diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex
index 45372e8fec3b5870badfa21c2e09674719d91a34..6240f3d608ec1b934801be6c261eabcb61569b99 100644
--- a/main.tex
+++ b/main.tex
@@ -617,22 +617,23 @@ We consider $R^{(n)}(p)$ as a power series in $p$ and our main aim in this secti
 
 
 %Note that we have $\P^{(n)}(\start{b}) = (1-p)^{|b|}p^{n-|b|}$ by definition of our Markov Chain.
-\begin{definition}[Vertex visiting event] \label{def:visitingResamplings}
+\begin{definition}[Vertex visiting event] \label{def:visitingResamplingsGen}
     Denote by $\mathrm{Z}^{(v)}$ the event that site $v$ becomes zero at any point in time before the Markov Chain terminates. Denote the complement by $\mathrm{NZ}^{(v)}$, i.e. the event that site $v$ does \emph{not} become zero before it terminates. Furthermore define $\mathrm{NZ}^{(v,w)} := \mathrm{NZ}^{(v)} \cap \mathrm{NZ}^{(w)}$, i.e. the event that \emph{both} $v$ and $w$ do not become zero before termination.
 \end{definition}
 %\begin{figure}
 %	\begin{center}
 %    	\includegraphics{diagram_groups.pdf}
 %    \end{center}
-%    \caption{\label{fig:separatedgroups} Illustration of setup of Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependence}. Here $b_1,b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ are bitstrings such that all zeroes of $b_1$ and all zeroes of $b_2$ are separated by two indices $v,w$.}
+%    \caption{\label{fig:separatedgroups} Illustration of setup of Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependenceGen}. Here $b_1,b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ are bitstrings such that all zeroes of $b_1$ and all zeroes of $b_2$ are separated by two indices $v,w$.}
 %\end{figure}
 \begin{wrapfigure}[7]{r}{0.25\textwidth} % The first [] argument is number of lines that are narrowed
     \centering
     \includegraphics{diagram_groups.pdf}
-    \caption{\label{fig:separatedgroups} Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependence}.}
+    \caption{\label{fig:separatedgroupsGen} Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependenceGen}.}
 \end{wrapfigure}
-The following lemma considers two vertices $v,w$ that are never ``crossed'' so that two halves of the cycle become independent.\begin{lemma}[Conditional independence] \label{lemma:eventindependence} \label{claim:eventindependence}
-    Let $b=b_1\land b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ be a state with two separated groups of zeroes as in Figure \ref{fig:separatedgroups}. Let $v$, $w$ be any indices inbetween the groups, such that $b_1$ lies on one side of them and $b_2$ on the other, as shown in the figure. Furthermore, let $A_1$ be any event that depends only on the sites ``on the $b_1$ side of $v,w$'', and similar for $A_2$ (for example $\mathrm{Z}^{(i)}$ for an $i$ on the correct side). Then we have
+The following lemma considers two vertices $v,w$ that are never ``crossed'' so that two halves of the cycle become independent.
+\begin{lemma}[Conditional independence] \label{lemma:eventindependenceGen}
+    Let $b=b_1\land b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ be a state with two separated groups of zeroes as in Figure \ref{fig:separatedgroupsGen}. Let $v$, $w$ be any indices inbetween the groups, such that $b_1$ lies on one side of them and $b_2$ on the other, as shown in the figure. Furthermore, let $A_1$ be any event that depends only on the sites ``on the $b_1$ side of $v,w$'', and similar for $A_2$ (for example $\mathrm{Z}^{(i)}$ for an $i$ on the correct side). Then we have
     \begin{align*}
         \P^{(n)}_b(\mathrm{NZ}^{(v,w)}, A_1, A_2)
         &=
@@ -729,7 +730,7 @@ The following lemma considers two vertices $v,w$ that are never ``crossed'' so t
     The second equality follows directly from $\mathbb{P}(A\mid B)=\mathbb{P}(A,B)/\mathbb{P}(B)$ and setting $A_1,A_2$ to the always-true event.
 \end{proof}
 
