝑆superscript𝑛Y\subseteq S^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}italic_Y ⊆ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-subshift of finite type described by 2m(2m1)2𝑚2𝑚12m(2m-1)2 italic_m ( 2 italic_m - 1 ) many nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-patterns {pi,j:1i,j2m,ij}conditional-setsubscript𝑝𝑖𝑗formulae-sequence1𝑖formulae-sequence𝑗2𝑚𝑖𝑗\{p_{i,j}\colon 1\leq i,j\leq 2m,i\neq j\}{ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : 1 ≤ italic_i , italic_j ≤ 2 italic_m , italic_i ≠ italic_j }, where pi,j:{0¯,ui}S:subscript𝑝𝑖𝑗¯0subscript𝑢𝑖𝑆p_{i,j}:\{\bar{0},u_{i}\}\rightarrow Sitalic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : { over¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } → italic_S is defined by pi,j(0¯)=uisubscript𝑝𝑖𝑗¯0subscript𝑢𝑖p_{i,j}(\bar{0})=u_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and pi,j(ui)=ujsubscript𝑝𝑖𝑗subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑗p_{i,j}(u_{i})=-u_{j}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then we in fact have θ:F(2n)Y:𝜃𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛𝑌\theta:F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\rightarrow Yitalic_θ : italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → italic_Y.

Let q1,q2,,qnsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞2subscript𝑞𝑛q_{1},q_{2},\cdots,q_{n}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be odd. By Theorem 3.1, for some large enough k𝑘kitalic_k there exists φ:Tq1k,q2k,,qnkS:𝜑subscript𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑞1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞2𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑛𝑘𝑆\varphi\colon T_{q_{1}^{k},q_{2}^{k},\cdots,q_{n}^{k}}\rightarrow Sitalic_φ : italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_S which respects Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. Consider the (n,S)superscript𝑛𝑆(\mathbb{Z}^{n},S)( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_S )-graph with vertex set Tq1k,q2k,,qnksubscript𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑞1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞2𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑛𝑘T_{q_{1}^{k},q_{2}^{k},\cdots,q_{n}^{k}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and denote it as T𝑇Titalic_T. Here since the group nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT naturally acts on Tq1k,q2k,,qnksubscript𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑞1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞2𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑛𝑘T_{q_{1}^{k},q_{2}^{k},\dots,q_{n}^{k}}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the action of each element sS𝑠𝑆s\in Sitalic_s ∈ italic_S on an element xTq1k,q2k,,qnk𝑥subscript𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑞1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞2𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑛𝑘x\in T_{q_{1}^{k},q_{2}^{k},\dots,q_{n}^{k}}italic_x ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is well defined and hence gives rise to the Schreier graph T𝑇Titalic_T. As φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ respects Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ induces a perfect matching of T𝑇Titalic_T. In fact, if xT𝑥𝑇x\in Titalic_x ∈ italic_T and φ(x)=s𝜑𝑥𝑠\varphi(x)=sitalic_φ ( italic_x ) = italic_s, then we must have φ(sx)=s𝜑𝑠𝑥𝑠\varphi(s\cdot x)=-sitalic_φ ( italic_s ⋅ italic_x ) = - italic_s by the definition of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, and hence the edge set {(x,sx):xT,s=φ(x)}conditional-set𝑥𝑠𝑥formulae-sequence𝑥𝑇𝑠𝜑𝑥\{(x,s\cdot x)\colon x\in T,s=\varphi(x)\}{ ( italic_x , italic_s ⋅ italic_x ) : italic_x ∈ italic_T , italic_s = italic_φ ( italic_x ) } is a perfect matching of T𝑇Titalic_T. This is a contradiction as the cardinality of T𝑇Titalic_T is odd. ∎

Corollary 3.3.

For any generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, letting G=F(S,2n)𝐺𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛G=F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_G = italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), then χc(G)>χ(G)subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐺superscript𝜒𝐺\chi^{\prime}_{c}(G)>\chi^{\prime}(G)italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) > italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ).

Proof.

It is easy to see that χ(G)=χ(C(n,S))=|S|superscript𝜒𝐺superscript𝜒𝐶superscript𝑛𝑆𝑆\chi^{\prime}(G)=\chi^{\prime}(C(\mathbb{Z}^{n},S))=|S|italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_S ) ) = | italic_S |. Assume there is a continuous proper edge |S|𝑆|S|| italic_S |-coloring of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then every vertex of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) has exactly one edge of each color incident with it. Thus, for any color uS𝑢𝑆u\in Sitalic_u ∈ italic_S, the set of edges with color u𝑢uitalic_u is a continuous perfect matching of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), contradicting Theorem 3.2. ∎

4. Continuous Proper Edge Colorings of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

In this section we construct a continuous proper edge (|S|+1)𝑆1(|S|+1)( | italic_S | + 1 )-coloring of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1 and generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Note that any generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has at least 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n many elements. Thus throughout the rest of this section we fix once and for all 2n+12𝑛12n+12 italic_n + 1 many colors to be used in the construction of our edge coloring:

c1,,cn,1,,n+1.subscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛1𝑛1c_{1},\dots,c_{n},1,\dots,n+1.italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n + 1 .

We will name more colors as needed.

4.1. Proper edge colorings of a rectangle

We first work with n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangles in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

We fix some more terminology about an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We say that R𝑅Ritalic_R is of size a1××ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots\times a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if there is (b1,,bn)nsubscript𝑏1subscript𝑏𝑛superscript𝑛(b_{1},\dots,b_{n})\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

R=[b1,b1+a1]××[bn,bn+an].𝑅subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛R=[b_{1},b_{1}+a_{1}]\times\cdots\times[b_{n},b_{n}+a_{n}].italic_R = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] × ⋯ × [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

If R𝑅Ritalic_R is of the above form, then a vertex x𝑥xitalic_x in R𝑅Ritalic_R is said to have coordinates (x1,,xn)subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑛(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n})( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) in R𝑅Ritalic_R if x=(b1+x1,,b1+xn)𝑥subscript𝑏1subscript𝑥1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑥𝑛x=(b_{1}+x_{1},\dots,b_{1}+x_{n})italic_x = ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). We view R𝑅Ritalic_R as an induced subgraph of the Cayley graph C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with the standard generating set {±ei:1in}conditional-setplus-or-minussubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{\pm e_{i}\colon 1\leq i\leq n\}{ ± italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n }. We say an edge (x,y)𝑥𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ) in C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is parallel to eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if ei+x=ysubscript𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑦e_{i}+x=yitalic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_x = italic_y or ei+y=xsubscript𝑒𝑖𝑦𝑥e_{i}+y=xitalic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_y = italic_x. Let R𝑅\partial R∂ italic_R denote the set of all edges in R𝑅Ritalic_R which are adjacent to at least one edge in C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) that is not in R𝑅Ritalic_R. We call R𝑅\partial R∂ italic_R the boundary of R𝑅Ritalic_R. An edge in C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is said to be adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R if it is not in R𝑅Ritalic_R but is adjacent to some edge of R𝑅Ritalic_R. An edge coloring of C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is said to satisfy the boundary condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R if

  1. (1)

    it is a proper edge coloring of R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges;

  2. (2)

    for all 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n, all edges adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R and parallel to eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have the same color cisubscript𝑐𝑖c_{i}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

c1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT3c2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT123c2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT121221c1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT3c2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc2subscript𝑐2c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Figure 1. An edge coloring satisfying the boundary condition.

Figure 1 illustrates an example of an edge coloring of a 2222-dimensional rectangle of size 2×2222\times 22 × 2 satisfying the boundary condition.

Lemma 4.1.

For any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1 and any n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R, there is a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring satisfying the boundary condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Proof.

By induction on n𝑛nitalic_n. For n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 the lemma is obvious. For the inductive case n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1, consider an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R of size a1××ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots\times a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We only need to define the edge coloring for edges either in R𝑅Ritalic_R or adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R.

