|
[home] [research] [private manuscript] Random Fibonacci TilingsYuval Amit, Azmera Gebre, Christopher Housholder, Joshua Khan, Steven J. Miller, Emily Upton, Connor Yau informal web version / working manuscript AbstractWe study a randomized Fibonacci tiling in which the attachment axis alternates deterministically and independent fair coin flips choose the attachment direction. For a fixed lattice point, the covering time reduces to random subset sums of even- and odd-indexed Fibonacci numbers. In \(d\) dimensions the relevant coordinate subsequences are superincreasing, which yields exact covering probabilities and explicit formulas for the expectation and variance. For each fixed \(d\geq2\), the expected covering time grows logarithmically with the distance from the initial block, while the variance remains uniformly bounded; we also obtain exponential tail bounds for the delay beyond the earliest feasible covering stage. We then construct a continuously differentiable randomized Fibonacci spiral, using circular arcs and quintic connectors with one-step lookahead, which recovers the classical Fibonacci spiral for the standard tiling. ContentsThis page follows the manuscript closely. It is written as mathematical exposition rather than as a summary page. Article type: research Fibonacci; spiral; expected-value; dimensions; index; coin-flip 1 IntroductionThe classic Fibonacci Tiling begins with two squares with side lengths \(1\) and uses the recurrence \(F_n=F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}\) to continuously add squares with side-lengths of the Fibonacci numbers sequentially. These squares are added in a pattern of up, left, down, right and repeats to create an expanding rectangle. In each of these squares, a quarter circle is drawn, creating the familiar Fibonacci Spiral. We study a sequential randomization of this construction. The axis on which we add the subsequent square alternates deterministically, but a fair coin decides which side the next square is added onto the current rectangle. The first goal of this paper is to determine the expected covering time of a fixed lattice point on the plane, i.e., the first added square of the rectangle to cover a specific point. Our second goal is to extend the Fibonacci spiral to our randomized construction. The main probabilistic simplification is to track the rectangle’s boundary instead of the individual squares. Each time an axis is updated, one of its two boundary faces moves outward by a deterministic amount. The distance traveled by a particular face is therefore a sum of fixed weights selected by independent coin flips. In the plane, these weights are the even- or odd-indexed Fibonacci numbers. Moreover, the two coordinate-covering times depend on disjoint sets of coin flips and are independent. The point is covered when both coordinate conditions hold, so its covering time is the maximum of these two times. The same approach extends to \(d\)-dimensional blocks whose attachment axes cycle through the coordinate directions. The dimension of the growing cuboid is governed by the recurrence \(F_n^{(d)} = F_{n-1}^{(d)} + F_{n-d}^{(d)}\). We look at the subsequences modulo \(d\) and obtain super-increasing sequences which allow us to proceed in a similar fashion as the two-dimensional case. This observation turns a covering condition into a threshold in a binary ordering of subsets, providing exact counts of the coin-flip outcomes that cover a given coordinate. Corollary 23 gives \[\label{eq:intro-covering-asymptotics} \mathbb{E}[T(a)]\ =\ \frac{\log \delta_\infty(a)}{\log \rho_d} +O_d(1), \qquad \operatorname{Var}(T(a))\ =\ O_d(1)\] as \(\delta_\infty(a)\to\infty\), where \(T(a)\) is the covering time of the lattice point \(a\), \[\label{eq:intro-target-distances} \delta_r(a)\ =\ \max\{a_r-1,-a_r,0\}, \qquad \delta_\infty(a)\ =\ \max_{0\leq r<d}\delta_r(a),\] and \(\rho_d>1\) is the positive root of \(x^d-x^{d-1}-1=0\). Since the initial block is \([0,1]^d\), one also has \(\delta_\infty(a)=\|a\|_\infty+O(1)\) as the target recedes to infinity. For the spiral construction, random placements are incompatible with the quarter-circles from meeting with the required endpoints and tangents. We address this square by square, assigning exactly one curve segment to each square. Standard configurations retain their quarter-circles, while nonstandard configurations use a quintic connector followed by a circular arc. The construction requires the placement of the next square, so it uses one-step lookahead. It produces a curve admitting a continuously differentiable parametrization and recovers the standard Fibonacci spiral. Containment and self-intersection remain separate geometric questions. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 defines the planar and higher-dimensional tilings and develops the d-dimensional recurrence. Section 3 establishes the super-increasing and canonical-ordering results for coordinate subset sums. Section 4 derives the exact \(d\)-dimensional covering formulas. Section 5 proves the limiting results, including bounded fluctuations and the dependence of the growth scale on \(d\). Section 6 constructs the random spiral and records the remaining geometric questions. Notation is collected in Appendix 8 [top] 2 Random Tiling Construction2.1 The planar constructionLet \(\{F_n\}_{n\geq0}\) denote the Fibonacci sequence with \[\label{eq:fibonacci-sequence} F_0\ =\ F_1\ =\ 1, \qquad F_n\ =\ F_{n-1}+F_{n-2} \quad(n\ \geq\ 2).\] Begin with the fixed unit square \([0,1]^2\). We count only subsequent square appendages as moves. Let \((c_n)_{n\geq 1}\) be independent Bernoulli random variables satisfying \[\label{eq:fair-placement-coins} \mathbb P(c_n\ =\ 0)\ =\ \mathbb P(c_n\ =\ 1)\ =\ \frac12.\] At move \(n\), append an \(F_n\times F_n\) square to the current rectangle. When \(n\) is odd, attach the square to the right if \(c_n=0\) and to the left if \(c_n=1\). When \(n\) is even, attach it to the top if \(c_n=0\) and to the bottom if \(c_n=1\). Thus odd moves expand the construction horizontally and even moves expand it vertically. We use the convention \(0=\) right/up and \(1=\) left/down throughout. The random choices determine the position of the growing rectangle but not its side lengths. After \(n\) moves, its side lengths are \[\label{eq:planar-side-lengths} F_n\quad\text{and}\quad F_{n+1},\] up to permutation according to the parity of \(n\). Indeed, the initial square has dimensions \(F_0\times F_1\), and at each move the newly attached square has side length equal to the longer side of the current rectangle. The shorter side is therefore replaced by the sum of the two preceding side lengths. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate two realizations. With the convention above, that \(0=\) right/up and \(1=\) left/down the corresponding words are \([0,0,0,0]\) and \([0,0,1,0,0]\), respectively. A word records all directional choices, but extracting the absolute position of the rectangle from that word leads to a weighted subset-sum problem developed in Section 3.