-\begin{lemma}[Conditional independence 2] \label{lemma:eventindependenceNew}
+\begin{lemma}[Conditional independence 2] \label{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}
 	Let $v,w \in [n]$, and let $A$ be any event that depends only on the sites $[v,w]$ (meaning the initialization and resamples) and similarly $B$ an event that depends only on the sites $[w,v]$. (For example $\mathrm{Z}^{(s)}$ or ``$s$ has been resampled at least $k$ times'' for an $s$ on the correct interval). Then we have
 	\begin{align*}
 		\P^{(n)}(\mathrm{NZ}^{(v,w)}\cap A\cap B)
@@ -755,7 +756,7 @@ The following lemma considers two vertices $v,w$ that are never ``crossed'' so t
         \P^{(n)}_{b} (\NZ{v,w} \cap A) = \P^{[v,w]}_b (\NZ{v,w}\cap A) .
     \end{align*}
     If vertex $v$ and $w$ never become zero, then the zeroes never get outside of the interval $[v,w]$ and we can ignore the entire circle and only focus on the process within $[v,w]$.
-    We can apply this to the result of Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependence}, to get
+    We can apply this to the result of Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependenceGen}, to get
     \begin{align*}
         \P^{(n)}_b(\mathrm{NZ}^{(v,w)} \cap A \cap B)
         &=
@@ -810,7 +811,7 @@ The following lemma considers two vertices $v,w$ that are never ``crossed'' so t
 	\end{align*}
 
 The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the zero vertex if there is an interaction chain forming, which means that every vertex should get resampled to $0$ at least once.
-\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:probIndepNew}
+\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:probIndepNewGen}
 	$\forall n\in \mathbb{N}_+:\P^{[n]}(\Z{1})-\P^{[n+1]}(\Z{1}) = \bigO{p^{n}}$. (Should be true with $\bigO{p^{n+1}}$ as well.)
 \end{lemma}
 \begin{proof}
@@ -821,21 +822,21 @@ The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the z
 	\P^{[n+1]}(\Z{1})
 	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}\P^{[n+1]}([k]\in\mathcal{P}) \tag{the events form a partition}\\
 	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[n+1]}([k]\in\mathcal{P}) + \bigO{p^{n}}\tag*{$\left(\P^{[n+1]}([k]\in\mathcal{P})=O(p^{k})\right)$}\\	
-	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[k+1]}_{b_{k+1}=1}([k]\in\mathcal{P})\cdot \P^{[n-k+1]}(\NZ{1})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Claim~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
+	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[k+1]}_{b_{k+1}=1}([k]\in\mathcal{P})\cdot \P^{[n-k+1]}(\NZ{1})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Claim~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
 	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[k+1]}_{b_{k+1}=1}([k]\in\mathcal{P})\cdot \left(\P^{[n-k]}(\NZ{1})+\bigO{p^{n-k}}\right)+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by induction} \\	
 	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[k+1]}_{b_{k+1}=1}([k]\in\mathcal{P})\cdot \P^{[n-k]}(\NZ{1})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag*{$\left(\P^{[k+1]}_{b_{k+1}=1}([k]\in\mathcal{P})=\bigO{p^{k}}\right)$}\\	
-	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[n]}([k]\in\mathcal{P})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Claim~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
+	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\P^{[n]}([k]\in\mathcal{P})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Claim~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
 	&=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\P^{[n]}([k]\in\mathcal{P})+ \bigO{p^{n}} \tag*{$\left(\P^{[n]}([n]\in\mathcal{P})=\bigO{p^{n}}\right)$}\\	
 	&=\P^{[n]}(\Z{1})	+ \bigO{p^{n}} 
 	\end{align*}
 \end{proof}
-\begin{corollary}\label{cor:probIndepNew}
+\begin{corollary}\label{cor:probIndepNewGen}
 	$\P^{[n]}(\Z{1})-\P^{[m]}(\Z{1}) = \bigO{p^{\min(n,m)}}$. (Should be true with $\bigO{p^{\min(n,m)+1}}$ too.)
 \end{corollary}
 
 	The intuition of the following lemma is simmilar to the previous. The events on the two sides should be independent unless an interaction chain is forming, implying that every vertex gets resampled to $0$ at least once.
 