We first divide R𝑅Ritalic_R into an+1subscript𝑎𝑛1a_{n}+1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 many layers as illustrated in Figure 2.

...\Big{\uparrow}ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Figure 2. Layers as subgraphs of R𝑅Ritalic_R.

By the inductive hypothesis, there is a proper edge (2n1)2𝑛1(2n-1)( 2 italic_n - 1 )-coloring of each layer of R𝑅Ritalic_R satisfying the boundary condition. We fix such a proper edge (2n1)2𝑛1(2n-1)( 2 italic_n - 1 )-coloring and use it to color all layers of R𝑅Ritalic_R identically. Note that the colors used so far are among c1,,cn1,1,,nsubscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛11𝑛c_{1},\dots,c_{n-1},1,\dots,nitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n, and the remaining uncolored edges are those parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Next, consider an arbitrary edge (x,y)𝑥𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ) parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If (x,y)𝑥𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ) is adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R, then we color it by cnsubscript𝑐𝑛c_{n}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as required by the boundary condition. Otherwise, assume (x,y)𝑥𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ) is in R𝑅Ritalic_R. Then x,yR𝑥𝑦𝑅x,y\in Ritalic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_R. Let Cxsubscript𝐶𝑥C_{x}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the set of colors among c1,,cn1,1,,nsubscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛11𝑛c_{1},\dots,c_{n-1},1,\dots,nitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n which are already used to color an edge incident with x𝑥xitalic_x. Similarly define Cysubscript𝐶𝑦C_{y}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then Cx=Cysubscript𝐶𝑥subscript𝐶𝑦C_{x}=C_{y}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and both have cardinality 2n22𝑛22n-22 italic_n - 2. Thus there exists a color c{c1,,cn1,1,,n}superscript𝑐subscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛11𝑛c^{*}\in\{c_{1},\dots,c_{n-1},1,\dots,n\}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ { italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n } such that cCx=Cysuperscript𝑐subscript𝐶𝑥subscript𝐶𝑦c^{*}\not\in C_{x}=C_{y}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∉ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Now the uncolored edges can be decomposed into (a1+1)(an1+1)subscript𝑎11subscript𝑎𝑛11(a_{1}+1)\cdots(a_{n-1}+1)( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) ⋯ ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) many paths parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e., each path consists of only edges parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and so each path is of the form x,x+en,x+2en,,x+ken𝑥𝑥subscript𝑒𝑛𝑥2subscript𝑒𝑛𝑥𝑘subscript𝑒𝑛x,x+e_{n},x+2e_{n},\dots,x+ke_{n}italic_x , italic_x + italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x + 2 italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x + italic_k italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some x𝑥xitalic_x and postive integer k𝑘kitalic_k. For each such path p𝑝pitalic_p there is a color c{c1,,cn1,1,,n}superscript𝑐subscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛11𝑛c^{*}\in\{c_{1},\dots,c_{n-1},1,\dots,n\}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ { italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n } such that cCxsuperscript𝑐subscript𝐶𝑥c^{*}\not\in C_{x}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∉ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all vertices x𝑥xitalic_x in p𝑝pitalic_p. We can then use the two colors csuperscript𝑐c^{*}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and n+1𝑛1n+1italic_n + 1 in alternation to color all the edges of p𝑝pitalic_p, so that the resulting edge coloring is proper. ∎

Lemma 4.2.

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle of size a1××ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots\times a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is odd for some 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n, then there is a proper edge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloring satisfying the boundary condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Proof.

We will use only the colors c1,,cn,1,,nsubscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛1𝑛c_{1},\dots,c_{n},1,\dots,nitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n. If n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 it is easy to see that we can use c1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to color the two edges adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R and use c1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 1111 in alternation to color the edges of R𝑅Ritalic_R; the resulting edge coloring is proper and satisfies the boundary condition.

Suppose n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1 and, without loss of generality, assume ansubscript𝑎𝑛a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is odd. Similarly to the proof of Lemma 4.1, we divide R𝑅Ritalic_R into an+1subscript𝑎𝑛1a_{n}+1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 many layers perpendicular to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By Lemma 4.1, there is a proper edge (2n1)2𝑛1(2n-1)( 2 italic_n - 1 )-coloring of each layer of R𝑅Ritalic_R satisfying the boundary condition for this layer. As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we fix one such edge coloring and use it to color all layers of R𝑅Ritalic_R identically. We also color any edge that is adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R and parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by the color cnsubscript𝑐𝑛c_{n}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as required by the boundary condition. The remaining uncolored edges are now decomposed into (a1+1)(an1+1)subscript𝑎11subscript𝑎𝑛11(a_{1}+1)\dots(a_{n-1}+1)( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) … ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) many paths parallel to ensubscript𝑒𝑛e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each such path p𝑝pitalic_p there is a color c{c1,,cn,1,,n}superscript𝑐subscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛1𝑛c^{*}\in\{c_{1},\dots,c_{n},1,\dots,n\}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ { italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n } such that cCxsuperscript𝑐subscript𝐶𝑥c^{*}\not\in C_{x}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∉ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all vertices x𝑥xitalic_x in p𝑝pitalic_p, where Cxsubscript𝐶𝑥C_{x}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined similarly as in the proof of Lemma 4.1. Note, however, that now the path p𝑝pitalic_p has odd length. Thus we can use the two colors csuperscript𝑐c^{*}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and cnsubscript𝑐𝑛c_{n}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in alternation to color all the edges of p𝑝pitalic_p, as done in the n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 case. ∎

Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle of size a1××ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots\times a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a positive even number for each 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n. Suppose

R=[b1,b1+a1]××[bn,bn+an]𝑅subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛R=[b_{1},b_{1}+a_{1}]\times\cdots\times[b_{n},b_{n}+a_{n}]italic_R = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] × ⋯ × [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]

for (b1,,bn)nsubscript𝑏1subscript𝑏𝑛superscript𝑛(b_{1},\dots,b_{n})\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let

K=[b1+a121,b1+a12+1]××[bn+an21,bn+an2+1].𝐾subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎121subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎121subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛21subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛21K=\left[b_{1}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}-1,b_{1}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}+1\right]\times\cdots% \times\left[b_{n}+\frac{a_{n}}{2}-1,b_{n}+\frac{a_{n}}{2}+1\right].italic_K = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - 1 , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG + 1 ] × ⋯ × [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - 1 , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG + 1 ] .

Then K𝐾Kitalic_K is a subrectangle of R𝑅Ritalic_R of size 2××2222\times\cdots\times 22 × ⋯ × 2, and we call K𝐾Kitalic_K the core of R𝑅Ritalic_R. An edge coloring of C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is said to satisfy the core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R if

  1. (1)

    it is a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges;

  2. (2)

    the color n+1𝑛1n+1italic_n + 1 is only used in coloring some edges of the core of R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Lemma 4.3.

Let k𝑘kitalic_k be a nonnegative integer and let d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2. For any n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R of size d××d𝑑𝑑d\times\cdots\times ditalic_d × ⋯ × italic_d, there is a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring satisfying both the boundary condition and the core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Proof.