The construction gives rise to two principal questions. First, for a lattice point \((a,b)\in{\mathbb Z}^2\), how many moves are required, on average, before the growing rectangle covers \((a,b)\)? Second, how can the Fibonacci spiral from the standard deterministic tiling be extended to this random setting? 2.2 The higher-dimensional constructionThe planar process has a natural cyclic extension to dimension \(d\geq 2\). Begin with the unit hypercube \([0,1]^d\). At move \(k\geq1\), update coordinate \(r\equiv k-1\pmod d\), with \(0\leq r<d\). Use the independent fair placement bits \((c_k)_{k\geq1}\), where \(0\) selects the positive face and \(1\) selects the negative face. At successive moves, choose the coordinate axes in a fixed cyclic order. Along the selected axis, a fair coin determines whether the new block is attached to the positive or negative face. The new block spans the entire exposed \((d-1)\)-dimensional face, and its thickness is equal to the most recently created side length. Equivalently, at each move the side length that has gone one complete coordinate cycle without being updated is replaced by its sum with the most recently created side length. This geometric rule motivates the following recurrence. The sequence is the specialization \(u(n;d-1,1)\) of Harris and Styles [3]; its recurrence and spectral properties are classical. Definition 1 (Order-\(d\) Fibonacci sequence). For an integer \(d\geq 2\), the order-\(d\) Fibonacci sequence \((F_n^{(d)})_{n\geq 0}\) is defined by \[\label{eq:order-d-initial-values} F_0^{(d)}\ =\ F_1^{(d)}\ =\ \cdots\ =\ F_{d-1}^{(d)}\ =\ 1\] and \[\label{eq:order-d-recurrence} F_n^{(d)}\ =\ F_{n-1}^{(d)}+F_{n-d}^{(d)}, \qquad n\ \geq\ d.\] Proposition 2. After \(k\geq 0\) moves, the side lengths of the bounding hyperrectangle are \[\label{eq:cuboid-side-lengths} F_k^{(d)},\ F_{k+1}^{(d)},\ \ldots\ ,\ F_{k+d-1}^{(d)},\] up to a cyclic permutation of the coordinate axes. For \(k\geq 1\), immediately before move \(k\) the selected coordinate has length \(F_{k-1}^{(d)}\), while the remaining face has side lengths \[\label{eq:exposed-face-dimensions} F_k^{(d)},\ F_{k+1}^{(d)},\ \ldots\ ,\ F_{k+d-2}^{(d)}.\] The appended block spans this face and has thickness \(F_{k+d-2}^{(d)}\). Consequently, the selected side length becomes \[\label{eq:updated-side-length} F_{k-1}^{(d)}+F_{k+d-2}^{(d)}\ =\ F_{k+d-1}^{(d)}.\] Proof. Before any moves are made, all \(d\) side lengths are equal to \(1\), so the claim holds for \(k=0\). Now proceed by induction and suppose it holds immediately before move \(k\). The cyclic axis rule selects the coordinate with length \(F_{k-1}^{(d)}\). The appended block has thickness \(F_{k+d-2}^{(d)}\) and spans the full opposite face, so the other \(d-1\) side lengths remain unchanged. The selected side becomes \[\label{eq:side-length-induction} F_{k-1}^{(d)}+F_{k+d-2}^{(d)}\ =\ F_{k+d-1}^{(d)}\] by the recurrence. Thus the new collection of side lengths is \[\label{eq:induction-side-vector} F_k^{(d)},\ F_{k+1}^{(d)},\ \ldots\ ,\ F_{k+d-1}^{(d)},\] which completes the induction. ◻ For \(d=2\), the exposed face has length \(F_k^{(2)}\) and the appended block has the same thickness, so it is an \(F_k^{(2)}\times F_k^{(2)}\) square. Hence the construction reduces exactly to the planar Fibonacci tiling. For \(d=3\), the recurrence \[\label{eq:narayana-recurrence} F_n^{(3)}\ =\ F_{n-1}^{(3)}+F_{n-3}^{(3)}\] is the Narayana recurrence [5], and the appended objects are generally rectangular cuboids rather than cubes. Remark 3. For our purposes, in the one-dimensional analogue we do not directly substitute \(d=1\) into the higher-dimensional construction. Instead, we study the analogous scalar covering problem while retaining the Fibonacci sequence from the planar model. Our one-dimensional analysis is a probabilistic reduction used to understand a single coordinate, whereas the geometric construction itself is defined for \(d\geq 2\). We next record the growth properties needed in the covering-time analysis. Many properties of this sequence are intuitively borrowed from the Fibonacci sequence itself. Proposition 4. For all integers \(n,k\geq0\), \[\label{eq:coordinate-doubling} F_{n+kd}^{(d)}\ \geq\ 2^kF_n^{(d)}.\] Moreover, for \(k\geq1\), \[\label{eq:superincreasing-chain} F_{n+(k-1)d}^{(d)}\ \leq\ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}F_{n+jd}^{(d)}\ <\ 2F_{n+(k-1)d}^{(d)}\ \leq\ F_{n+kd}^{(d)}.\] Thus every subsequence \((F_{n+jd}^{(d)})_{j\geq0}\) with fixed starting index \(n\) is superincreasing. Proof. The initial values and recurrence imply by induction that all terms are positive, that the sequence is nondecreasing, and that it is strictly increasing from index \(d\) onward. Hence \[\label{eq:one-cycle-doubling} F_{n+d}^{(d)}\ =\ F_{n+d-1}^{(d)}+F_n^{(d)}\ \geq\ 2F_n^{(d)}.\] Iteration proves the first assertion. For \(0\leq j<k\), it also gives \[\label{eq:earlier-weight-bound} F_{n+jd}^{(d)}\ \leq\ 2^{-(k-1-j)}F_{n+(k-1)d}^{(d)}.\] Summing these inequalities yields \[\label{eq:superincreasing-proof} \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}F_{n+jd}^{(d)}\ \leq\ F_{n+(k-1)d}^{(d)}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}2^{-i}\ <\ 2F_{n+(k-1)d}^{(d)}\ \leq\ F_{n+kd}^{(d)}.\] The lower bound follows by retaining the largest summand. ◻ Proposition 4 is the structural input for the covering-time argument: it orders subset sums by their largest differing weight. We define the dominant root of the recurrence, which provides information about the growth rate of the sequence. Definition 5. The characteristic polynomial of the order-\(d\) Fibonacci recurrence is \[\label{eq:characteristic-polynomial} \chi_d(x)\ =\ x^d-x^{d-1}-1.\] Its unique positive real root is denoted by \(\rho_d\) and is called the dominant root. Equivalently, \[\label{eq:dominant-root-identity} \rho_d^{d-1}(\rho_d-1)\ =\ 1.\] It satisfies \[\label{eq:dominant-root-range} 1\ <\ \rho_d\ <\ 2.\] For \(d=2\), one recovers the golden ratio \[\label{eq:golden-ratio} \rho_2\ =\ \varphi\ =\ \frac{1+\sqrt5}{2}.\] Lemma 6. Every root of \(\chi_d\) is simple. Furthermore, if \(\zeta\) is a root of \(\chi_d\) and \(\zeta\neq\rho_d\), then \[\label{eq:spectral-gap} |\zeta|\ <\ \rho_d.\] Proof. If \(\zeta\) were a repeated root, then \(\chi_d(\zeta)=\chi_d'(\zeta)=0\). Because \[\label{eq:characteristic-derivative} \chi_d'(x)\ =\ x^{d-2}\bigl(dx-(d-1)\bigr)\] and \(\chi_d(0)=-1\), the only possible common root would be \(\zeta=(d-1)/d\). However, \[\label{eq:excluded-repeated-root} \chi_d\!\left(\frac{d-1}{d}\right)\ =\ -\frac1d\left(\frac{d-1}{d}\right)^{d-1}-1\ <\ 0,\] so no repeated root exists. let \(\chi_d(\zeta)=0\). Then \[\label{eq:root-modulus-identity} 1\ =\ |\zeta|^{d-1}|\zeta-1|.\] Suppose that \(|\zeta|\geq\rho_d\). Since \(\rho_d>1\), the reverse triangle inequality and the strict increase of \(r^{d-1}(r-1)\) for \(r\geq1\) give \[\label{eq:strict-dominance-proof} 1\ =\ |\zeta|^{d-1}|\zeta-1|\ \geq\ |\zeta|^{d-1}\bigl(|\zeta|-1\bigr)\ \geq\ \rho_d^{d-1}(\rho_d-1)\ =\ 1.\] Equality must therefore hold throughout. The second equality forces \(|\zeta|=\rho_d\), and equality in \(|\zeta-1|\geq|\zeta|-1\) forces \(\zeta\) to be nonnegative and real. Hence \(\zeta=\rho_d\). Every other root therefore satisfies \(|\zeta|<\rho_d\). ◻ Theorem 7. Let \(\alpha_d=\max\bigl\{|\zeta|:\chi_d(\zeta)=0,\ \zeta\neq\rho_d\bigr\}\). Then \(\alpha_d<\rho_d\), and as \(n\to\infty\), \(F_n^{(d)}=A_d\rho_d^n+O\!