- 	\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:independenetSidesNew}	
+ 	\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:independenetSidesNewGen}	
  		$$\P^{[k]}(\Z{1}\cap \Z{k})=\P^{[k]}(\Z{1})\P^{[k]}(\Z{k})+\bigO{p^{k}}=\left(\P^{[k]}(\Z{1})\right)^2+\bigO{p^{k}}.$$
  	\end{lemma}   
  	Note that using De Morgan's law and the inclusion-exclusion formula we can see that this is equivalent to saying:
@@ -858,7 +859,7 @@ The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the z
  		\P^{[\ell+1]}_{b_{\ell+1}=1}([\ell]\in\mathcal{P})
  		\P^{[\ell+1,r-1]}(\NZ{\ell+1}\cap \NZ{r-1})
  		\P^{[r-1,k]}_{b_{r-1}=1}([r,k]\in\mathcal{P})
- 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
+ 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
  		&=\!\!\!\sum_{\ell, r\in [k]: \ell<r-1}\!\!\!
  		\P^{[\ell+1]}_{b_{\ell+1}=1}([\ell]\in\mathcal{P})
  		\left(\P^{[\ell+1,r-1]}(\NZ{\ell+1})
@@ -870,11 +871,11 @@ The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the z
  		\left(\P^{[\ell+1,k]}(\NZ{\ell+1})
  		\P^{[1,r-1]}_{b_{r-1}=1}(\NZ{r-1})\right)
  		\P^{[r-1,k]}([r,k]\in\mathcal{P})
- 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Corrolary~\ref{cor:probIndepNew}}\\
+ 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Corrolary~\ref{cor:probIndepNewGen}}\\
  		&=\!\!\!\sum_{\ell, r\in [k]: \ell<r-1}\!\!\!
  		\P^{[k]}([\ell]\in\mathcal{P})
  		\P^{[k]}([r,k]\in\mathcal{P})
- 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
+ 		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
  		&=\left(\sum_{\ell\in [k]}\P^{[k]}([\ell]\in\mathcal{P})\right)
  		\left(\sum_{r\in [k]}\P^{[k]}([r,k]\in\mathcal{P})\right)
  		+\bigO{p^{k}} \tag*{$\left(\P^{[k]}([\ell]\in\mathcal{P})=\bigO{p^{\ell}}\right)$}\\	
@@ -896,11 +897,11 @@ The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the z
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\P^{(n)}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k) \\		
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n+1}{v,w\in [n]}}\P^{(n)}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, \underset{P_{v,w}:=}{\underbrace{[-v\!+\!1,w\!-\!1]}}\in\mathcal{P}) \tag{partition}\\[-1mm]
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}\P^{(n)}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}}\\[-1mm]
-			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) \P^{[w,n-v]}(\NZ{w,n-v}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
-			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P})  \left(\left(\P^{[w,n-v]}(\NZ{w})\right)^{\!\!2}\!+\!\bigO{p^{n-v-w+1}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNew}}\\
-			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P})  \left(\P^{[-m,-v]}(\NZ{-v})\P^{[w,m]}(\NZ{w})\!+\!\bigO{p^{n-v-w+1}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNew}}\\	
+			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) \P^{[w,n-v]}(\NZ{w,n-v}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
+			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P})  \left(\left(\P^{[w,n-v]}(\NZ{w})\right)^{\!\!2}\!+\!\bigO{p^{n-v-w+1}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNewGen}}\\
+			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P})  \left(\P^{[-m,-v]}(\NZ{-v})\P^{[w,m]}(\NZ{w})\!+\!\bigO{p^{n-v-w+1}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNewGen}}\\	
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\smash{\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}}\P^{[-v,w]}_{b_{-v}=b_{w}=1}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) \P^{[-m,-v]}(\NZ{-v})\P^{[w,m]}(\NZ{w}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{$|P_{v,w}|=v+w-1$}\\
-			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}\P^{[-m,m]}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\[-1mm]
+			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{v+w\leq n}{v,w\in [n]}}\P^{[-m,m]}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P_{v,w}\!\in\!\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\[-1mm]
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{|P|<n}{P\text{ patch}:0\in P}}\P^{[-m,m]}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \\[-1mm]
 			&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:0\in P}\P^{[-m,m]}(\Res{0}\!\geq\! k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \\
 			&= \E^{[-m,m]}(\Res{0})+\bigO{p^{n}}.\\[-3mm]										