If k=0𝑘0k=0italic_k = 0, the core of R𝑅Ritalic_R is the same as R𝑅Ritalic_R and the lemma follows immediately from Lemma 4.1. For the rest of the proof we assume k>0𝑘0k>0italic_k > 0. Again we only define an edge coloring for edges either in R𝑅Ritalic_R or adjacent to R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Our edge coloring will be defined in n+1𝑛1n+1italic_n + 1 many stages. Let R0=Rsubscript𝑅0𝑅R_{0}=Ritalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R. In stage 1111, we first decompose R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into three parts P1,Q1,R1subscript𝑃1subscript𝑄1subscript𝑅1P_{1},Q_{1},R_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as follows. The vertices in P1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have their coordinates in R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from the set

[0,2k1]×[0,d]××[0,d];02𝑘10𝑑0𝑑[0,2k-1]\times[0,d]\times\cdots\times[0,d];[ 0 , 2 italic_k - 1 ] × [ 0 , italic_d ] × ⋯ × [ 0 , italic_d ] ;

the vertices in R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have their coordinates in R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from the set

[2k,2k+2]×[0,d]××[0,d];2𝑘2𝑘20𝑑0𝑑[2k,2k+2]\times[0,d]\times\cdots\times[0,d];[ 2 italic_k , 2 italic_k + 2 ] × [ 0 , italic_d ] × ⋯ × [ 0 , italic_d ] ;

the vertices in Q1subscript𝑄1Q_{1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have their coordinates in R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from the set

[2k+3,d]×[0,d]××[0,d].2𝑘3𝑑0𝑑0𝑑[2k+3,d]\times[0,d]\times\cdots\times[0,d].[ 2 italic_k + 3 , italic_d ] × [ 0 , italic_d ] × ⋯ × [ 0 , italic_d ] .

Figure 3 is an illustration of the construction at this stage.

\Big{\uparrow}e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT(2k1)×d××d2𝑘1𝑑𝑑(2k-1)\times d\times\cdots\times d( 2 italic_k - 1 ) × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_dedge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloring(2k1)×d××d2𝑘1𝑑𝑑(2k-1)\times d\times\cdots\times d( 2 italic_k - 1 ) × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_dedge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloringc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTc1subscript𝑐1c_{1}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT2×d××d2𝑑𝑑2\times d\times\cdots\times d2 × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_dR1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTP1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTQ1subscript𝑄1Q_{1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Figure 3. The first stage of the definition of an edge coloring.

Now each of P1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Q1subscript𝑄1Q_{1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a subrectangle of R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of size (2k1)×d××d2𝑘1𝑑𝑑(2k-1)\times d\times\cdots\times d( 2 italic_k - 1 ) × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_d, and R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a subrectangle of R0subscript𝑅0R_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of size 2×d××d2𝑑𝑑2\times d\times\cdots\times d2 × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_d. Since 2k12𝑘12k-12 italic_k - 1 is odd, we can apply Lemma 4.2 to obtain a proper edge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloring for P1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and for Q1subscript𝑄1Q_{1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying their boundary conditions. This is the end of stage 1. Note that the colors used so far are among c1,,cn,1,,nsubscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛1𝑛c_{1},\dots,c_{n},1,\dots,nitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n, and the remaining uncolored edges are those of R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

In stage 2, we repeat this construction by first decomposing R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into P2,Q2,R2subscript𝑃2subscript𝑄2subscript𝑅2P_{2},Q_{2},R_{2}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT according to the second coordinate of the vertices in R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and then properly edge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloring the edges either in P2subscript𝑃2P_{2}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or Q2subscript𝑄2Q_{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or adjacent to either of them. At the end of this stage, the remaining uncolored edges are those of R2subscript𝑅2R_{2}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the colors used so far are still among c1,,cn,1,,nsubscript𝑐1subscript𝑐𝑛1𝑛c_{1},\dots,c_{n},1,\dots,nitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 , … , italic_n.

Repeating this construction n𝑛nitalic_n times according to each of the i𝑖iitalic_i-th coordinates, we obtain at the end of stage n𝑛nitalic_n a subrectangle Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of size 2××2222\times\cdots\times 22 × ⋯ × 2. All those edges adjacent to Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have been colored to satisfy the boundary condition for Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Applying Lemma 4.1, we get a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which satisfies the boundary condition for Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This resulting edge coloring is proper and obviously satisfies the core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R. ∎

Next we prove a generalization of Lemma 4.3 in which the core condition is replaced by a shifted core condition, as follows. Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle of size a1××ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots\times a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a postive even number for each 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n. Suppose

R=[b1,b1+a1]××[bn,bn+an]𝑅subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑏𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛R=[b_{1},b_{1}+a_{1}]\times\cdots\times[b_{n},b_{n}+a_{n}]italic_R = [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] × ⋯ × [ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]

for (b1,,bn)nsubscript𝑏1subscript𝑏𝑛superscript𝑛(b_{1},\dots,b_{n})\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let K𝐾Kitalic_K be the core of R𝑅Ritalic_R. For t=(t1,,tn)n𝑡subscript𝑡1subscript𝑡𝑛superscript𝑛t=(t_{1},\dots,t_{n})\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}italic_t = ( italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where

ai2+1tiai21subscript𝑎𝑖21subscript𝑡𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖21-\frac{a_{i}}{2}+1\leq t_{i}\leq\frac{a_{i}}{2}-1- divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG + 1 ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - 1

for each 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n, let

K+t={(x1+t1,,xn+tn):(x1,,xn)K}.𝐾𝑡conditional-setsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑡1subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑡𝑛subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑛𝐾K+t=\{(x_{1}+t_{1},\dots,x_{n}+t_{n})\colon(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})\in K\}.italic_K + italic_t = { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_K } .

Then K+t𝐾𝑡K+titalic_K + italic_t is a subrectangle of R𝑅Ritalic_R of size 2××2222\times\cdots\times 22 × ⋯ × 2. We call K+t𝐾𝑡K+titalic_K + italic_t the t𝑡titalic_t-shifted core of R𝑅Ritalic_R. An edge coloring of C(n)𝐶superscript𝑛C(\mathbb{Z}^{n})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is said to satisfy the t𝑡titalic_t-shifted core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R if

  1. (1)

    it is a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges;

  2. (2)

    the color n+1𝑛1n+1italic_n + 1 is only used in coloring some edges of the t𝑡titalic_t-shifted core of R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Lemma 4.4.

Let k𝑘kitalic_k be a non-negative integer and let d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2. For any n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R of size d××d𝑑𝑑d\times\cdots\times ditalic_d × ⋯ × italic_d and for any t=(t1,,tn)[2k+2,2k2]n𝑡subscript𝑡1subscript𝑡𝑛superscript2𝑘22𝑘2𝑛t=(t_{1},\dots,t_{n})\in[-2k+2,2k-2]^{n}italic_t = ( italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ [ - 2 italic_k + 2 , 2 italic_k - 2 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where tisubscript𝑡𝑖t_{i}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an even number for each 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n, there is a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring satisfying both the boundary condition and the t𝑡titalic_t-shifted core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Proof.

The proof is identical to that of Lemma 4.3, except that at each stage of the construction Pisubscript𝑃𝑖P_{i}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will have size 2××2×(2k1+ti)×d××d222𝑘1subscript𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑑2\times\cdots\times 2\times(2k-1+t_{i})\times d\times\cdots\times d2 × ⋯ × 2 × ( 2 italic_k - 1 + italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_d and Qisubscript𝑄𝑖Q_{i}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will have size 2××2×(2k1ti)×d××d222𝑘1subscript𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑑2\times\cdots\times 2\times(2k-1-t_{i})\times d\times\cdots\times d2 × ⋯ × 2 × ( 2 italic_k - 1 - italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × italic_d × ⋯ × italic_d. Since 2k1+ti2𝑘1subscript𝑡𝑖2k-1+t_{i}2 italic_k - 1 + italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 2k1ti2𝑘1subscript𝑡𝑖2k-1-t_{i}2 italic_k - 1 - italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are both odd, Lemma 4.2 can be applied to complete the proof. ∎

In our proof of the main theorem below, we view an application of Lemma 4.4 as a two-step process. In the first step, we apply Lemma 4.3 to obtain a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of R𝑅Ritalic_R satisfying the core condition. Then, in the second step, we may shift the core to any other position within R𝑅Ritalic_R as long as each coordinate of the shift vector used is even. This is not quite what happens in the proof of Lemma 4.4, but it is a useful point of view to describe the algorithm in the proof of our main theorem.