\left(\alpha_d^n\right),\) where \[\label{eq:dominant-coefficient} A_d\ =\ \frac{1}{\rho_d^{-1}\left(1+d\rho_d^{-(d-1)}\right)}\ =\ \frac{\rho_d^d}{\rho_d^{d-1}+d}\ >\ 0.\] In particular, \[\label{eq:dominant-equivalence} F_n^{(d)}\ \sim\ A_d\rho_d^n.\] Proof. The recurrence and initial conditions give the generating function \[\label{eq:generating-function} \sum_{n\geq0}F_n^{(d)}z^n\ =\ \frac{1}{1-z-z^d}.\] Let \(D_d(z) = 1-z-z^d\). The zeros of \(D_d(z)\) are the reciprocals of the roots of \(\chi_d\). Label the roots of \(\chi_d\) as \(\zeta_1, \zeta_2,\dots,\zeta_d\), with \(\zeta_d = \rho_d\). Thus \[\label{eq:denominator-factorization} D_d(z)\ =\ \prod_{j=1}^d(1-\zeta_jz).\] There exist constants \(A_1,\dots,A_d\) such that \[\label{eq:partial-fractions} \begin{aligned} \sum_{n\geq0} F_n^{(d)}z^n\ =\ \frac{1}{D_d(z)} &\ =\ \frac{1}{\prod_{j=1}^d(1-\zeta_jz)}\\ &\ =\ \sum_{j=1}^d\frac{A_j}{1-\zeta_jz}\\ &\ =\ \sum_{j=1}^dA_j\sum_{n\geq 0} \zeta_j^nz^n. \end{aligned}\] Therefore, by extracting the coefficient of \(z^n\), \[\label{eq:binet-expansion} F_n^{(d)}\ =\ \sum_{j=1}^dA_j\zeta_j^n.\] By Lemma 6, \(z=\rho_d^{-1}\) is the unique zero of smallest modulus, and all zeros are simple. Furthermore, every root satisfies \(|\zeta_j|\leq\alpha_d<\rho_d\) for \(1\leq j\leq d-1\), so \[\label{eq:nondominant-remainder} \left|\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} A_j\zeta_j^n\right|\ \leq\ \left(\sum_{j=1}^{d-1}|A_j|\right)\alpha_d^n\ =\ O(\alpha_d^n).\] It follows that \[\label{eq:growth-expansion} F_n^{(d)}\ =\ A_d\rho_d^n+O(\alpha_d^n).\] Dividing by \(A_d\rho_d^n\), we obtain \[\label{eq:normalized-growth} \frac{F_n^{(d)}}{A_d\rho_d^n}\ =\ 1+O\left(\left(\frac{\alpha_d}{\rho_d}\right)^n\right) \longrightarrow1,\] because \(\alpha_d/\rho_d<1\). Thus \[\label{eq:growth-equivalence-proof} F_n^{(d)}\ \sim\ A_d\rho_d^n.\] The coefficient of the dominant term is obtained from the simple pole at \(z_d=\rho_d^{-1}\), giving \[\label{eq:dominant-residue} A_d\ =\ -\frac{1}{z_d\,\frac{d}{dz}(1-z-z^d)\rvert_{z=z_d}}\ =\ \frac{1}{z_d(1+dz_d^{d-1})}\ =\ \frac{\rho_d^d}{\rho_d^{d-1}+d}.\] This quantity is positive. ◻ Corollary 8. As \(n\to\infty\), \[\label{eq:logarithmic-growth} \log F_n^{(d)}\ =\ n\log\rho_d+\log A_d+o(1)\ =\ n\log\rho_d+O(1).\] Equivalently, if \(n_d(A)=\min\{n\geq0:F_n^{(d)}\geq A\}\) then as \(A\) tends to infinity, \[\label{eq:inverse-growth} n_d(A)\ =\ \frac{\log A}{\log\rho_d}+O(1)\ =\ \log_{\rho_d}A+O(1).\] Proof. By Theorem 7, \[\label{eq:growth-factorization} F_n^{(d)}\ =\ A_d\rho_d^n\bigl(1+o(1)\bigr).\] Taking logarithms proves the first assertion. Solving the resulting estimate for the threshold index proves the second. ◻ Corollary 9. For \(d=2\) (i.e., the case in \({\mathbb Z}^2\)), the order-\(d\) sequence is the ordinary Fibonacci sequence and \(\rho_2=\varphi=(1+\sqrt5)/2\). Consequently, \[\label{eq:planar-binet} F_n^{(2)}\ =\ \frac{\varphi^{n+1}}{\sqrt5}+O\!\left(\varphi^{-n}\right)\] and \[\label{eq:planar-threshold-growth} n_2(A)\ =\ \log_\varphi A+O(1).\] 2.3 Covering timesLet \(\mathcal{R}_n^{(d)}\) denote the random bounding hyperrectangle after \(n\) completed moves. For a lattice point \(a=(a_0,\ldots,a_{d-1})\in{\mathbb Z}^d\), define \[\label{eq:target-distances-active-set} \delta_r(a)\ =\ \max\{a_r-1,-a_r,0\}, \qquad I(a)\ =\ \{r:\delta_r(a)\ >\ 0\}.\] Thus \(\delta_r(a)\) is the distance from the appropriate face of \([0,1]^d\) to the target in coordinate \(r\), and \(I(a)\) is the set of coordinates not already covered initially. Define the covering time by \[\label{eq:covering-time-definition} T(a)\ =\ \inf\{n\ \geq\ 0:a\in\mathcal{R}_n^{(d)}\}.\] The first problem of the paper is to determine the distribution and moments of \(T(a)\), beginning with \[\label{eq:covering-time-objective} \mathbb{E}[T(a)].\] Although the side lengths of \(\mathcal{R}_n^{(d)}\) are deterministic, its position depends on the coin-flip word. Determining whether a given point has been covered is therefore equivalent to ordering certain weighted subset sums. The \(j\)th update of coordinate \(r\) occurs at move \(r+1+jd\) and has thickness \[\label{eq:coordinate-weight-definition} w_{r,j}\ :=\ F_{d-1+r+jd}^{(d)}, \qquad j\ \geq\ 0.\] For each fixed \(r\), these weights form a tail of a residue-class subsequence, so Proposition 4 supplies the key structural fact for the analysis in the next section. The second problem, the construction and analysis of a random Fibonacci spiral, uses the same sequence of appended blocks but tracks distinguished corners rather than the entire bounding hyperrectangle. We save its formal introduction for Section 6. [top] 3 Weighted Subset Sums and Canonical OrderingThe side lengths of the random tiling are deterministic, but the position of the bounding hyperrectangle depends on the directions selected by the coin flips. Along each coordinate axis, the distance traveled toward a fixed target is therefore a weighted subset sum. We show that the terms associated with any one coordinate form a superincreasing sequence. It follows that their subset sums are ordered exactly as binary integers, which yields a canonical threshold word and an exact finite-time covering probability. Throughout this section, let \(\left\{F_n^{(d)}\right\}_{n\geq0}\) be the order-\(d\) Fibonacci sequence defined by \[\label{eq:recurrence-recall} F_0^{(d)}\ =\ \cdots\ =\ F_{d-1}^{(d)}\ =\ 1, \qquad F_n^{(d)}\ =\ F_{n-1}^{(d)}+F_{n-d}^{(d)} \text{ for } n\ \geq\ d.\] 3.1 Coordinate subsequences and random subsetsFix \(r\in\{0,1,\ldots,d-1\}\). The \(j\)th update of coordinate \(r\), indexed from \(j=0\), occurs at move \(r+1+jd\) and moves the selected face by \[\label{eq:coordinate-weight-recall} w_{r,j}\ :=\ F_{d-1+r+jd}^{(d)}.\] For \(m\geq0\), define the first \(m\) coordinate weights and their cumulative sum by \[\label{eq:coordinate-weight-set-sum} \mathcal W_{r,m}\ :=\ \{w_{r,0},\ldots,w_{r,m-1}\}, \qquad W_{r,m}\ :=\ \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}w_{r,j},\] with \(\mathcal W_{r,0}=\varnothing\) and \(W_{r,0}=0\). Proposition 4 gives \[\label{eq:coordinate-superincreasing} w_{r,k}\ >\ W_{r,k} \qquad(k\ \geq\ 1),\] so every coordinate-weight sequence is superincreasing. Let \(n\geq0\) denote the number of completed moves. The number of updates of coordinate \(r\) among those \(n\) moves is \[\label{eq:update-count} u_r(n)\ :=\ \#\{0\ \leq\ i\ <\ n:i\equiv r\pmod d\}\ =\ \begin{cases} 0,&n\ \leq\ r,\\[1mm] 1+\left\lfloor\dfrac{n-1-r}{d}\right\rfloor,&n\ \geq\ r+1. \end{cases}\] Let \(a=(a_0,\ldots,a_{d-1})\in{\mathbb Z}^d\) be the target point and fix an active coordinate \(r\in I(a)\). Write \(\delta_r=\delta_r(a)>0\). Let \(\xi_{r,j}=1\) when the \(j\)th update of coordinate \(r\) is directed toward the target and \(\xi_{r,j}=0\) otherwise. Depending on which side of the initial cube contains the target, \(\xi_{r,j}\) is either \(c_{r+1+jd}\) or \(1-c_{r+1+jd}\) from the global placement sequence. Thus the coordinate variables are independent Bernoulli variables with parameter \(1/2\). After \(n\) completed moves, define \[\label{eq:random-coordinate-subset} E_{r,n}\ :=\ \{w_{r,j}:0\ \leq\ j\ <\ u_r(n),\ \xi_{r,j}\ =\ 1\} \subseteq\mathcal W_{r,u_r(n)}.\] Then the target has been covered in coordinate \(r\) after \(n\) moves exactly when \[\label{eq:coordinate-covering-event} \sum_{w\in E_{r,n}}w\ \geq\ \delta_r.