 of course implies that any other colors may be substituted for $1$ and $2$ in (i)–(iii) above. The $\Z$ case of this theorem was proved in [@HL Theorem 4], but the proof was quite complicated and mysterious. We will deduce the $\Z$ case from the cycle case, which in turn will be proved by very simple and direct methods. The idea will be to construct the various cycle-indexed processes via Markovian necklace insertion procedures like the one already mentioned, and to couple them to each other.

The insertion procedure corresponding to part (ii) was studied earlier in [@mallowsSheppNecklace; @nakataNecklace]. The fact that this procedure results in the peak set of a random permutation of the cycle (as follows from our proof of (ii) above) gives simpler proofs of many of the results of those papers.

Notwithstanding the simplicity of our proof of Theorem \[thm:onetwo\], these characterizations of marginal processes remain rather mysterious. In particular, we do not know whether a similar characterization exists for the following variant. Consider the function $\iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\to\{1,2,\Star\}$ given by $$\iota(1)=1;\quad \iota(2)=2; \quad \iota(3)=\iota(4)=\Star.$$ Letting $(X_i)_{i\in\Z}$ be the $1$-dependent $4$-coloring of $\Z$ from [@HL], we do not know whether the process $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ has a simple description similar to those in Theorem \[thm:onetwo\]. More precisely, a process $(Z_i)_{i\in\Z}$ is called $r$-block-factor of an i.i.d. process $(U_i)_{i\in\Z}$ if $Z_i=f(U_{i},\ldots,U_{i+r-1})$ for all $i$ and a fixed function $f$. Every $(k+1)$-block-factor of an i.i.d. process is $k$-dependent (but no coloring is a block factor of an i.i.d. process [@HL Proposition 2]). We do not know whether $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ is a block factor of an i.i.d. process. Since the
of course implies that any other colors may be substitute for $ 1 $ and $ 2 $ in (i)–(iii) above. The $ \Z$ subject of this theorem was proved in [ @HL Theorem   4 ], but the proof was quite complicated and mysterious. We will deduce the $ \Z$ lawsuit from the cycle case, which in go will be rise by very elementary and direct methods. The theme will be to construct the various hertz - indexed processes via Markovian necklace insertion procedures like the one already mentioned, and to match them to each other. 

 The insertion procedure represent to part (ii) was studied earlier in [ @mallowsSheppNecklace; @nakataNecklace ]. The fact that this procedure consequence in the peak set of a random permutation of the cycle (as follows from our validation of (ii) above) gives simpler proofs of many of the results of those papers. 

 Notwithstanding the simplicity of our validation of Theorem   \[thm: onetwo\ ], these word picture of marginal processes remain rather mysterious. In particular, we do not know whether a similar characterization exist for the following variant. think the routine $ \iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\to\{1,2,\Star\}$ given by $ $ \iota(1)=1;\quad \iota(2)=2; \quad \iota(3)=\iota(4)=\Star.$$ Letting $ (X_i)_{i\in\Z}$ be the $ 1$-dependent $ 4$-coloring of $ \Z$ from [ @HL ], we do not acknowledge whether the process $ (\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ has a simple description similar to those in Theorem   \[thm: onetwo\ ]. More precisely, a procedure $ (Z_i)_{i\in\Z}$ is called $ r$-block - factor of an i.i.d.   process $ (U_i)_{i\in\Z}$ if $ Z_i = f(U_{i},\ldots, U_{i+r-1})$ for all $ i$ and a fixed function $ f$. Every $ (k+1)$-block - factor of an i.i.d.   summons is $ k$-dependent (but no coloring is a block factor of an i.i.d.   process [ @HL Proposition 2 ]). We do not acknowledge whether $ (\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ is a block component of an i.i.d.   process. Since the
 of course implies that any other colors mct be snbstitufed for $1$ and $2$ in (i)–(iii) above. The $\Z$ cade of tyis theorem was proved in [@HL Thvorem 4], but the proof was quite complicafcd anb nysterious. We eill deduca the $\Z$ case fsoo che cycle case, which in turn will be proved bj very simple wnd cyrecf methods. The idea will be to consfruct tie various cyclr-indexed processes via Marnoviwn necklace insertlon procedutss juke the one xlready mentioned, and jo couple them to each other.

The knsercion procedoxw cltresponding vo parn (ii) was studlvd earlher in [@kallowsSheppNegklacx; @najataNecklace]. The fact that this procedute results iu the peak set of a rqneom pgrmutdtiov of tht cbcls (as flllkws from ohr proof of (ii) above) gives simklew proofs of mahy of ehq results of those papers.