4.2. Continuous proper edge colorings

In this final subsection we prove the main theorem of the paper. We will use the following lemmas from [7].

Lemma 4.5.

(Basic clopen marker lemma [7, Lemma 2.1]) Let ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ be the path distance on the Schreier graph F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then for any positive integer d𝑑ditalic_d, there is a relatively clopen set MdF(2n)subscript𝑀𝑑𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛M_{d}\subseteq F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

  1. (1)

    if x,yMd𝑥𝑦subscript𝑀𝑑x,y\in M_{d}italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are distinct then ρ(x,y)>d𝜌𝑥𝑦𝑑\rho(x,y)>ditalic_ρ ( italic_x , italic_y ) > italic_d;

  2. (2)

    for any xF(2n)𝑥𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛x\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_x ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) there is yMd𝑦subscript𝑀𝑑y\in M_{d}italic_y ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that ρ(x,y)d𝜌𝑥𝑦𝑑\rho(x,y)\leq ditalic_ρ ( italic_x , italic_y ) ≤ italic_d.

The integer d𝑑ditalic_d in the above lemma is usually called the marker distance, the set Mdsubscript𝑀𝑑M_{d}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called a marker set, and its elements are called marker points. The careful reader might note that the path distance ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ we use in this paper is the subscript\ell_{\infty}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT distance on nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, while in [7] the distance ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ was the 1subscript1\ell_{1}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT distance. Since the proof for Lemma 4.5 only depends on the finiteness of the balls in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under these distances, the lemma continues to hold for the path distance we use here. However, note that the balls under the subscript\ell_{\infty}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT distance are n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangles, and hence are more convenient to use in our discussions below.

Lemma 4.6.

(Marker regions lemma [7, Theorem 3.1]) Let d>0𝑑0d>0italic_d > 0 be an integer. Then there is a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that each of the Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes is of the form Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x, where R𝑅Ritalic_R is an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1. Here Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is relatively clopen means that {(x,g)F(2n)×n:(x,gx)Rdn}conditional-set𝑥𝑔𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝑛𝑥𝑔𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑\left\{(x,g)\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\times\mathbb{Z}^{n}\colon(x,g\cdot x)\in R% ^{n}_{d}\right\}{ ( italic_x , italic_g ) ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) × blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ( italic_x , italic_g ⋅ italic_x ) ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is a clopen subset of F(2n)×n𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})\times\mathbb{Z}^{n}italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) × blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes in the above lemma are called marker regions.

All the terminology we defined in the preceding subsection about an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be similarly defined for a marker region of the form Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x for xF(2n)𝑥𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛x\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_x ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Thus we may refer to a marker region as an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle in the Schreier graph F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). In particular, for a continuous edge coloring of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), we may consider whether it satisfies the boundary condition and the (shifted) core condition for a marker region, and when we write the marker region as Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x, the boundary condition and the (shifted) core condition are independent from the choice of R𝑅Ritalic_R and x𝑥xitalic_x. Note that the (shifted) core condition is only valid when the side lengths of the marker region are even.

Proposition 4.7.

Let k𝑘kitalic_k be a non-negative integer and let d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2. Then there is a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a continuous proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

  1. (i)

    each of the Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes is of the form Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x, where R𝑅Ritalic_R is an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1;

  2. (ii)

    the edge coloring satisfies both the boundary condition and the core condition for each of the Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes.

Proof.

We apply Lemma 4.6 to obtain a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) so that each of the Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes is of the form Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x, where R𝑅Ritalic_R is an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1. Consider a fixed such R𝑅Ritalic_R and assume it is of size a1×ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1}\times\cdots a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where ai{d,d+1}subscript𝑎𝑖𝑑𝑑1a_{i}\in\{d,d+1\}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ { italic_d , italic_d + 1 } for each 1in1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_n. If any aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1, we obtain and fix a proper edge 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-coloring fRsubscript𝑓𝑅f_{R}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying the boundary condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R by Lemma 4.2. Otherwise, R𝑅Ritalic_R is of size d××d𝑑𝑑d\times\cdots\times ditalic_d × ⋯ × italic_d, and we obtain and fix a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring fRsubscript𝑓𝑅f_{R}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying both the boundary condition and the core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R by Lemma 4.3. Note that fRsubscript𝑓𝑅f_{R}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT only depends on the sizes of R𝑅Ritalic_R.

Now we define a proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring c𝑐citalic_c of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as follows. For a standard generator s=±ei𝑠plus-or-minussubscript𝑒𝑖s=\pm e_{i}italic_s = ± italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and xF(2n)𝑥𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛x\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_x ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), let

c(x,sx)={fR(0¯,s), if (x,sx)RdnR is an n-dimensional rectangle, and Rx is the Rdn-class containing x;ci, if (x,sx)Rdn.𝑐𝑥𝑠𝑥casessubscript𝑓𝑅¯0𝑠 if (x,sx)RdnR is an n-dimensional rectangle,missing-subexpression and Rx is the Rdn-class containing x;subscript𝑐𝑖 if (x,sx)Rdn.c(x,s\cdot x)=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}f_{R}(\overline{0},s),&\mbox{ if $(x,s% \cdot x)\in R^{n}_{d}$, $R$ is an $n$-dimensional rectangle,}\\ &\mbox{ and $R\cdot x$ is the $R^{n}_{d}$-class containing $x$;}\\ c_{i},&\mbox{ if $(x,s\cdot x)\not\in R^{n}_{d}$.}\end{array}\right.italic_c ( italic_x , italic_s ⋅ italic_x ) = { start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG , italic_s ) , end_CELL start_CELL if ( italic_x , italic_s ⋅ italic_x ) ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R is an italic_n -dimensional rectangle, end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL and italic_R ⋅ italic_x is the italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -class containing italic_x ; end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL if ( italic_x , italic_s ⋅ italic_x ) ∉ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY

Then c𝑐citalic_c is proper because each fRsubscript𝑓𝑅f_{R}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies the boundary condition, and c𝑐citalic_c is continuous because for an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional rectangle R𝑅Ritalic_R, Rx𝑅𝑥R\cdot xitalic_R ⋅ italic_x is the Rdnsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑛𝑑R^{n}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-class containing x𝑥xitalic_x if and only if 0¯R¯0𝑅\overline{0}\in Rover¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG ∈ italic_R. ∎

In particular we obtain a continuous proper edge (2n+1)2𝑛1(2n+1)( 2 italic_n + 1 )-coloring of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). This generalizes [8, Theorem 3.1.4] and answers [6, Question 10.3] for n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3, which was also stated implicitly in [8] (see the remark after [8, Question 3.1.5]).

Corollary 4.8.

For any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1, χc(F(2n))=2n+1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛2𝑛1\chi^{\prime}_{c}(F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))=2n+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 2 italic_n + 1.

Next, we generalize Corollary 4.8 to the case of arbitrary generating sets. Again we assume tacitly that our generating sets are symmetric and do not contain the identity. Let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a subgroup of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a generating set of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ, i.e., Λ=SΛdelimited-⟨⟩𝑆\Lambda=\langle S\rangleroman_Λ = ⟨ italic_S ⟩. We say that S𝑆Sitalic_S is linearly semi-independent if for any sS𝑠𝑆s\in Sitalic_s ∈ italic_S, sS{s,s}={0¯}delimited-⟨⟩𝑠delimited-⟨⟩𝑆𝑠𝑠¯0\langle s\rangle\cap\langle S\setminus\{s,-s\}\rangle=\{\bar{0}\}⟨ italic_s ⟩ ∩ ⟨ italic_S ∖ { italic_s , - italic_s } ⟩ = { over¯ start_ARG 0 end_ARG }. If S=2m𝑆2𝑚S=2mitalic_S = 2 italic_m where mn𝑚𝑛m\leq nitalic_m ≤ italic_n and S𝑆Sitalic_S is linearly semi-independent, the Cayley graph C(Λ,S)𝐶Λ𝑆C(\Lambda,S)italic_C ( roman_Λ , italic_S ) is isomorphic to the Cayley graph C(m)𝐶superscript𝑚C(\mathbb{Z}^{m})italic_C ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with the standard generating set. We have the following generalizations of Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6.