\] For \(E\subseteq\mathcal W_{r,m}\), define \[\label{eq:subset-membership-word} x(E)\ =\ (x_{m-1},\ldots,x_0)\in\{0,1\}^m, \qquad x_j\ =\ \begin{cases} 1,&w_{r,j}\in E,\\ 0,&w_{r,j}\notin E. \end{cases}\] Its weighted value is \[\label{eq:weighted-word-value} V_r(x)\ :=\ \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}x_jw_{r,j}\ =\ \sum_{w\in E}w.\] 3.2 Binary order and the canonical thresholdFor \(x=(x_{m-1},\ldots,x_0)\in\{0,1\}^m\), define \[\label{eq:binary-rank-definition} \operatorname{rank}_2(x)\ :=\ \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}x_j2^j.\] For distinct words \(x,y\), let \(k(x,y)=\max\{j:x_j\neq y_j\}\). We write \(x<_{\mathrm{MSB}}y\) when \(x_{k(x,y)}<y_{k(x,y)}\). The superincreasing property, standard in subset-sum problems [4], means that the largest weight on which two subsets differ outweighs every possible contribution from smaller weights. Thus this single digit determines the order of their weighted sums. Theorem 10 (Binary ordering and rank). For every \(m\geq1\) and \(x,y\in\{0,1\}^m\), \[\label{eq:binary-order-equivalence} V_r(x)\ <\ V_r(y) \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad x\ <_{\mathrm{MSB}\ }y \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \operatorname{rank}_2(x)<\operatorname{rank}_2(y).\] Consequently, \[\label{eq:binary-predecessor-count} \#\{y\in\{0,1\}^m:V_r(y)\ <\ V_r(x)\}\ =\ \operatorname{rank}_2(x).\] Replacing \(<\) by \(\leq\) increases this count by one. Proof. For distinct \(x,y\), let \(k=k(x,y)\). If \(x_k=0\) and \(y_k=1\), superincreasingness gives \[\label{eq:binary-order-proof} V_r(y)-V_r(x)\ \geq\ w_{r,k}-W_{r,k}\ >\ 0.\] Here the case \(k=0\) uses \(W_{r,0}=0<w_{r,0}\). Interchanging \(x,y\) handles the other case. The same largest differing digit determines the order of the binary ranks. Since these ranks range bijectively over \(0,\ldots,2^m-1\), exactly \(\operatorname{rank}_2(x)\) words precede \(x\). ◻ For the positive coordinate distance \(\delta_r\), define \[\label{eq:coordinate-threshold} m_r\ :=\ \min\{m\ \geq\ 1:W_{r,m}\ \geq\ \delta_r\}.\] This is the first coordinate-update count at which coverage is possible. Definition 11. The canonical threshold word and its ranks are \[\label{eq:canonical-threshold-ranks} x_r^\star\ :=\ \min_{<_{\mathrm{MSB}}} \{x\in\{0,1\}^{m_r}:V_r(x)\ \geq\ \delta_r\}, \qquad R_r\ :=\ \operatorname{rank}_2(x_r^\star), \qquad \kappa_r\ :=\ R_r2^{-m_r}.\] Write \(x_r^\star=(x_{r,m_r-1}^\star,\ldots,x_{r,0}^\star)\). Minimality of \(m_r\) gives \(W_{r,m_r-1}<\delta_r\), so the leading digit of \(x_r^\star\) is \(1\). Therefore \[\label{eq:threshold-rank-bounds} 2^{m_r-1}\ \leq\ R_r\ <\ 2^{m_r}, \qquad \frac12\ \leq\ \kappa_r\ <\ 1.\] Remark 12 (Greedy construction). Choose the digits from largest to smallest. After fixing the digits above \(k\), let \[\label{eq:greedy-prefix-weight} v_{r,k}\ :=\ \sum_{j=k+1}^{m_r-1}x_{r,j}^\star w_{r,j}.\] Then choose \[\label{eq:greedy-digit-rule} x_{r,k}^\star\ =\ \begin{cases} 0,&v_{r,k}+W_{r,k}\ \geq\ \delta_r,\\ 1,&v_{r,k}+W_{r,k}\ <\ \delta_r. \end{cases}\] At each stage, the chosen prefix has at least one successful completion. This holds initially because \(W_{r,m_r}\geq\delta_r\). A zero digit is chosen exactly when such a completion remains possible; otherwise every successful completion must use a one. Thus feasibility is preserved, and choosing zero whenever possible produces the least successful word in MSB order. 3.3 The exact coordinate covering lawFix \(r\in I(a)\), and define \[\label{eq:coordinate-time-definitions} \tau_r\ :=\ \inf\left\{m\ \geq\ 0: \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\xi_{r,j}w_{r,j}\ \geq\ \delta_r\right\}, \qquad b_r\ :=\ r+1+d(m_r-1).\] Here \(\tau_r\) counts updates of coordinate \(r\), whereas \(T_r\) denotes the first global move at which that coordinate is covered. The key observation is that every weight appearing after the first feasible update count already exceeds the target distance. Continued failure therefore requires every newly exposed bit to be zero. Theorem 13 (Exact coordinate covering law). For every integer \(m\geq0\), \[\label{eq:failing-subset-count} \#\left\{E\subseteq\mathcal W_{r,m}: \sum_{w\in E}w\ <\ \delta_r\right\}\ =\ \begin{cases} 2^m,&m\ <\ m_r,\\ R_r,&m\ \geq\ m_r. \end{cases}\] For independent fair placement coins, \(\tau_r\) is finite almost surely. Writing \(G_r:=\tau_r-m_r\), one has \[\label{eq:coordinate-global-time} T_r\ =\ r+1+d(\tau_r-1)\ =\ b_r+dG_r\] and \[\label{eq:coordinate-delay-tail} \mathbb P(G_r\ >\ k)\ =\ \kappa_r2^{-k} \qquad(k\ =\ 0,1,\ldots).\] Equivalently, \[\label{eq:coordinate-delay-mass} \mathbb P(G_r\ =\ 0)\ =\ 1-\kappa_r, \qquad \mathbb P(G_r\ =\ j)\ =\ \kappa_r2^{-j} \quad(j\ \geq\ 1).\] Proof. If \(m<m_r\), even the sum of all available weights is less than \(\delta_r\), so every subset fails. At \(m=m_r\), Theorem 10 shows that exactly \(R_r\) words precede the first successful word \(x_r^\star\). If \(m>m_r\), every new weight satisfies \[\label{eq:later-weight-target-bound} w_{r,j}\ >\ W_{r,j}\ \geq\ W_{r,m_r}\ \geq\ \delta_r \qquad(j\ \geq\ m_r).\] A failing word must therefore have zero in every new position. Its first \(m_r\) digits must be one of the same \(R_r\) failing words, so the failing count stays equal to \(R_r\). All \(2^m\) words are equally likely. Hence \[\label{eq:coordinate-tail-count} \mathbb P(\tau_r\ >\ m_r+k)\ =\ R_r2^{-(m_r+k)}\ =\ \kappa_r2^{-k}.\] This tends to zero, proving almost-sure finiteness. It also proves [eq:coordinate-delay-tail]; successive tail differences give the displayed mass function. Finally, the \(m\)th update of coordinate \(r\) occurs at move \(r+1+d(m-1)\), proving [eq:coordinate-global-time]. ◻ In particular, if \(u_r(n)\) is the number of coordinate-\(r\) updates among the first \(n\) moves, then \[\label{eq:coordinate-survival} \mathbb P(T_r\ >\ n)\ =\ \begin{cases} 1,&u_r(n)\ <\ m_r,\\ R_r2^{-u_r(n)},&u_r(n)\ \geq\ m_r. \end{cases}\] Corollary 14 (Coordinate moments). The coordinate-update and global-move moments are \[\label{eq:coordinate-moment-formulas} \begin{aligned} \mathbb E[\tau_r]&\ =\ m_r+2\kappa_r, & \operatorname{Var}(\tau_r)&\ =\ 6\kappa_r-4\kappa_r^2,\\ \mathbb E[T_r]&\ =\ b_r+2d\kappa_r, & \operatorname{Var}(T_r)&\ =\ d^2(6\kappa_r-4\kappa_r^2). \end{aligned}\] Moreover, \(2\leq\operatorname{Var}(\tau_r)\leq9/4\). Proof. The tail in [eq:coordinate-delay-tail] gives \(\mathbb E[G_r]=2\kappa_r\) and \(\mathbb E[G_r^2]=6\kappa_r\). Apply \(\tau_r=m_r+G_r\) and \(T_r=b_r+dG_r\). The variance bounds follow by considering \(6\kappa-4\kappa^2\) on \(1/2\leq\kappa<1\). ◻ [top] 4 Covering Time in \(d\) DimensionsWe combine the coordinate subset-sum formulas to obtain the covering-time distribution for a target point \[\label{eq:target-vector} a\ =\ (a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{d-1})\in{\mathbb Z}^d.\] Recall that \[\label{eq:active-set-recall} \delta_r\ =\ \delta_r(a)\ =\ \max\{a_r-1,-a_r,0\}, \qquad I\ =\ I(a)\ =\ \{r:\delta_r\ >\ 0\}.\] Coordinates outside \(I\) are already covered by the initial hypercube; for them set \(T_r=0\). We assume below that \(I\neq\varnothing\); if \(I=\varnothing\), then \(T(a)=0\). For \(r\in I\), the update count, feasibility threshold, and coordinate survival law are given by [eq:update-count], [eq:coordinate-threshold], and [eq:coordinate-survival], respectively. 4.1 Coordinate independence and the exact distributionLet \(c_k\) be the placement bit used at move \(k\geq1\). Coordinate \(r\) depends only on the flips \[\label{eq:coordinate-coin-subsequence} c_{r+1},\ c_{r+1+d},\ c_{r+1+2d},\ \ldots.