@@ -915,14 +916,14 @@ The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the z
 		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\P^{(n)}(\Res{1}\geq k) \\
 		%&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{\ell\geq r-1}{\ell,r\in[n]}}\P^{(n)}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, [\ell+1,r-1]\in\mathcal{P}) \tag{partition}\\
 		%&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{\ell\geq r}{\ell,r\in[n]}}\P^{(n)}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, [\ell+1,r-1]\in\mathcal{P})  +\bigO{p^{n}} \\	
-		%&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{\ell\geq r}{\ell,r\in[n]}}\P^{[l,r]}_{b_{\ell}=b_{r}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, [\ell+1,r-1]\in\mathcal{P}) \P^{[r,\ell]}(\NZ{\ell,r}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\				
+		%&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\underset{\ell\geq r}{\ell,r\in[n]}}\P^{[l,r]}_{b_{\ell}=b_{r}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, [\ell+1,r-1]\in\mathcal{P}) \P^{[r,\ell]}(\NZ{\ell,r}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\				
 		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}\P^{(n)}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \tag{partition}\\
 		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{(n)}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}}\\
-		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \P^{[\overline{P}]}(\NZ{\partial P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
-		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \left(\left(\P^{[|\overline{P}|]}(\NZ{1})\right)^2+\bigO{p^{|\overline{P}|}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNew}}\\
-		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \left(\left(\P^{[N]}(\NZ{1})\right)^2+\bigO{p^{|\overline{P}|}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Corollary~\ref{cor:probIndepNew}}\\
-		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[-N,N]}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
-		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}\P^{[-N,N]}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNew}}\\
+		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \P^{[\overline{P}]}(\NZ{\partial P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
+		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \left(\left(\P^{[|\overline{P}|]}(\NZ{1})\right)^2+\bigO{p^{|\overline{P}|}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:independenetSidesNewGen}}\\
+		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[P\cup \partial P]}_{b_{\partial P}=1}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) \left(\left(\P^{[N]}(\NZ{1})\right)^2+\bigO{p^{|\overline{P}|}}\right) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Corollary~\ref{cor:probIndepNewGen}}\\
+		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}^{|P|<n}\P^{[-N,N]}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
+		&= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{P\text{ patch}:1\in P}\P^{[-N,N]}(\Res{1}\geq k\,\&\, P\in\mathcal{P}) +\bigO{p^{n}} \tag{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventindependenceNewGen}}\\
 		&= \E^{[-N,N]}(\Res{1})+\bigO{p^{n}}.
 		\end{align*}	
 \end{comment}			
@@ -936,7 +937,7 @@ Questions:
 	\item Why did Mario's and Tom's simulation show that for fixed $C$ the contribution coefficients have constant sign? Is it relevant for proving \ref{it:pos}-\ref{it:geq}?
 \end{itemize} 
 
-	%I think the same arguments would translate to the torus and other translationally invariant spaces, so we could go higher dimensional as Mario suggested. Then I think one would need to replace $|S_{><}|$ by the minimal number $k$ such that there is a $C$ set for which $S\cup C$ is connected. I am not entirely sure how to generalise Lemma~\ref{lemma:probIndep} though, which has key importance in the present proof.
+	%I think the same arguments would translate to the torus and other translationally invariant spaces, so we could go higher dimensional as Mario suggested. Then I think one would need to replace $|S_{><}|$ by the minimal number $k$ such that there is a $C$ set for which $S\cup C$ is connected. I am not entirely sure how to generalise Lemma~\ref{lemma:probIndepNewGen} though, which has key importance in the present proof.
 
 \newpage
 \section{Quasiprobability method}