Lemma 4.9.

Let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a subgroup of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a generating set of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ. Assume S𝑆Sitalic_S is linearly semi-independent. Let ΛF(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be the restriction of the Bernoulli shift action nF(2n)superscript𝑛𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) on Λ×F(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\times F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ × italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let ρSsubscript𝜌𝑆\rho_{S}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the path distance on the Schreier graph G(Λ,S,F(2n))𝐺Λ𝑆𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛G(\Lambda,S,F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_G ( roman_Λ , italic_S , italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Then for any positive integer d𝑑ditalic_d, there is a relatively clopen set MdF(2n)subscript𝑀𝑑𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛M_{d}\subseteq F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

  1. (1)

    if x,yMd𝑥𝑦subscript𝑀𝑑x,y\in M_{d}italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are distinct then ρS(x,y)>dsubscript𝜌𝑆𝑥𝑦𝑑\rho_{S}(x,y)>ditalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) > italic_d;

  2. (2)

    for any xF(2n)𝑥𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛x\in F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_x ∈ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) there is yMd𝑦subscript𝑀𝑑y\in M_{d}italic_y ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that ρS(x,y)dsubscript𝜌𝑆𝑥𝑦𝑑\rho_{S}(x,y)\leq ditalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ≤ italic_d.

Lemma 4.10.

Let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a subgroup of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a generating set of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ. Assume S𝑆Sitalic_S is linearly semi-independent. Let ΛF(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be the restriction of the Bernoulli shift action nF(2n)superscript𝑛𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) on Λ×F(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\times F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ × italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let d>0𝑑0d>0italic_d > 0 be an integer. Assume |S|=2m𝑆2𝑚|S|=2m| italic_S | = 2 italic_m where mn𝑚𝑛m\leq nitalic_m ≤ italic_n. Then there is a relatively clopen subequivalence relation RdSsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑆𝑑R^{S}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that each of the RdSsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑆𝑑R^{S}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes is an m𝑚mitalic_m-dimensional rectangle in the Schreier graph G(Λ,S,F(2n))𝐺Λ𝑆𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛G(\Lambda,S,F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_G ( roman_Λ , italic_S , italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1.

The proofs of these lemmas are identical to those of Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6. In fact, all of our discussions about the standard generating set so far in this paper apply to these more general linearly semi-independent generating sets. In particular we have the following generalization of Proposition 4.7 with the same proof.

Proposition 4.11.

Let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a subgroup of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a generating set of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ. Assume S𝑆Sitalic_S is linearly semi-independent. Let ΛF(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be the restriction of the Bernoulli shift action nF(2n)superscript𝑛𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}\curvearrowright F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↷ italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) on Λ×F(2n)Λ𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛\Lambda\times F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})roman_Λ × italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let k𝑘kitalic_k be a non-negative integer and let d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2. Assume |S|=2m𝑆2𝑚|S|=2m| italic_S | = 2 italic_m where mn𝑚𝑛m\leq nitalic_m ≤ italic_n. Then there is a relatively clopen subequivalence relation RdSsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑆𝑑R^{S}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a continuous proper edge (2m+1)2𝑚1(2m+1)( 2 italic_m + 1 )-coloring of G(Λ,S,F(2n))𝐺Λ𝑆𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛G(\Lambda,S,F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_G ( roman_Λ , italic_S , italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) such that

  1. (i)

    each of the RdSsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑆𝑑R^{S}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes is an m𝑚mitalic_m-dimensional rectangle with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1;

  2. (ii)

    the edge coloring satisfies both the boundary condition and the core condition for each of the RdSsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑆𝑑R^{S}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-equivalence classes.

We are now ready for the main theorem of this paper.

Theorem 4.12.

For any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1 and any generating set S𝑆Sitalic_S of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{Z}^{n}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, let G=F(S,2n)𝐺𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛G=F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_G = italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then χc(G)=χ(G)+1=|S|+1subscriptsuperscript𝜒𝑐𝐺superscript𝜒𝐺1𝑆1\chi^{\prime}_{c}(G)=\chi^{\prime}(G)+1=|S|+1italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ) + 1 = | italic_S | + 1.

Proof.

It is easy to see that χ(G)=|S|superscript𝜒𝐺𝑆\chi^{\prime}(G)=|S|italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_G ) = | italic_S |. The lower bound has been established by Corollary 3.3. We only need to construct a continuous proper edge (|S|+1)𝑆1(|S|+1)( | italic_S | + 1 )-coloring of F(S,2n)𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Inductively define Sisubscript𝑆𝑖S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT so that

  1. (i)

    S0subscript𝑆0S_{0}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a maximal linearly semi-independent subset of S𝑆Sitalic_S.

  2. (ii)

    If Si1subscript𝑆𝑖1S_{i-1}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined for i1𝑖1i\geq 1italic_i ≥ 1, let Sisubscript𝑆𝑖S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a maximal linearly semi-independent subset of Sj=0i1Sj𝑆superscriptsubscript𝑗0𝑖1subscript𝑆𝑗S\setminus\bigcup_{j=0}^{i-1}S_{j}italic_S ∖ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Then there is some m0𝑚0m\geq 0italic_m ≥ 0 such that S=i=0mSi𝑆superscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑚subscript𝑆𝑖S=\bigcup_{i=0}^{m}S_{i}italic_S = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where each Sisubscript𝑆𝑖S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is symmetric, and in particular |S0|=2nsubscript𝑆02𝑛|S_{0}|=2n| italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 2 italic_n. Assume for 1im1𝑖𝑚1\leq i\leq m1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m, |Si|=2nisubscript𝑆𝑖2subscript𝑛𝑖|S_{i}|=2n_{i}| italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By the maximal linear semi-independence, for each 1im1𝑖𝑚1\leq i\leq m1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m, let ki>0subscript𝑘𝑖0k_{i}>0italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 be the smallest natural number such that the scalar multiplication kiSisubscript𝑘𝑖delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑖k_{i}\langle S_{i}\rangleitalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ is contained in Si1delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑖1\langle S_{i-1}\rangle⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩.

Let α=3nm𝛼superscript3𝑛𝑚\alpha=3^{n}mitalic_α = 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m and β=23i=1mki𝛽23superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑘𝑖\beta=2\cdot 3\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{m}k_{i}italic_β = 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Fix an arbitrary non-identity s=(s1,,sn)Sm𝑠subscript𝑠1subscript𝑠𝑛subscript𝑆𝑚s=(s_{1},\dots,s_{n})\in S_{m}italic_s = ( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let |s|=k=1n|sk|𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑛subscript𝑠𝑘|s|=\sum_{k=1}^{n}|s_{k}|| italic_s | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |. For each 1im1𝑖𝑚1\leq i\leq m1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m, since β𝛽\betaitalic_β is a multiple of j=i+1mkjsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑘𝑗\prod_{j=i+1}^{m}k_{j}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we have βsj=imSj𝛽𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖𝑚delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑗\beta s\in\bigcap_{j=i}^{m}\langle S_{j}\rangleitalic_β italic_s ∈ ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩; in particular βsSi𝛽𝑠delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑖\beta s\in\langle S_{i}\rangleitalic_β italic_s ∈ ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩. Thus there exist ai,1,,ai,nisubscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑛𝑖a_{i,1},\dots,a_{i,n_{i}}\in\mathbb{Z}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z such that βs=ai,1ei,1++ai,niei,ni𝛽𝑠subscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝑒𝑖1subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑛𝑖\beta s=a_{i,1}e_{i,1}+\cdots+a_{i,n_{i}}e_{i,n_{i}}italic_β italic_s = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where Si={±ei,1,,±ei,ni}subscript𝑆𝑖plus-or-minussubscript𝑒𝑖1plus-or-minussubscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑛𝑖S_{i}=\{\pm e_{i,1},\dots,\pm e_{i,n_{i}}\}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ± italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , ± italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Let γ=sup{|ai,j|:1im,1jni}\gamma=\sup\{|a_{i,j}|\colon 1\leq i\leq m,1\leq j\leq n_{i}\}italic_γ = roman_sup { | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | : 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m , 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Let d=42(γ+1)(α+1)(β+1)|s|+2𝑑42𝛾1𝛼1𝛽1𝑠2d=4\cdot 2(\gamma+1)(\alpha+1)(\beta+1)|s|+2italic_d = 4 ⋅ 2 ( italic_γ + 1 ) ( italic_α + 1 ) ( italic_β + 1 ) | italic_s | + 2.