\] Lemma 15. The random variables representing the covering times, \[\label{eq:independent-coordinate-times} T_0,\ T_1,\ \ldots\ ,\ T_{d-1}\] are mutually independent. Proof. For each \(r\), the random variable \(T_r\) is measurable with respect to the sigma-algebra \[\label{eq:coordinate-sigma-algebra} \mathcal{G}_r\ =\ \sigma(c_{r+1+kd}:k\ \geq\ 0).\] The index sets \[\label{eq:coordinate-disjoint-indices} \{r+1+kd:k\ \geq\ 0\}, \qquad 0\ \leq\ r\ <\ d,\] are pairwise disjoint. Since the coin flips are mutually independent, the sigma-algebras \(\mathcal{G}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{G}_{d-1}\) are mutually independent. Hence the covering times are mutually independent. ◻ Definition 16. The target point \(a\) is covered when it has been covered in every coordinate. Its covering time is therefore \[\label{eq:full-covering-maximum} T\ =\ T(a)\ =\ \max_{0\leq r<d}T_r.\] Theorem 17. For every \(n\geq0\), \[\label{eq:full-covering-cdf} \mathbb{P}(T\ \leq\ n)\ =\ \prod_{r\in I}\bigl(1-\overline F_r(n)\bigr).\] Equivalently, \[\label{eq:full-covering-survival} { \mathbb{P}(T\ >\ n)\ =\ 1-\prod_{r\in I}\bigl(1-\overline F_r(n)\bigr), }\] where \[\label{eq:coordinate-survival-function} \overline F_r(n)\ =\ \begin{cases} 1,&u_r(n)\ <\ m_r,\\[1mm] \dfrac{R_r}{2^{u_r(n)}},&u_r(n)\ \geq\ m_r. \end{cases}\] Proof. The event \(\{T\leq n\}\) is the intersection \[\label{eq:covering-event-intersection} \bigcap_{r\in I}\{T_r\ \leq\ n\}.\] Lemma 15 therefore gives \[\label{eq:full-cdf-proof} \mathbb{P}(T\ \leq\ n)\ =\ \prod_{r\in I}\mathbb{P}(T_r\ \leq\ n)\ =\ \prod_{r\in I}\bigl(1-\overline F_r(n)\bigr).\] Taking complements proves the survival formula. ◻ 4.2 Cycle decomposition of the geometric tailLet \[\label{eq:maximal-threshold} m_*\ :=\ \max_{r\in I}m_r.\] Write the number of completed moves as \(n=dk+s\), where \(0\leq s<d\). Then \[\label{eq:cycle-update-count} u_r(dk+s)\ =\ k+\mathbf{1}_{\{r<s\}}.\] In particular, if \(k\geq m_*\), every active coordinate is in its geometric regime and \[\label{eq:cycle-coordinate-tail} \overline F_r(dk+s)\ =\ \frac{R_r}{2^{k+\mathbf{1}_{\{r<s\}}}}.\] For a nonempty subset \(J\subseteq I\), define \[\label{eq:subset-phase-data} R_J\ :=\ \prod_{r\in J}R_r, \qquad \eta_s(J)\ :=\ \#\{r\in J:r\ <\ s\}.\] Proposition 18. For \(k\geq m_*\) and \(0\leq s<d\), \[\label{eq:cycle-inclusion-exclusion} \mathbb{P}(T\ >\ dk+s)\ =\ \sum_{\varnothing\neq J\subseteq I} (-1)^{|J|+1} R_J2^{-k|J|-\eta_s(J)}.\] Proof. Substitute the geometric coordinate tails into \[\label{eq:product-survival-expansion} 1-\prod_{r\in I}(1-\overline F_r(dk+s))\] and expand the product by inclusion-exclusion. For a fixed \(J\), the product of its coordinate tails is \[\label{eq:subset-tail-product} \prod_{r\in J} \frac{R_r}{2^{k+\mathbf{1}_{\{r<s\}}}}\ =\ R_J2^{-k|J|-\eta_s(J)}.\] ◻ To shorten the moment formulas, define the phase sums \[\label{eq:phase-sums} H_J\ =\ \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}2^{-\eta_s(J)} \quad\text{ and }\quad K_J\ =\ \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}(2s+1)2^{-\eta_s(J)}.\] Both depend only on the positions of the coordinates in \(J\) within the cyclic update order. 4.3 Moment FormulasFor a nonnegative integer-valued random variable, \[\label{eq:expectation-tail-sum} \mathbb{E}[T]\ =\ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}(T\ >\ n).\] We split this sum immediately before the first complete geometric cycle as \[\label{eq:expectation-split} \mathbb{E}[T]\ =\ E_{\mathrm{fin}}+E_{\mathrm{tail}},\] where \[\label{eq:expectation-finite-part} E_{\mathrm{fin}}\ =\ \sum_{n=0}^{dm_*-1}\mathbb{P}(T\ >\ n).\] Theorem 19 (Exact expected covering time). Fix \(d\geq2\) and a lattice target \(a\) with \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\), and assume independent fair placement coins. With the quantities defined above, the expected covering time is \[\label{eq:expected-covering-time} { \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[T]\ =\ {}& \sum_{n=0}^{dm_*-1} \left[ 1-\prod_{r\in I}\bigl(1-\overline F_r(n)\bigr) \right]\\ &+ \sum_{\varnothing\neq J\subseteq I} (-1)^{|J|+1} \frac{R_JH_J\,2^{-m_*|J|}} {1-2^{-|J|}}. \end{aligned} }\] Proof. Only the tail requires evaluation. Proposition 18 gives \[\label{eq:expectation-tail-evaluation} \begin{aligned} E_{\mathrm{tail}} &\ =\ \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} \mathbb{P}(T\ >\ dk+s)\\ &\ =\ \sum_{\varnothing\neq J\subseteq I} (-1)^{|J|+1}R_J \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}2^{-\eta_s(J)} \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}2^{-k|J|}. \end{aligned}\] Since \[\label{eq:geometric-tail-series} \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}2^{-k|J|}\ =\ \frac{2^{-m_*|J|}}{1-2^{-|J|}},\] the result follows. ◻ Although the original tail is an infinite series, the theorem expresses it as a sum over the \(2^{|I|}-1\) nonempty active-coordinate subsets. Thus, for fixed \(d\), the only unsummed part is the finite transient range \(0\leq n<dm_*\). The second tail-sum identity is \[\label{eq:second-moment-tail-sum} \mathbb{E}[T^2]\ =\ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(2n+1)\mathbb{P}(T\ >\ n).\] Define \[\label{eq:second-moment-finite-part} M_{2,\mathrm{fin}}\ =\ \sum_{n=0}^{dm_*-1}(2n+1) \left[ 1-\prod_{r\in I}\bigl(1-\overline F_r(n)\bigr) \right].\] Theorem 20 (Exact second moment and variance). Fix \(d\geq2\) and a lattice target \(a\) with \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\), and assume independent fair placement coins. For each nonempty \(J\subseteq I\), let \[\label{eq:subset-geometric-ratio} z_J\ =\ 2^{-|J|}.\] Then \[\label{eq:second-moment-formula} { \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[T^2]\ =\ {}&M_{2,\mathrm{fin}}\\ &+ \sum_{\varnothing\neq J\subseteq I} (-1)^{|J|+1}R_Jz_J^{m_*} \left[ \frac{2dm_* H_J+K_J}{1-z_J} +\frac{2dz_JH_J}{(1-z_J)^2} \right]. \end{aligned} }\] Consequently, \[\label{eq:variance-formula} { \operatorname{Var}(T)\ =\ \mathbb{E}[T^2]-\mathbb{E}[T]^2, }\] where \(\mathbb{E}[T]\) is given by Theorem 19. Proof. For a fixed nonempty set \(J\), its contribution to the second-moment tail is \[\label{eq:second-moment-subset-contribution} \begin{aligned} &R_J\sum_{s=0}^{d-1}2^{-\eta_s(J)} \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}(2dk+2s+1)z_J^k. \end{aligned}\] The geometric identities \[\label{eq:geometric-series} \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}z^k\ =\ \frac{z^{m_*}}{1-z}\] and \[\label{eq:shifted-geometric-first-moment} \sum_{k=m_*}^{\infty}kz^k\ =\ z^{m_*}\left( \frac{m_*}{1-z}+\frac{z}{(1-z)^2} \right)\] give \[\label{eq:second-moment-subset-evaluation} R_Jz_J^{m_*} \left[ \frac{2dm_*H_J+K_J}{1-z_J} +\frac{2dz_JH_J}{(1-z_J)^2} \right].\] Summing with the inclusion–exclusion signs and adding the finite transient part proves the result. ◻ [top] 5 Limiting BehaviorTheorems 17, 19, and 20 of Section 4 determine the covering-time distribution for every fixed target. We use them to describe the behavior of the covering time as the target moves away from the initial hypercube. We show that the expected covering time grows logarithmically, the excess beyond its deterministic threshold has a uniformly exponential tail, and all centered moments remain bounded when the dimension is fixed. Throughout this section, \(d\geq2\) is fixed and \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\). For \(a\in{\mathbb Z}^d\), recall \[\label{eq:limiting-target-distances} \delta_r(a)\ =\ \max\{a_r-1,-a_r,0\}, \qquad I(a)\ =\ \{r:\delta_r(a)\ >\ 0\},\] and write \[\label{eq:limiting-distance} \delta_\infty(a)\ :=\ \max_{0\leq r<d}\delta_r(a).