Notwithstandinc tge simplicity of our priof of Theorem \[thm:onetao\], these sharacterizations of marginal processes remain radher jhsttrljjw. Ln particular, we do not know whether a similaw cnagacterization exifts for the fllkjwing variant. Consibsr the function $\iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\ho\{1,2,\Star\}$ diven by $$\iota(1)=1;\qtad \oota(2)=2; \quad \iota(3)=\iota(4)=\Star.$$ Lettung $(X_i)_{i\in\Z}$ bv thw $1$-dependent $4$-coloriug of $\Z$ from [@HL], ee do not know whether the pxocess $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \X}$ has a sjople description sikinar to those in Theorem \[thm:jnetwo\]. Moce przcisely, x prpcess $(S_i)_{i\in\Z}$ is falled $r$-block-factor of aj i.i.d. krocesv $(U_i)_{i\in\Z}$ iv $Z_i=f(U_{i},\ldots,U_{i+r-1})$ for all $i$ and a fixed functiom $x$. Enery $(k+1)$-bloek-factpr of an i.i.d. pwocess is $k$-depgndent (buc no culoring is a blocn factor of an i.i.d. procesv [@HL Propositmon 2]). We dj nor kniw whetfdr $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ is a blobk facror of an i.i.d. procexs. Rjnce the
of course implies that any other colors substituted $1$ and in (i)–(iii) above. theorem proved in [@HL 4], but the was quite complicated and mysterious. We deduce the $\Z$ case from the cycle case, which in turn will be by very simple and direct methods. The idea will be to construct the cycle-indexed via necklace procedures like the one already mentioned, and to couple them to each other. The insertion procedure to part (ii) was studied earlier in [@mallowsSheppNecklace; The fact that this results in the peak set a permutation of cycle follows our proof of above) gives simpler proofs of many of the results of those papers. Notwithstanding the simplicity of our of Theorem characterizations of processes rather In particular, we know whether a similar characterization exists variant. Consider the function $\iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\to\{1,2,\Star\}$ given by $$\iota(1)=1;\quad \quad \iota(3)=\iota(4)=\Star.$$ $(X_i)_{i\in\Z}$ be the $1$-dependent $4$-coloring of from [@HL], we do not know whether the $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ has a simple description similar to those in Theorem \[thm:onetwo\]. More precisely, a is called $r$-block-factor of i.i.d. process $(U_i)_{i\in\Z}$ $Z_i=f(U_{i},\ldots,U_{i+r-1})$ all and fixed function Every $(k+1)$-block-factor of an i.i.d. process is $k$-dependent (but no coloring a block factor of an i.i.d. process [@HL Proposition 2]). not whether $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ a block factor of i.i.d. Since the
 of course implies that any othEr colors maY be suBstItuTeD for $1$ And $2$ iN (i)–(iii) above. The $\Z$ CAse oF this theorem was proved iN [@HL ThEoREm 4], buT ThE prooF was quiTE cOMPliCaTeD anD mYStEriouS. We Will dedUce the $\Z$ casE frOm The cycle case, WHiCh in turn wiLl bE proved by verY siMple anD dIreCT methOds. the idEa will BE to conStruct the VaRIous cyCLe-indexED PrOcesSes via Markovian neCKlACe insertion proCedureS lIKe THE onE alReady mentiOnEd, and TO couple THeM TO EacH Other.

The inserTion proceduRE coRrespoNdIng TO part (iI) was sTuDIed Earlier in [@maLlowSSheppNecKlace; @nAKataNecKLace]. The Fact thAt tHis ProcEDuRe ResUlTS in THe PeaK Set Of a randoM pErMutatIon oF THE CyclE (as FollOws frOm our proof of (iI) abOve) gIVes SimplEr proOfs oF mAny of The resUlts oF tHose papers.

NotwiThstAnding the SimPlIciTy Of our PRoof of theOreM \[thm:oneTwo\], thesE ChaRaCTERiZations of marginal pRoCESsEs remain Rather MYsTeRIous. In paRtIcuLar, wE DO not kNow wHEtHer a simiLar chaRAcTeRizatioN eXists fOr The FolLowinG VariAnt. ConSider the FunctIOn $\iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\to\{1,2,\Star\}$ giVEn by $$\iota(1)=1;\quad \iOTa(2)=2; \QUAd \IOta(3)=\iOta(4)=\star.$$ Letting $(x_i)_{i\iN\z}$ be tHe $1$-dePEnDenT $4$-ColorIng of $\z$ fROm [@hl], we do not know whether ThE proceSs $(\iotA(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ has a siMple descriPTIOn similaR to tHOsE In Theorem \[thm:onEtwo\]. MOre preciseLY, a procesS $(Z_i)_{i\iN\Z}$ is callEd $r$-block-fACTor of an i.I.d. pRocEss $(u_i)_{i\IN\z}$ iF $Z_i=f(U_{i},\ldots,U_{i+R-1})$ FOr alL $i$ And a fixEd fUnction $F$. EvEry $(K+1)$-blOck-FaCtor of an i.I.d. procesS iS $k$-DePeNdeNt (but NO colorinG iS a bLoCk fActor OF an i.i.d. ProceSs [@HL prOpOSitIon 2]). We do NOt KNOw whEtHeR $(\iotA(X_i))_{I\iN \Z}$ is a BlocK FacTor of an I.i.d. procesS. SiNCe thE
 of course implies that an y other co lorsmay  be  s ubst itut ed for $1$ and $2$in (i)–(iii) above. Th e $\Z $c aseo fthistheorem wa s pro ve din[@ H LTheor em4], but  the proof  wa squite compli c at ed and mys ter ious. We wil l d educeth e $ \ Z$ ca sefromthe cy c le cas e, whichin turn w i ll be p r o ve d by  very simple andd ir e ct methods. Th e idea  w i ll b e t o c onstruct t he  vari o us cycl e -i n d e xed processes via  Markoviann eck lace i ns ert i on pro cedur es lik e the one a lrea dy mentio ned, a n d to co u ple the m to e ach  ot her. 
T he  in se r tio n  p roc e dur e corres po nd ing t o pa r t ( ii)was  stu diedearlier in [@ mal lows S hep pNeck lace;  @na ka taNec klace] . The  f act that this p roce dure resu lts  i n t he  peak set of  aran dom per mutatio n  of  t h e cy cle (as follows fr om o ur  proof o f (ii) ab ov e ) givessi mpl er p r o ofs o f ma n yof the r esults of  t hose pa pe rs.