Consider the Schreier graph Gi=G(Si,Si,F(2n))subscript𝐺𝑖𝐺delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑖subscript𝑆𝑖𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛G_{i}=G(\langle S_{i}\rangle,S_{i},F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}}))italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_G ( ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Let ρi=ρSisubscript𝜌𝑖subscript𝜌subscript𝑆𝑖\rho_{i}=\rho_{S_{i}}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the path distance on Gisubscript𝐺𝑖G_{i}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We have E(G)=i=0mE(Gi)𝐸𝐺superscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑚𝐸subscript𝐺𝑖E(G)=\bigcup_{i=0}^{m}E(G_{i})italic_E ( italic_G ) = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E ( italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). For each 0im0𝑖𝑚0\leq i\leq m0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m, let Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the Schreier graph on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) where E(Hi)=j=imE(Gj)𝐸subscript𝐻𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖𝑚𝐸subscript𝐺𝑗E(H_{i})=\bigcup_{j=i}^{m}E(G_{j})italic_E ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E ( italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), and let Cisubscript𝐶𝑖C_{i}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a set of 2ni2subscript𝑛𝑖2n_{i}2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT many fresh colors, i.e., for ij𝑖𝑗i\neq jitalic_i ≠ italic_j, CiCj=subscript𝐶𝑖subscript𝐶𝑗C_{i}\cap C_{j}=\varnothingitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅. Note that Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is generated by the actions of j=imSjsuperscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖𝑚subscript𝑆𝑗\bigcup_{j=i}^{m}S_{j}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Assume 00 is a color distinct from any color in i=0mCisuperscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑚subscript𝐶𝑖\bigcup_{i=0}^{m}C_{i}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let Ni=1+j=im2njsubscript𝑁𝑖1superscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖𝑚2subscript𝑛𝑗N_{i}=1+\sum_{j=i}^{m}2n_{j}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To define a continuous edge (|S|+1)𝑆1(|S|+1)( | italic_S | + 1 )-coloring on G𝐺Gitalic_G, we use reverse induction on i=m,,0𝑖𝑚0i=m,\dots,0italic_i = italic_m , … , 0 to define a continuous edge Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the colors in {0}j=imCj0superscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖𝑚subscript𝐶𝑗\{0\}\cup\bigcup_{j=i}^{m}C_{j}{ 0 } ∪ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. When i=0𝑖0i=0italic_i = 0 the resulting edge coloring is as required.

When i=m𝑖𝑚i=mitalic_i = italic_m we apply Proposition 4.11 to Smsubscript𝑆𝑚S_{m}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to obtain a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdm=RdSmsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚𝑑subscriptsuperscript𝑅subscript𝑆𝑚𝑑R^{m}_{d}=R^{S_{m}}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a continuous proper edge Nmsubscript𝑁𝑚N_{m}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hm=Gmsubscript𝐻𝑚subscript𝐺𝑚H_{m}=G_{m}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let κmsubscript𝜅𝑚\kappa_{m}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote this coloring. Then κmsubscript𝜅𝑚\kappa_{m}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT uses colors in {0}Cm0subscript𝐶𝑚\{0\}\cup C_{m}{ 0 } ∪ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each Rdmsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚𝑑R^{m}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region, which is an nmsubscript𝑛𝑚n_{m}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-dimensional rectangle with side lengths either d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1, κmsubscript𝜅𝑚\kappa_{m}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies both the boundary condition and the core condition. In particular, the boundary condition guarantees that κmsubscript𝜅𝑚\kappa_{m}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a proper edge coloring of Gmsubscript𝐺𝑚G_{m}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Here the core condition means that the color 00 is only used in coloring some edges of the cores of Rdmsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚𝑑R^{m}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions. Let Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the union of all cores of the Rdmsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚𝑑R^{m}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions. Then Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a clopen subset of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

For the clarity of our proof, consider i=m1𝑖𝑚1i=m-1italic_i = italic_m - 1 next. Now we apply Proposition 4.11 to Sm1subscript𝑆𝑚1S_{m-1}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to obtain a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdm1=RdSm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑subscriptsuperscript𝑅subscript𝑆𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}=R^{S_{m-1}}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a continuous proper edge (2nm1+1)2subscript𝑛𝑚11(2n_{m-1}+1)( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 )-coloring of Gm1subscript𝐺𝑚1G_{m-1}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let ηm1subscript𝜂𝑚1\eta_{m-1}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote this coloring. Then ηm1subscript𝜂𝑚1\eta_{m-1}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT uses colors in {0}Cm10subscript𝐶𝑚1\{0\}\cup C_{m-1}{ 0 } ∪ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region, which is an nm1subscript𝑛𝑚1n_{m-1}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-dimensional rectangle with side lengths d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1, ηm1subscript𝜂𝑚1\eta_{m-1}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies both the boundary condition and the core condition. Here again the core condition means that the color 00 is only used in coloring some edges of the cores of Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions. Let Qm1subscript𝑄𝑚1Q_{m-1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the union of all cores of the Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions. Then Qm1subscript𝑄𝑚1Q_{m-1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a clopen subset of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Consider a particular Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region R𝑅Ritalic_R and its core K𝐾Kitalic_K. We claim that one of the following α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many sets

K,βsK, 2βsK,,αβsK𝐾𝛽𝑠𝐾2𝛽𝑠𝐾𝛼𝛽𝑠𝐾K,\ \beta s\cdot K,\ 2\beta s\cdot K,\ \dots,\ \alpha\beta s\cdot Kitalic_K , italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K , 2 italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K , … , italic_α italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K

has empty intersection with Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To see this, note that β𝛽\betaitalic_β is a multiple of kmsubscript𝑘𝑚k_{m}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and hence βsSm1𝛽𝑠delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑚1\beta s\in\langle S_{m-1}\rangleitalic_β italic_s ∈ ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩. Since K𝐾Kitalic_K is an nm1subscript𝑛𝑚1n_{m-1}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-dimensional rectangle in Gm1subscript𝐺𝑚1G_{m-1}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with side lengths 2222, β𝛽\betaitalic_β is a multiple of 3333 and β3sSm1𝛽3𝑠delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑚1\frac{\beta}{3}s\in\langle S_{m-1}\rangledivide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_s ∈ ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩, we have that the above α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many sets are pairwise disjoint. Since d>4(α+1)γβ|s|𝑑4𝛼1𝛾𝛽𝑠d>4(\alpha+1)\gamma\beta|s|italic_d > 4 ( italic_α + 1 ) italic_γ italic_β | italic_s |, all of the above α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many sets are still contained in R𝑅Ritalic_R. On the other hand, for each point xK𝑥𝐾x\in Kitalic_x ∈ italic_K, consider

x,βsx, 2βsx,,αβsx.𝑥𝛽𝑠𝑥2𝛽𝑠𝑥𝛼𝛽𝑠𝑥x,\ \beta s\cdot x,\ 2\beta s\cdot x,\ \dots,\ \alpha\beta s\cdot x.italic_x , italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x , 2 italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x , … , italic_α italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x .