\] When the target is fixed, we abbreviate \(\delta_r=\delta_r(a)\) and \(I=I(a)\). For \(r\in I(a)\), let \(b_r=r+1+d(m_r-1)\) be the earliest move at which coordinate \(r\) can be covered, and let \[\label{eq:earliest-full-covering} B(a)\ :=\ \max_{r\in I(a)}b_r\] be the earliest move at which all active coordinates can be covered. 5.1 Deterministic locationFor each active coordinate, minimality of \(m_r\) gives \[\label{eq:threshold-bracketing} W_{r,m_r-1}\ <\ \delta_r\ \leq\ W_{r,m_r}.\] Corollary 21. For fixed \(d\geq2\), uniformly over active coordinates and lattice targets, \[\label{eq:threshold-asymptotics} dm_r\ =\ \log_{\rho_d}\delta_r+O_d(1), \qquad B(a)\ =\ \log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)+O_d(1).\] Proof. Proposition 4 gives \[\label{eq:cumulative-weight-bound} w_{r,m-1}\ \leq\ W_{r,m}\ <\ 2w_{r,m-1} \qquad(m\ \geq\ 1).\] Since \(w_{r,m-1}=F_{r+dm-1}^{(d)}\), Theorem 7 implies \[\label{eq:cumulative-weight-growth} \log_{\rho_d}W_{r,m}\ =\ r+dm-1+O_d(1).\] For \(m_r\geq2\), apply this to the two partial sums bracketing \(\delta_r\). If \(m_r=1\), then \(1\leq\delta_r\leq w_{r,0}\), so the same estimate holds after enlarging the constant. Thus \(b_r=r+1+d(m_r-1)=\log_{\rho_d}\delta_r+O_d(1)\). Taking the maximum over the finitely many active coordinates proves the assertion for \(B(a)\). ◻ 5.2 Uniform fluctuations and their consequencesAssume \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\). By Theorem 13, \(T_r=b_r+dG_r\) and \(\mathbb P(G_r>k)=\kappa_r2^{-k}\). Set \(G_{\max}:=\max_{r\in I(a)}G_r\). Since \(T=\max_{r\in I(a)}T_r\) and \(B(a)=\max_{r\in I(a)}b_r\), \[\label{eq:limiting-delay-comparison} 0\ \leq\ T-B(a)\ =\ \max_{r\in I(a)}\{b_r-B(a)+dG_r\}\ \leq\ dG_{\max}.\] Thus the fluctuations are controlled by at most \(d\) coordinate delays, each having a geometric tail independent of the scale of the target. Theorem 22. For every target with \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\) and every integer \(k\geq0\), \[\label{eq:uniform-delay-tail} \mathbb P(T\ >\ B(a)+dk)\ \leq\ \min\{1,|I(a)|2^{-k}\}\ \leq\ \min\{1,d2^{-k}\}.\] For every fixed real \(q\geq1\), \[\label{eq:uniform-delay-moments} \mathbb E[|T-B(a)|^q]\ =\ O_{d,q}(1),\] uniformly over the target. Proof. The union bound and [eq:threshold-rank-bounds] give \[\label{eq:maximum-delay-union-bound} \mathbb P(G_{\max}\ >\ k)\ \leq\ \sum_{r\in I(a)}\mathbb P(G_r\ >\ k)\ =\ \sum_{r\in I(a)}\kappa_r2^{-k}\ \leq\ |I(a)|2^{-k}.\] Together with [eq:limiting-delay-comparison], this proves the concentration bound. For the moments, the tail-sum identity gives \[\label{eq:maximum-delay-moments} \begin{aligned} \mathbb E[G_{\max}^q] &\ =\ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\bigl((k+1)^q-k^q\bigr) \mathbb P(G_{\max}\ >\ k)\\ &\ \leq\ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\bigl((k+1)^q-k^q\bigr) \min\{1,d2^{-k}\}\ =\ O_{d,q}(1). \end{aligned}\] The series converges because its summands are bounded by an exponential times a polynomial. Apply [eq:limiting-delay-comparison] once more. ◻ Corollary 23. For fixed \(d\), \[\label{eq:covering-asymptotics} \mathbb E[T]\ =\ B(a)+O_d(1)\ =\ \log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)+O_d(1), \qquad \operatorname{Var}(T)\ =\ O_d(1),\] uniformly over targets with \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\). As \(\delta_\infty(a)\to\infty\), \[\label{eq:relative-lq-convergence} \frac{T}{\log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)}\longrightarrow1 \quad\text{in }L^q\] for every fixed \(q\geq1\). Moreover, \[\label{eq:coefficient-of-variation} \frac{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}(T)}}{\mathbb E[T]} \longrightarrow0.\] Proof. The \(q=1\) case of Theorem 22 gives \(\mathbb E[T]-B(a)=O_d(1)\), and the \(q=2\) case gives \[\label{eq:uniform-variance-bound} \operatorname{Var}(T)\ \leq\ \mathbb E[(T-B(a))^2]\ =\ O_d(1).\] Use Corollary 21 for the logarithmic expression. For any fixed \(q\geq1\), the same two results imply \[\label{eq:logarithmic-centered-moments} \begin{aligned} \mathbb E\bigl[|T-\log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)|^q\bigr]\ \leq\ 2^{q-1}\bigl( &\mathbb E[|T-B(a)|^q]\\ &+|B(a)-\log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)|^q \bigr)\ =\ O_{d,q}(1). \end{aligned}\] Dividing by \((\log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a))^q\) proves \(L^q\) convergence. The final conclusion follows because the variance is bounded and the expectation tends to infinity. ◻ 5.3 The centered covering-time lawTheorem 22 implies that \[\label{eq:tight-centered-family} \{T(a)-B(a):a\in\mathbb Z^d,\ I(a)\ \neq\ \varnothing\}\] is tight for fixed \(d\): its members are nonnegative and their tails are uniformly bounded by \(d2^{-k}\) at \(dk\). The independent coordinate delays also give the exact identity \[\label{eq:maximum-delay-exact-tail} \mathbb P(G_{\max}\ >\ k)\ =\ 1-\prod_{r\in I(a)}(1-\kappa_r2^{-k}).\] Indeed, the coordinate delays depend on disjoint sets of independent placement coins. This identity is a law for \(G_{\max}\), not generally for \((T-B(a))/d\), because \[\label{eq:centered-covering-identity} T-B(a)\ =\ \max_{r\in I(a)}\{b_r-B(a)+dG_r\}.\] Consequently, the centered law depends on the active-coordinate set, the ranks \(\kappa_r\), and the offsets \(b_r-B(a)\). Tightness guarantees weakly convergent subsequences, but does not by itself identify a universal centered limiting law. 5.4 The planar caseWhen \(d=2\), coordinate \(0\) uses the odd-indexed Fibonacci numbers \(F_{1+2j}\), coordinate \(1\) uses the positive even-indexed Fibonacci numbers \(F_{2+2j}\), and \[\label{eq:planar-dominant-root} \rho_2\ =\ \varphi\ =\ \frac{1+\sqrt5}{2}.\] Corollary 24. For the planar random Fibonacci tiling and a target with \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\), \[\label{eq:planar-covering-asymptotics} \mathbb{E}[T]\ =\ \log_\varphi\delta_\infty(a)+O(1), \qquad \operatorname{Var}(T)\ =\ O(1).\] If \(B(a)\) denotes the earliest move at which both coordinates can have been covered, then \[\label{eq:planar-delay-tail} \mathbb{P}\bigl(T\ >\ B(a)+2k\bigr)\ \leq\ \min\{1,2^{1-k}\} \qquad(k\ \geq\ 0).\] Moreover, \[\label{eq:planar-relative-convergence} \frac{T}{\log_\varphi\delta_\infty(a)} \longrightarrow1\] in \(L^q\) for every fixed \(q\geq1\) as \(\delta_\infty(a)\to\infty\). Remark 25 (Parity effects). The exact expectation and variance formulas retain the distinction between the coordinate updated on even global steps and the coordinate updated on odd global steps through their phase factors. These parity corrections are bounded, so they are absorbed into the \(O(1)\) terms in the limiting formulas. 5.5 Dependence on the dimensionWe finally allow \(d\to\infty\) to examine the coefficient of \(\log \delta_\infty(a)\) in the deterministic scale. Let \(\operatorname{W}_0\) denote the principal real branch of the Lambert function [1], defined by \(\operatorname{W}_0(x)e^{\operatorname{W}_0(x)}=x\) for \(x>0\). Proposition 26. As \(d\to\infty\), \[\label{eq:dimension-root-asymptotics} \rho_d\ =\ 1+\frac{\operatorname{W}_0(d-1)}{d-1}+o(1/d), \qquad \log\rho_d\ \sim\ \frac{\operatorname{W}_0(d)}{d}.