N ot wit hst andin g  the  simpl icity of  ourp roof of Theore m  \[thm:onetwo \ ], t he s e ch ara cterization s of marg inal pr oce s ses r emain  r a th e r mysterious. In pa rt icular , wedo not know w hether a s i m i lar char acte r iz a tion exists fo r the  following variant.  Cons ider the  function $ \iota:\{ 1,2 ,3, 4\} \to \ { 1, 2,\Star\}$ gi v e n by  $ $\iota( 1)= 1;\quad  \i ota (2) =2;  \ quad \iot a(3)=\io ta (4 )= \S tar .$$ L e tting $( X_ i)_ {i \in \Z}$b e the$1$-d epen de nt $4$ -colori n go f  $\Z $fr om [ @HL ],  we d o no t  kn ow whet her the p roc e ss $ (\ io ta(X_i) )_{i\in \Z}$ha s a simple  d esc riptio n similarto those in Theorem \[t h m:onetw o\] . Mor e pr ecisely,a p rocess  $( Z _i)_{i \in\Z} $ isca lle d $r$-b l o ck -fa ct or of an i . i .d.  proc es s $( U_i)_{i \in\Z}$ if $Z_i=f( U _{i },\ldots,U_{i +r- 1})$ f or  al l  $ i $ a nd a f i x ed function $f$ . Every $( k+ 1 )$ -block-fac t orof  an i.i .d. pro cessi s $k$-d ependent(but no c ol orin g isa block fa ctor ofan i.i.d. proce s s[@HLPro positi on  2] ). We  do no t  kn ow wh ether$( \iota( X_i)) _{ i\in \Z} $ is a block factor ofan i.i .d. p roc ess. Sinc e t h e
 of_course implies_that any other colors_may be_substituted_for $1$_and_$2$ in (i)–(iii)_above. The $\Z$_case of this theorem_was proved in_[@HL_Theorem 4], but the proof was quite complicated and mysterious. We will deduce the $\Z$_case_from the_cycle_case,_which in turn will be_proved by very simple and_direct methods._The idea will be to construct the various_cycle-indexed_processes via Markovian_necklace insertion procedures like the one already mentioned, and_to couple them to each other.

The_insertion procedure corresponding_to_part_(ii) was studied earlier_in [@mallowsSheppNecklace; @nakataNecklace]. The fact that_this procedure results in the peak_set of a random permutation of the_cycle (as follows from our proof_of (ii) above) gives simpler_proofs of_many of the results of_those papers.

Notwithstanding the_simplicity of_our proof of_Theorem \[thm:onetwo\], these characterizations of marginal processes_remain rather mysterious._In particular, we do not know_whether_a similar characterization_exists_for_the following_variant. Consider the_function_$\iota:\{1,2,3,4\}\to\{1,2,\Star\}$ given_by_$$\iota(1)=1;\quad \iota(2)=2; \quad \iota(3)=\iota(4)=\Star.$$ Letting $(X_i)_{i\in\Z}$_be_the $1$-dependent $4$-coloring of $\Z$ from [@HL],_we do not know_whether_the process $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$_has a simple description similar_to those in Theorem \[thm:onetwo\]. More precisely,_a process_$(Z_i)_{i\in\Z}$ is_called $r$-block-factor of an i.i.d. process $(U_i)_{i\in\Z}$ if $Z_i=f(U_{i},\ldots,U_{i+r-1})$ for all $i$_and a fixed function $f$. Every_$(k+1)$-block-factor of an i.i.d. process_is $k$-dependent_(but_no coloring is_a_block factor_of an i.i.d. process [@HL Proposition 2]). We_do not_know whether $(\iota(X_i))_{i\in \Z}$ is a_block factor of an_i.i.d. process._Since the