If any of these α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many points is in Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, say in the core of a particular Rdmsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚𝑑R^{m}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region Rsuperscript𝑅R^{\prime}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then all of the displayed α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many points are still in Rsuperscript𝑅R^{\prime}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and none of the other α𝛼\alphaitalic_α many points are in Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT anymore. This means that at most one of the displayed α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many points can be in Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For every xK𝑥𝐾x\in Kitalic_x ∈ italic_K, let Ix={iβsx:iα}subscript𝐼𝑥conditional-set𝑖𝛽𝑠𝑥𝑖𝛼I_{x}=\{i\beta s\cdot x\colon i\leq\alpha\}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_i italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x : italic_i ≤ italic_α }. Now, since |K|=3nm13nα𝐾superscript3subscript𝑛𝑚1superscript3𝑛𝛼|K|=3^{n_{m-1}}\leq 3^{n}\leq\alpha| italic_K | = 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_α, we have that if all these α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many shifts of K𝐾Kitalic_K intersect Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as iαiβsK=xKIxsubscriptsquare-union𝑖𝛼𝑖𝛽𝑠𝐾subscriptsquare-union𝑥𝐾subscript𝐼𝑥\bigsqcup_{i\leq\alpha}i\beta s\cdot K=\bigsqcup_{x\in K}I_{x}⨆ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≤ italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K = ⨆ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, at leat one Ixsubscript𝐼𝑥I_{x}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT would contain two points in Kmsubscript𝐾𝑚K_{m}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a contradiction.

Now we define the coloring κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is an extension of κmsubscript𝜅𝑚\kappa_{m}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region R𝑅Ritalic_R and its core KQm1𝐾subscript𝑄𝑚1K\subseteq Q_{m-1}italic_K ⊆ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we find the least integer a𝑎aitalic_a such that 0aα0𝑎𝛼0\leq a\leq\alpha0 ≤ italic_a ≤ italic_α and aβsKKm=𝑎𝛽𝑠𝐾subscript𝐾𝑚a\beta s\cdot K\cap K_{m}=\varnothingitalic_a italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K ∩ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅. If R𝑅Ritalic_R has an side of length d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1 then we let κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges to be ηm1subscript𝜂𝑚1\eta_{m-1}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges. Note that only colors in Cm1subscript𝐶𝑚1C_{m-1}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are used in ηm1subscript𝜂𝑚1\eta_{m-1}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Otherwise, apply Lemma 4.4 to obtain a proper edge (2nm1+1)2subscript𝑛𝑚11(2n_{m-1}+1)( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 )-coloring κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on R𝑅Ritalic_R satisfying both the boundary condition and the aβs𝑎𝛽𝑠a\beta sitalic_a italic_β italic_s-shifted core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R. Again the shifted core condition means that the color 00 is only used in coloring some edges of aβsK𝑎𝛽𝑠𝐾a\beta s\cdot Kitalic_a italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K. This is possible since d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2 for some k𝑘kitalic_k, aβ𝑎𝛽a\betaitalic_a italic_β is even and aβ2sSm1𝑎𝛽2𝑠delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑚1\frac{a\beta}{2}s\in\langle S_{m-1}\rangledivide start_ARG italic_a italic_β end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s ∈ ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩. The shifted core condition guarantees that no adjacent edges are both colored 00 in the resulting κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Furthermore, no adjacent edges are colored the same color in κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since Cm1Cm=subscript𝐶𝑚1subscript𝐶𝑚C_{m-1}\cap C_{m}=\varnothingitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅. Together with this observation, the boundary condition in the definition guarantees that κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a proper edge Nm1subscript𝑁𝑚1N_{m-1}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hm1subscript𝐻𝑚1H_{m-1}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It is clear from the definition that κm1subscript𝜅𝑚1\kappa_{m-1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is continuous. This finishes the definition of κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a continuous proper edge Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i=m1𝑖𝑚1i=m-1italic_i = italic_m - 1. To set up the general induction, we let Km1subscript𝐾𝑚1K_{m-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the union of all shifted cores of the Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions as defined above. More specifically,

Km1={aβsK:K is a core of some Rdm1-marker region and 0aα is the least such that aβsKKm=}.\begin{array}[]{rl}K_{m-1}=\bigcup\{a\beta s\cdot K\colon\!\!\!\!&\mbox{$K$ is% a core of some $R^{m-1}_{d}$-marker region}\\ &\mbox{ and $0\leq a\leq\alpha$ is the least such that $a\beta s\cdot K\cap K_% {m}=\varnothing$}\}.\end{array}start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⋃ { italic_a italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K : end_CELL start_CELL italic_K is a core of some italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -marker region end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL and 0 ≤ italic_a ≤ italic_α is the least such that italic_a italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K ∩ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ } . end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY

Then Km1subscript𝐾𝑚1K_{m-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is still a clopen subset of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Note that the original cores in Qm1subscript𝑄𝑚1Q_{m-1}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be shifted to at most γαβ|s|𝛾𝛼𝛽𝑠\gamma\alpha\beta|s|italic_γ italic_α italic_β | italic_s | away to form Km1subscript𝐾𝑚1K_{m-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; however, since d>42γαβ|s|𝑑42𝛾𝛼𝛽𝑠d>4\cdot 2\gamma\alpha\beta|s|italic_d > 4 ⋅ 2 italic_γ italic_α italic_β | italic_s |, each shifted core in Km1subscript𝐾𝑚1K_{m-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is still at least γαβ|s|𝛾𝛼𝛽𝑠\gamma\alpha\beta|s|italic_γ italic_α italic_β | italic_s | away from the boundaries of the Rdm1subscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑚1𝑑R^{m-1}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions.

For the general i<m1𝑖𝑚1i<m-1italic_i < italic_m - 1, assume inductively that we have defined a continuous proper edge Ni+1subscript𝑁𝑖1N_{i+1}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring κi+1subscript𝜅𝑖1\kappa_{i+1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Hi+1subscript𝐻𝑖1H_{i+1}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Also assume that for all i+1jm𝑖1𝑗𝑚i+1\leq j\leq mitalic_i + 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_m we have defined relatively clopen subequivalence relations Rdjsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑗𝑑R^{j}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and relatively clopen sets Kjsubscript𝐾𝑗K_{j}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as shifted cores of Rdjsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑗𝑑R^{j}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions.

Apply Proposition 4.11 to Sisubscript𝑆𝑖S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to obtain a relatively clopen subequivalence relation Rdi=RdSisubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑖𝑑subscriptsuperscript𝑅subscript𝑆𝑖𝑑R^{i}_{d}=R^{S_{i}}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a continuous proper edge (2ni+1)2subscript𝑛𝑖1(2n_{i}+1)( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 )-coloring of Gisubscript𝐺𝑖G_{i}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let ηisubscript𝜂𝑖\eta_{i}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote this coloring. Then ηisubscript𝜂𝑖\eta_{i}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT uses colors in {0}Ci0subscript𝐶𝑖\{0\}\cup C_{i}{ 0 } ∪ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each Rdisubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑖𝑑R^{i}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region, which is an nisubscript𝑛𝑖n_{i}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-dimensional rectangle with side lengths d𝑑ditalic_d or d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1, ηisubscript𝜂𝑖\eta_{i}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies both the boundary condition and the core condition. For a particular Rdisubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑖𝑑R^{i}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region R𝑅Ritalic_R and its core K𝐾Kitalic_K, we claim that at least one of the α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many sets

K,βsK, 2βsK,,αβsK𝐾𝛽𝑠𝐾2𝛽𝑠𝐾𝛼𝛽𝑠𝐾K,\ \beta s\cdot K,\ 2\beta s\cdot K,\ \dots,\ \alpha\beta s\cdot Kitalic_K , italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K , 2 italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K , … , italic_α italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K

has empty intersection with j=i+1mKjsuperscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝐾𝑗\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m}K_{j}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The argument for this claim is similar to the above proof, except that we now use the fact βsSi𝛽𝑠delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑆𝑖\beta s\in\langle S_{i}\rangleitalic_β italic_s ∈ ⟨ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ to see that the above α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many displayed sets are still in R𝑅Ritalic_R. For any xK𝑥𝐾x\in Kitalic_x ∈ italic_K consider the points

x,βsx, 2βsx,,αβsx.𝑥𝛽𝑠𝑥2𝛽𝑠𝑥𝛼𝛽𝑠𝑥x,\ \beta s\cdot x,\ 2\beta s\cdot x,\ \dots,\ \alpha\beta s\cdot x.italic_x , italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x , 2 italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x , … , italic_α italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_x .