\] Consequently, the logarithmic scale satisfies \[\label{eq:dimension-logarithmic-scale} \log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)\ \sim\ \frac{d}{\operatorname{W}_0(d)}\log \delta_\infty(a) \qquad(\delta_\infty(a)\ >\ 1).\] Proof. Write \(m=d-1\) and \(u=m(\rho_d-1)\). Taking logarithms in \(\rho_d^{d-1}(\rho_d-1)=1\) gives \[\label{eq:dimension-log-root-equation} m\log(1+u/m)+\log u\ =\ \log m.\] Since \(0<u/m<1\), the inequality \(\log(1+x)\geq x/2\) for \(0\leq x\leq 1\) implies \(u\leq 2\log m\) whenever \(u\geq 1\). Thus \(u=O(\log m)\), and expanding the logarithm yields \[\label{eq:dimension-root-error} u+\log u\ =\ \log m+O\!\left(\frac{(\log m)^2}{m}\right)\ =\ \log m+o(1).\] The function \(v\mapsto v+\log v\) has derivative at least \(1\) on \((0,\infty)\), and \(\operatorname{W}_0(m)+\log \operatorname{W}_0(m)=\log m\). Hence \(u=\operatorname{W}_0(m)+o(1)\). Substituting into \(\rho_d=1+u/m\) proves the first estimate. The others follow from \(\log(1+u/m)\sim u/m\) and \(\operatorname{W}_0(d-1)\sim \operatorname{W}_0(d)\). ◻ This comparison concerns the deterministic growth scale only. The bounds denoted by \(O_d\) may depend on \(d\), so these results do not by themselves establish a joint limit in which both dimension and target distance grow. [top] 6 Random Fibonacci SpiralsThe standard Fibonacci spiral is obtained by inscribing a quarter-circle in each square of the standard Fibonacci tiling. Consecutive arcs meet at square corners with a common tangent, producing a continuously differentiable curve. In the random tiling, however, the placement of the next square may require the curve to leave the current square through a different corner. A fixed choice of quarter-circles need not then have the correct exit point or tangent. We construct the random spiral one square at a time. Each square is assigned exactly one curve segment. The initial square has index \(0\), and the square appended at move \(n\geq1\) has side length \(F_n\). The segment in the square of side length \(F_n\) is determined after the placement of the square of side length \(F_{n+1}\) is known. Thus the construction uses one-step lookahead and is not a causal process. The local quintic connector used in Theorem 28 was proposed by László Szalay in discussions following the conference problem session. Let \(\mathcal Q_n\) denote the square of side length \(F_n\), and let \[\label{eq:spiral-placement-word} \omega\ =\ (\omega_1,\omega_2,\ldots)\in\{0,1\}^{\mathbb N}\] be the realized placement word, with \(\omega_n=c_n\), determining the placements of the squares. The curve segment assigned to \(\mathcal Q_n\) is denoted by \(\gamma_n\). We take \(\gamma_0\) to be the usual quarter-circle in the initial unit square. For \(n\geq1\), the preceding segment determines an entrance corner of \(\mathcal Q_n\) and an incoming tangent direction. Once \(\mathcal Q_{n+1}\) has been placed, its location determines the required exit corner of \(\mathcal Q_n\) and the outgoing tangent direction. All local configurations are considered up to rotations and reflections. We call the data in \(\mathcal Q_n\) standard if the usual quarter-circle of radius \(F_n\) joins the prescribed entrance and exit corners with the required tangents. Otherwise, we call the data nonstandard. For \(n\geq1\), the square \(\mathcal Q_n\) is assigned its curve segment as follows.
In either case, the endpoint and terminal tangent of \(\gamma_n\) are used as the entrance data for \(\gamma_{n+1}\). Therefore the segment in \(\mathcal Q_n\) is defined only once: it is determined by the entrance data inherited from \(\mathcal Q_{n-1}\) and the exit data determined by the placement of \(\mathcal Q_{n+1}\). Remark 27. The curve segment in \(\mathcal Q_n\) cannot in general be finalized when \(\mathcal Q_n\) is first placed. Its exit corner depends on the placement of \(\mathcal Q_{n+1}\). Thus, after the first \(n\) appended squares have been placed, the curve in the most recently placed square may not yet be determined. Figure 3 illustrates the role of the next placement.
6.1 The local nonstandard segmentFor the reference nonstandard configuration in a square \(\mathcal Q_n\), where \(n\geq1\), set \[\label{eq:connector-scales} A_n\ :=\ F_{n-1},\qquad B_n\ :=\ F_n,\qquad h_n\ :=\ \theta B_n,\qquad \varrho_n\ :=\ (1-\theta)B_n, \quad 0\ <\ \theta\ <\ 1.\] Take the entrance point to be the origin with the incoming tangent directed along the positive horizontal axis. The reference incoming arc and the outgoing arc are \[\label{eq:reference-circular-arcs} \begin{aligned} y_{n,-}(x)&\ =\ A_n-\sqrt{A_n^2-x^2}, &&-A_n\ \leq\ x\ \leq\ 0,\\ y_{n,+}(x)&\ =\ \sqrt{\varrho_n^2-(x-h_n)^2}, &&h_n\ \leq\ x\ \leq\ B_n. \end{aligned}\] The incoming arc is used only to prescribe endpoint data; it is not an additional piece inside \(\mathcal Q_n\). Let \(\sigma_5(t):=10t^3-15t^4+6t^5\). The existence and uniqueness below are a two-node Hermite interpolation problem; see [2]. We retain the explicit polynomial for the geometric construction. Theorem 28 (Local quintic connector). There is a unique polynomial \(P_n\) of degree at most five satisfying \[\label{eq:connector-conditions} \begin{aligned} P_n(0)&\ =\ 0,& P_n'(0)&\ =\ 0,& P_n''(0)&\ =\ \frac1{A_n},\\ P_n(h_n)&\ =\ \varrho_n,& P_n'(h_n)&\ =\ 0,& P_n''(h_n)&\ =\ -\frac1{\varrho_n}. \end{aligned}\] It is \[\label{eq:quintic-polynomial} P_n(x)\ =\ \varrho_n\sigma_5(t) +\frac{h_n^2}{2A_n}t^2(1-t)^3 -\frac{h_n^2}{2\varrho_n}t^3(1-t)^2, \qquad t\ =\ x/h_n.\] Its graph on \([0,h_n]\) joins the outgoing arc \(y_{n,+}\) with \(C^2\) regularity at \(x=h_n\). At \(x=0\), it has the prescribed entrance point and tangent; if the incoming segment is the reference arc \(y_{n,-}\), that join is also \(C^2\). Proof. Direct differentiation, with \(t=x/h_n\), verifies [eq:connector-conditions]. For uniqueness, the difference of two solutions has a zero of multiplicity at least three at both \(0\) and \(h_n\). It is therefore divisible by \(x^3(x-h_n)^3\), and must vanish because its degree is at most five. The outgoing arc has value \(\varrho_n\), slope zero, and second derivative \(-1/\varrho_n\) at \(h_n\). Its graph therefore agrees with \(P_n\) through second order at the splice. The same argument applies at zero when the incoming segment is \(y_{n,-}\). ◻ The reference nonstandard segment is \[\label{eq:nonstandard-segment} \begin{aligned} \gamma_n^{\mathrm{ref}}\ =\ {}&\{(x,P_n(x)):0\ \leq\ x\ \leq\ h_n\}\\ &\mathbin{\cup}\{(x,y_{n,+}(x)):h_n\ \leq\ x\ \leq\ B_n\}. \end{aligned}\] Whenever the prescribed local data are congruent to this configuration, transport this composite to the actual square by the corresponding rigid motion. If the incoming segment is not the reference circle, matching its position and oriented tangent gives a geometric \(G^1\) join, but does not impose matching curvature. A \(C^1\) parametrization of the full concatenation requires compatible parameterizations of its pieces. 6.2 Definition and global regularityDefinition 29. Fix \(\theta\in(0,1)\). The random Fibonacci spiral associated with the tiling word \(\omega\) is the curve \[\label{eq:spiral-union} \Gamma_\theta(\omega)\ =\ \gamma_0\cup\gamma_1\cup\gamma_2\cup\cdots,\] where \(\gamma_0\) is the initial quarter-circle and each square \(\mathcal Q_n\) with \(n\geq1\) is assigned exactly one segment.
