^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$ and $\lambda',\mu'\in X_{s-u}^+$.

By minimality of $s$ we have that $\lambda'$ and $\mu'$ differ in at most $\delta-\phi$ places. But $\mu^\circ$ and $\lambda^\circ$ differ in at most all their $u=\phi$ digits. So $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ in at most $\delta$ places.

This is a contradiction when $\nu\neq 0$. So we may assume $\nu=0$ and $$E_2^{m,0}\cong {{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),{\text{\rm Hom}}_{G_u}(L(\lambda^\circ), L(\mu^\circ))^{[-u]}\otimes L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ The non-vanishing forces $\lambda^\circ=\mu^\circ$. Since $u=\phi>0$, we have, by minimality of $s$, that $${{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \implies \lambda' {\text{\rm and $\mu'$ differ in at most $\delta-u$ places}}.$$ But as $\lambda$ and $\mu$ agree on their first first $u$ places, so $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ in at most $\delta-u=\delta-\phi$ places.

This is a contradiction, and completes the proof of the theorem.

\[special\] The proof of the theorem implies that if ${{\text{\rm Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lambda),L(\mu))\neq 0$, then $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ in at most $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$ digits; indeed, following the proof carefully, one sees these digits can be found in a substring of length $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$:

Let $r=[\log_p(h-1)]+1$. Write $\lambda=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'^\circ+p^{2r}\lambda''$, with $\lambda^\circ,\lambda'^\circ\in X_r^+$, $\lambda',\lambda''\in X_r^+$ and take a similar expression for $\mu$. If ${{\text{\
^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$ and $ \lambda',\mu'\in X_{s - u}^+$. 

 By minimality of $ s$ we have that $ \lambda'$ and $ \mu'$ differ in at most $ \delta-\phi$ places. But $ \mu^\circ$ and $ \lambda^\circ$ disagree in at about all their $ u=\phi$ digit. So $ \lambda$ and $ \mu$ differ in at about $ \delta$ places. 

 This is a contradiction when $ \nu\neq 0$. So we may assume $ \nu=0 $ and $ $ E_2^{m,0}\cong { { \text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),{\text{\rm Hom}}_{G_u}(L(\lambda^\circ), L(\mu^\circ))^{[-u]}\otimes L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ The non - vanishing military unit $ \lambda^\circ=\mu^\circ$. Since $ u=\phi>0 $, we have, by minimality of $ s$, that $ $ { { \text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \implies \lambda' { \text{\rm and $ \mu'$ differ in at about $ \delta - u$ places}}.$$ But as $ \lambda$ and $ \mu$ match on their first beginning $ u$ places, so $ \lambda$ and $ \mu$ disagree in at most $ \delta - u=\delta-\phi$ places. 

 This is a contradiction, and completes the proof of the theorem. 

 \[special\ ] The proof of the theorem implies that if $ { { \text{\rm Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lambda),L(\mu))\neq 0 $, then $ \lambda$ and $ \mu$ differ in at about $ 2 + 2[\log_p(h-1)]$ digits; indeed, following the proof cautiously, one sees these digits can be found in a substring of length $ 2 + 2[\log_p(h-1)]$: 

 Let $ r=[\log_p(h-1)]+1$. publish $ \lambda=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'^\circ+p^{2r}\lambda''$, with $ \lambda^\circ,\lambda'^\circ\in X_r^+$, $ \lambda',\lambda''\in X_r^+$ and take a similar expression for $ \mu$. If $ { { \text{\
^\cirf),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$ and $\lxmbda',\mu'\in X_{s-u}^+$.

By minimanity or $s$ we hxve that $\lambda'$ and $\mu'$ diffec in at mist $\delta-\phi$ places. Bug $\mu^\circ$ wnd $\lambea^\cicc$ differ in at most all their $m=\phi$ bijits. So $\lambda$ snd $\mu$ difxer in at most $\ddlca$ places.

This is a contradiction wheg $\nu\neq 0$. Do we may assuie $\nl=0$ wnd $$S_2^{m,0}\cong {{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),{\text{\rm Hkm}}_{G_u}(L(\lakbda^\circ), L(\mu^\corc))^{[-u]}\otimes L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ The non-ganidhing forces $\lambdw^\circ=\mu^\circ$. Sinsw $u=\phi>0$, we haxe, by minimality of $s$, jhat $${{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \kmplizs \lambda' {\tgrr{\rm dnd $\mu'$ diffxr in wt most $\delta-u$ placev}}.$$ But ax $\lambda$ and $\mm$ agrxe ob their first first $u$ places, so $\lambda$ wnd $\mu$ dixfzr in at most $\delta-u=\dwlra-\phi$ plawes.