For any j𝑗jitalic_j with i+1jm𝑖1𝑗𝑚i+1\leq j\leq mitalic_i + 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_m, if any of these points is in Kjsubscript𝐾𝑗K_{j}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is in some Rdjsubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑗𝑑R^{j}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region Rsuperscript𝑅R^{\prime}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then by induction, the entire sequence is still at least γαβ|s|𝛾𝛼𝛽𝑠\gamma\alpha\beta|s|italic_γ italic_α italic_β | italic_s | away from the boundary of Rsuperscript𝑅R^{\prime}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and therefore still contained in Rsuperscript𝑅R^{\prime}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It follows that at most one of these points can be in Kjsubscript𝐾𝑗K_{j}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and thus at most m𝑚mitalic_m many of these points can be in j=i+1mKjsuperscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝐾𝑗\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m}K_{j}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Now since |K|=3ni3n𝐾superscript3subscript𝑛𝑖superscript3𝑛|K|=3^{n_{i}}\leq 3^{n}| italic_K | = 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, there are at most 3nm=αsuperscript3𝑛𝑚𝛼3^{n}m=\alpha3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m = italic_α many points in the displayed α+1𝛼1\alpha+1italic_α + 1 many shifts of K𝐾Kitalic_K which can be in j=i+1mKjsuperscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝐾𝑗\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m}K_{j}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It follows that there are at most α𝛼\alphaitalic_α many of the displayed sets which can have nonempty intersection with j=i+1mKjsuperscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝐾𝑗\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m}K_{j}⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The claim again follows from the pigeonhole principle.

We define the coloring κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as an extension of κi+1subscript𝜅𝑖1\kappa_{i+1}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each Rdisubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑖𝑑R^{i}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker region R𝑅Ritalic_R and its core K𝐾Kitalic_K, we find the least integer a𝑎aitalic_a such that 0aα0𝑎𝛼0\leq a\leq\alpha0 ≤ italic_a ≤ italic_α and aβsKj=i+1mKj=𝑎𝛽𝑠𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑗𝑖1𝑚subscript𝐾𝑗a\beta s\cdot K\cap\bigcup_{j=i+1}^{m}K_{j}=\varnothingitalic_a italic_β italic_s ⋅ italic_K ∩ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅. If R𝑅Ritalic_R has an side of length d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1 then we let κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on R𝑅Ritalic_R and its adjacent edges to be ηisubscript𝜂𝑖\eta_{i}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Note that in this case only colors in Cisubscript𝐶𝑖C_{i}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are used. Otherwise, apply Lemma 4.4 to obtain a proper edge (2ni+1)2subscript𝑛𝑖1(2n_{i}+1)( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 )-coloring κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on R𝑅Ritalic_R satisfying both the boundary condition and the aβs𝑎𝛽𝑠a\beta sitalic_a italic_β italic_s-shifted core condition for R𝑅Ritalic_R. This is possible since d=4k+2𝑑4𝑘2d=4k+2italic_d = 4 italic_k + 2 for some k𝑘kitalic_k and aβ𝑎𝛽a\betaitalic_a italic_β is even. The shifted core condition guarantees that no adjacent edges are both colored 00 in the resulting κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Furthermore, no adjacent edges are colored the same color in κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since CiCj=subscript𝐶𝑖subscript𝐶𝑗C_{i}\cap C_{j}=\varnothingitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅ for all i+1jm𝑖1𝑗𝑚i+1\leq j\leq mitalic_i + 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_m. Together with this observation, the boundary condition in the definition guarantees that κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a proper edge Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It is clear from the definition that κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is continuous. This finishes the definition of κisubscript𝜅𝑖\kappa_{i}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a continuous proper edge Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of Hisubscript𝐻𝑖H_{i}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To continue the induction, we let Kisubscript𝐾𝑖K_{i}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the set of all shifted cores of the Rdisubscriptsuperscript𝑅𝑖𝑑R^{i}_{d}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-marker regions as defined above. Then Kisubscript𝐾𝑖K_{i}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is still a clopen subset of F(2n)𝐹superscript2superscript𝑛F(2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_F ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

To complete the proof, note that κ0subscript𝜅0\kappa_{0}italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a continuous proper edge N0subscript𝑁0N_{0}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-coloring of H0subscript𝐻0H_{0}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where H0=F(S,2n)subscript𝐻0𝐹𝑆superscript2superscript𝑛H_{0}=F(S,2^{\mathbb{Z}^{n}})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F ( italic_S , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and N0=|S|+1subscript𝑁0𝑆1N_{0}=|S|+1italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = | italic_S | + 1. ∎

References

  • [1] F. Bencs, A. Hrušková, L.M. Tóth, Factor-of-iid Schreier decorations of lattices in Euclidean spaces, Discrete Math. 347 (2024), no. 9, Paper No. 114056, 20 pp.
  • [2] Béla Bollobás, Modern Graph Theory. Graduate Texts in Math. 184. Springer, New York, 1998.
  • [3] N. Chandgotia, S. Unger, Borel factors and embeddings of systems in subshifts, preprint, 2022. arXiv:2203.09359
  • [4] C. Conley, S. Jackson, A. Marks, B. Seward, R. Tucker-Drob, Borel asymptotic dimension and hyperfinite equivalence relations, Duke Math. J. 172 (2023), no. 16, 3175–3226.
  • [5] S. Gao, Invariant Descriptive Set Theory. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 293, CRC Press, 2009.
  • [6] S. Gao, Descriptive combinatorics of countable abelian group actions (in Chinese), Sci. Sin. Math. 54 (2024), 575–592.
  • [7] S. Gao, S. Jackson, Countable abelian group actions and hyperfinite equivalence relations, Invent. Math. 201 (2015), no. 1, 309–383.
  • [8] S. Gao, S. Jackson, E. Krohne, B. Seward, Continuous Combinatorics of Abelian Group Actions, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear. arXiv:1803.03872
  • [9] S. Gao, S. Jackson, E. Krohne, B. Seward, Borel Combinatorics of Abelian Group Actions, preprint, 2024. arXiv:2401.13866
  • [10] J. Grebík and V. Rozhoň, Local problems on grids from the perspective of distributed algorithms, finitary factors, and descriptive combinatorics. Adv. Math. 431 (2023), no. 109241.
  • [11] A.S. Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 156, Springer-Verlag, 1995.
  • [12] A.S. Kechris, A. Marks, Descriptive graph combinatorics, manuscript available at https://www.pma.caltech.edu/documents/5616/combinatorics20book.pdf
  • [13] A.S. Kechris, S. Solecki, S. Todorcevic, Borel Chromatic Numbers, Adv. Math. 141 (1999), no.1, 1–44.
  • [14] A. S. Marks, A determinacy approach to Borel combinatorics, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (2016), 579–600.
  • [15] F. Weilacher, Borel edge colorings for finite dimensional groups, preprint, 2021. arXiv:2104.14646