The rigid motion used in each square identifies the local entrance point and tangent with the endpoint and terminal tangent of the preceding segment. Theorem 30. For every tiling word \(\omega\) and every \(\theta\in(0,1)\), the curve \(\Gamma_\theta(\omega)\) is well-defined square by square and admits a \(C^1\) parametrization at every transition between consecutive squares. Within every nonstandard square, the quintic connector and its outgoing circular arc meet with \(C^2\) regularity. If \(\omega\) produces the standard Fibonacci tiling, then every square is standard and \(\Gamma_\theta(\omega)\) is exactly the usual Fibonacci spiral. In this case, the curve is independent of \(\theta\). Proof. Each square receives exactly one curve segment, so no two transition rules prescribe competing curves in the same square. Theorem 28 verifies the reference connector’s endpoint data. Under the prescribed matching of local configurations, the entrance point and oriented tangent of \(\gamma_n\) agree with the endpoint and terminal tangent of \(\gamma_{n-1}\). Parametrizing each regular piece by arclength gives unit velocity on both sides of each join, and hence a \(C^1\) concatenation. The local Hermite conditions show that the quintic connector and outgoing circular arc agree through second order inside every nonstandard square. Finally, if every placement is standard, the nonstandard rule is never invoked, and each \(\gamma_n\) is the quarter-circle belonging to the usual Fibonacci spiral. ◻ Remark 31. Even the standard Fibonacci spiral is generally not \(C^2\) at square transitions: consecutive circular arcs have different radii and hence different curvatures. It is therefore impossible to recover the standard spiral exactly while also requiring global \(C^2\) regularity. The present construction guarantees global \(C^1\) regularity and obtains \(C^2\) regularity at the internal join of each nonstandard segment. 6.3 Scaling and lengthFor \(n\geq1\), put \(\mu_n:=F_n/F_{n-1}\). The connector formula becomes \[\label{eq:normalized-connector-scaling} P_n(\theta F_n t)\ =\ F_ng_{\theta,\mu_n}(t),\] where \[\label{eq:normalized-connector-polynomial} g_{\theta,\mu}(t)\ =\ (1-\theta)\sigma_5(t) +\frac{\theta^2\mu}{2}t^2(1-t)^3 -\frac{\theta^2}{2(1-\theta)}t^3(1-t)^2.\] Thus the normalized connector shape depends only on \(\theta\) and \(\mu_n\). Define \[\label{eq:connector-length-integral} \Lambda(\theta,\mu)\ :=\ \int_0^1\sqrt{\theta^2+(g'_{\theta,\mu}(t))^2}\,dt.\] Let \(\mathcal L_n^{\mathrm{con}}(\theta)\) be the connector length in a nonstandard square, and let \(\ell_n=\operatorname{len}(\gamma_n)\). Proposition 32. For a nonstandard square, \[\label{eq:connector-length-scaling} \mathcal L_n^{\mathrm{con}}(\theta)\ =\ F_n\Lambda(\theta,\mu_n).\] For \(n\geq1\), the full segment length is \[\label{eq:full-segment-length} \ell_n\ =\ \begin{cases} \frac{\pi}{2}F_n,&\mathcal Q_n\text{ is standard},\\[1mm] F_n\left(\Lambda(\theta,\mu_n)+\frac{\pi}{2}(1-\theta)\right), &\mathcal Q_n\text{ is nonstandard}, \end{cases}\] and \(\ell_0=\pi/2\). For every fixed \(\theta\in(0,1)\), there are constants \(0<A_\theta\leq B_\theta<\infty\) such that \[\label{eq:spiral-length-bounds} A_\theta F_n\ \leq\ \ell_n\ \leq\ B_\theta F_n \qquad(n\ \geq\ 0),\] uniformly over the placement word. Once \(\mathcal Q_{n+1}\) has been placed, all segments through \(\mathcal Q_n\) are determined, and \[\label{eq:cumulative-spiral-length} \sum_{j=0}^n\ell_j\ =\ \Theta_\theta(F_{n+2}).\] Proof. The connector has parametrization \[\label{eq:connector-parametrization} \beta_n(t)\ =\ F_n(\theta t,g_{\theta,\mu_n}(t)), \qquad0\ \leq\ t\ \leq\ 1.\] Its length is \(F_n\Lambda(\theta,\mu_n)\). Adding the outgoing quarter-circle of radius \((1-\theta)F_n\) gives the nonstandard formula; the standard formula is immediate. For \(n\geq1\), the Fibonacci recurrence gives \(1\leq\mu_n\leq2\). For fixed \(\theta\), continuity on the compact set \([0,1]\times[1,2]\) bounds \(\Lambda(\theta,\mu)\) above. The normalized connector endpoints are \((0,0)\) and \((\theta,1-\theta)\), so \[\label{eq:connector-length-lower-bound} \Lambda(\theta,\mu)\ \geq\ \sqrt{\theta^2+(1-\theta)^2}\ >\ 0.\] Taking the minimum and maximum of the resulting bounds and the standard factor \(\pi/2\) gives [eq:spiral-length-bounds], including \(n=0\). Finally, \[\label{eq:cumulative-length-bounds} A_\theta(F_{n+2}-1)\ \leq\ \sum_{j=0}^n\ell_j\ \leq\ B_\theta(F_{n+2}-1),\] because \(\sum_{j=0}^nF_j=F_{n+2}-1\). Since \(F_{n+2}\geq2\), this proves [eq:cumulative-spiral-length]. ◻ 6.4 Geometric questionsThe square-by-square construction establishes that the random spiral is globally well-defined and \(C^1\), but several geometric properties remain open.
[top] 7 ConclusionWe introduced a random growth model in which Fibonacci-sized blocks are attached along cyclically chosen coordinate axes while independent coin flips select the direction of each attachment. The dimensions of the growing block are deterministic, but its location is governed by weighted Bernoulli subset sums. Splitting the order-\(d\) Fibonacci sequence into its coordinate residue classes exposes the main structure of the model: each class is superincreasing. This gives unique subset sums, a most-significant-bit order, and canonical threshold words that convert geometric covering events into exact binary counts. This representation leads to exact finite-time laws for the coordinate covering times and, by independence and inclusion–exclusion, for the full \(d\)-dimensional covering time. For fixed \(d\geq2\) and \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\), the dominant root \(\rho_d\) determines the macroscopic scale through \[\label{eq:conclusion-covering-scale} \mathbb{E}[T]\ =\ \log_{\rho_d}\delta_\infty(a)+O_d(1).\] At the same time, the centered fluctuations have exponential tails and moments bounded uniformly over the target. Thus the covering time becomes relatively concentrated even though bounded lattice and phase effects may prevent a single centered limiting distribution without passing to subsequences. The random-spiral construction gives a geometric companion to the covering theory. Standard transitions retain their circular arcs, while nonstandard transitions are repaired by uniquely determined quintic connectors. This produces a globally \(C^1\) curve and recovers the usual Fibonacci spiral on the standard tiling word. The construction should be viewed as a starting point rather than a final geometric model: the splice parameter remains free, and containment, simplicity, winding, and optimality of the resulting curves are not yet resolved. Several probabilistic questions also remain. It would be natural to classify the subsequential laws of the centered covering time, to allow biased or dependent directional choices, and to determine which fixed-\(d\) conclusions remain uniform when the dimension grows with the target. Geometric questions are outlined in Section 6.4. [top] AcknowledgementsThis research was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation (grant DMS2341670), University of Rochester, and Williams College. We would like to thank Láslzó Szalay for his ideas regarding the construction of the random fibonacci spiral and Mateo Palomares for his contribution to the random spiral image. AI has been used in this project for proof-reading, assisting with latex formatting, and ensuring rigor. [top] Disclosure statementNo conflict of interest has been reported by the authors. [top] References99 R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, and D. E. Knuth, On the Lambert \(W\) function, Adv. Comput. Math. 5 (1996), 329–359. doi:10.1007/BF02124750. C. de Boor, Divided differences, Surv. Approx. Theory 1 (2005), 46–69. arXiv:math/0502036. V. C. Harris and C. C. Styles, A generalization of Fibonacci numbers, Fibonacci Quart. 2 (1964), 277–289. Published article. A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996. Chapter 8. OEIS Foundation Inc., The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, entry A000930, Narayana’s cows sequence, accessed September 1, 2026. oeis.org/A000930. MSC2020: 11B39. [top] 8 Notation and conventionsThis appendix collects the notation used throughout the paper. Unless a different range is stated, \(d\geq2\), coordinate indices satisfy \(0\leq r<d\), and all move and update indices are integers. For \(m_r,\tau_r,G_r,b_r\) and \(B(a)\), assume \(I(a)\neq\varnothing\) and use only active coordinates. The symbol \(n\) usually denotes the number of completed global moves, \(j\) an update number within one coordinate (beginning with \(j=0\)), \(m\) a number of available coordinate weights, and \(k\) either an auxiliary integer or a delay measured in complete coordinate updates. 8.1 General conventions
8.2 The tiling and the order-\(d\) recurrence
8.3 Targets, coordinate weights, and canonical words
8.4 The full covering law and its moments
8.5 Asymptotic covering notation
8.6 Random-spiral notation
8.6.0.1 Scope-sensitive letters.The similarly lettered quantities \(A_d\), \(A_n\), and \(A_\theta\) are, respectively, a recurrence coefficient, an incoming spiral scale, and a length-bound constant. Likewise, \(B(a)\), \(B_n\), and \(B_\theta\) are the earliest feasible covering time, the current square size, and a length-bound constant. They occur in separate arguments but are not mathematically related. The global placement bits \(c_n\) and target-directed bits \(\xi_{r,j}\) are also distinct: the latter may be the former or its complement.
Last modified September 13, 2026. |