Tfus ks z ronfradichioi, and complstes the priof of the theorem.

\[skecyql\] The proof kf the treorem implies that if ${{\text{\rm Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lambga),L(\ju))\neq 0$, then $\lambda$ and $\nu$ differ in at most $2+2[\pog_p(h-1)]$ digyts; indeed, following the proof carefully, one sees thesx aignbf xaj be found in a substring of length $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$:

Let $w=[\mob_p(m-1)]+1$. Write $\lambda=\laibda^\circ+p^r\lsmhds'=\jambda^\circ+p^r\lxmbda'^\cndc+l^{2r}\lambda''$, with $\lambfa^\circ,\lwmbda'^\xirc\in X_r^+$, $\lamnda',\lambda''\in X_r^+$ and take a sumilar exprefwion for $\mu$. If ${{\texc{\
^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$ and $\lambda',\mu'\in X_{s-u}^+$. By minimality we that $\lambda'$ $\mu'$ differ in $\mu^\circ$ $\lambda^\circ$ differ in most all their digits. So $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ at most $\delta$ places. This is a contradiction when $\nu\neq 0$. So we assume $\nu=0$ and $$E_2^{m,0}\cong {{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),{\text{\rm Hom}}_{G_u}(L(\lambda^\circ), L(\mu^\circ))^{[-u]}\otimes L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ The non-vanishing forces Since we by of $s$, that $${{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \implies \lambda' {\text{\rm and $\mu'$ differ in at most $\delta-u$ But as $\lambda$ and $\mu$ agree on their first $u$ places, so and $\mu$ differ in at $\delta-u=\delta-\phi$ This is contradiction, completes proof of the \[special\] The proof of the theorem implies that if ${{\text{\rm Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lambda),L(\mu))\neq 0$, then $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ at most indeed, following proof one these digits can in a substring of length $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$: $\lambda=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'^\circ+p^{2r}\lambda''$, with $\lambda^\circ,\lambda'^\circ\in X_r^+$, $\lambda',\lambda''\in X_r^+$ and take similar expression $\mu$. If ${{\text{\
^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$ and $\laMbda',\mu'\in X_{s-U}^+$.

By miNimAliTy Of $s$ wE havE that $\lambda'$ and $\MU'$ difFer in at most $\delta-\phi$ plaCes. BuT $\mU^\Circ$ ANd $\LambdA^\circ$ diFFeR IN at MoSt All ThEIr $U=\phi$ dIgiTs. So $\lamBda$ and $\mu$ diFfeR iN at most $\delta$ PLaCes.

This is a ConTradiction whEn $\nU\neq 0$. So We May ASsume $\Nu=0$ aNd $$E_2^{m,0}\cOng {{\texT{\Rm Ext}}}_G^{M}(L(\lambda'),{\tExT{\Rm Hom}}_{G_U}(l(\lambda^\CIRc), l(\mu^\cIrc))^{[-u]}\otimes L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ THE nON-vanishing forcEs $\lambDa^\CIrC=\MU^\ciRc$. SInce $u=\phi>0$, we HaVe, by mINimalitY Of $S$, THAt $${{\tEXt{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lamBda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \imPLieS \lambdA' {\tExt{\RM and $\mu'$ DiffeR iN At mOst $\delta-u$ plAces}}.$$ but as $\lambDa$ and $\mU$ Agree on THeir firSt firsT $u$ pLacEs, so $\LAmBdA$ anD $\mU$ DifFEr In aT MosT $\delta-u=\dElTa-\Phi$ plAces.

tHIS Is a cOntRadiCtion, And completes tHe pRoof OF thE theoRem.

\[spEciaL\] THe proOf of thE theoReM implies that if ${{\tExt{\rM Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lamBda),l(\mU))\neQ 0$, tHen $\laMBda$ and $\Mu$ dIffEr in at mOst $2+2[\log_p(H-1)]$ DigItS; INDeEd, following the prooF cAREfUlly, one sEes theSE dIgITs can be fOuNd iN a suBSTring Of leNGtH $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$:

LeT $r=[\log_p(H-1)]+1$. wrItE $\lambda=\LaMbda^\ciRc+P^r\lAmbDa'=\lamBDa^\ciRc+p^r\laMbda'^\circ+P^{2r}\lamBDa''$, with $\lambda^\ciRC,\lambda'^\circ\in x_R^+$, $\lAMBdA',\LambDa''\iN X_r^+$ and take a SimiLAr exPresSIoN foR $\Mu$. If ${{\tExt{\
^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\m u^\circ))$  and$\l amb da ',\m u'\i n X_{s-u}^+$.By m inimality of $s$ we ha ve th at $\la m bd a'$ a nd $\mu ' $d i ffe rin  at  m o st  $\de lta -\phi$places. Bu t $ \m u^\circ$ and $\ lambda^\ci rc$  differ in a t m ost al lthe i r $u= \ph i$ di gits.S o $\la mbda$ and  $ \ mu$ di f fer ina t  m ost$\delta$ places.Th i s is a contrad iction  w h en $ \nu \ne q 0$. So w emay a s sume $\ n u= 0 $ and $$E_2^{m,0}\c ong {{\text { \rm  Ext}} }_ G^{ m }(L(\l ambda ') , {\t ext{\rm Hom }}_{ G_u}(L(\l ambda^ \ circ),L (\mu^\c irc))^ {[- u]} \oti m es  L (\m u' ) )\n e q0.$ $  Th e non-va ni sh ing f orce s $ \ lamb da^ \cir c=\mu ^\circ$. Sinc e $ u=\p h i>0 $, we  have , by  m inima lity o f $s$ ,that $${{\text{ \rmExt}}}_G^ {m} (L (\l am bda') , L(\mu' ))\ neq  0 \imp lies \l a mbd a' { \ te xt{\rm and $\mu'$di f f er  in at m ost $\ d el ta - u$ place s} }.$ $ Bu t as $\ lamb d a$  and $\m u$ agr e eon  theirfi rst fi rs t $ u$place s , so  $\lam bda$ and  $\mu $  differ in atm ost $\delta-u = \d e l ta - \phi $ p laces.

Thi s is a co ntra d ic tio n , and  comp le t es the proof of the th eo rem.
\[spe cial\] The pr oof of the t h eorem im plie s  t h at if ${{\text {\rmExt}}}^1_G ( L(\lambd a),L( \mu))\ne q 0$, the n $\lambda $ a nd$\m u$d i ff er in at most $ 2+2[ \l og_p(h- 1)] $ digit s;ind eed , f ol lowing th e proofca re fu ll y,one s e es these  d igi ts  ca n bef ound i n a s ubst ri ng oflength$ 2+ 2 [ \log _p (h -1)] $:
L et $r =[\l o g_p (h-1)]+ 1$. Write  $\ l ambd a= \l ambda^\ circ+p^r\lamb da '=\lambda^ \c irc +p^r\l a m bda'^\ci rc+p^{2r}\lambda''$, wi t h $\lam bda ^\cir c,\l ambda'^\c irc \in X_ r^+ $ , $\la mbda', \lamb da ''\ i n  X_r^ + $  a ndta ke a simil a r  ex press io n fo r $\mu$ . If ${{\text{\
^\circ),L(\nu)\otimes L(\mu^\circ))$_and $\lambda',\mu'\in_X_{s-u}^+$.

By minimality of $s$_we have_that_$\lambda'$ and_$\mu'$_differ in at_most $\delta-\phi$ places._But $\mu^\circ$ and $\lambda^\circ$_differ in at_most_all their $u=\phi$ digits. So $\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ in at most $\delta$ places.

This_is_a contradiction_when_$\nu\neq_0$. So we may assume_$\nu=0$ and $$E_2^{m,0}\cong {{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),{\text{\rm_Hom}}_{G_u}(L(\lambda^\circ), L(\mu^\circ))^{[-u]}\otimes_L(\mu'))\neq 0.$$ The non-vanishing forces $\lambda^\circ=\mu^\circ$. Since $u=\phi>0$,_we_have, by minimality_of $s$, that $${{\text{\rm Ext}}}_G^{m}(L(\lambda'),L(\mu'))\neq 0 \implies \lambda' {\text{\rm_and $\mu'$ differ in at most_$\delta-u$ places}}.$$ But_as_$\lambda$_and $\mu$ agree on_their first first $u$ places, so_$\lambda$ and $\mu$ differ in at_most $\delta-u=\delta-\phi$ places.

This is a contradiction, and_completes the proof of the theorem.

\[special\]_The proof of the theorem_implies that_if ${{\text{\rm Ext}}}^1_G(L(\lambda),L(\mu))\neq 0$, then_$\lambda$ and $\mu$_differ in_at most $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$_digits; indeed, following the proof carefully,_one sees these_digits can be found in a_substring_of length $2+2[\log_p(h-1)]$:

Let_$r=[\log_p(h-1)]+1$._Write_$\lambda=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'=\lambda^\circ+p^r\lambda'^\circ+p^{2r}\lambda''$, with_$\lambda^\circ,\lambda'^\circ\in X_r^+$, $\lambda',\lambda''\in_X_r^+$_and take_a_similar expression for $\mu$. If ${{\text{\