Reliability Polynomials of Simple Graphs having Arbitrarily many Inflection Points

Abstract: In this paper we show that for each $n$, there exists a simple graph whose reliability polynomial has at least $n$ inflection points.

\section{Introduction}

The reliability of a graph $G$ is the probability that the graph remains connected when each edge is included, or ``functions", with independent probability $p$. Equivalently, we can say that each edge fails with probability $q = 1-p$.  This function can be written as a polynomial in either $p$ or $q$, though for our purposes it will be convenient to use $q$; for instance, if $f(q) = R(G)(q)$ for a nontrivial graph $G$, then we have $f(0) = 1$ and $f(1) = 0$. Since the first derivative of $R(G)(q)$ is always negative on $(0,1)$, it is natural to consider whether the second derivative is ever zero, i.e., whether $R(G)(q)$ has any inflection points.

It is typical for the reliability of a graph to have at least one inflection point, and families of simple graphs with reliability polynomials having two inflection points have been found \cite{BKK}.  In \cite{GM}, Graves and Milan show that there exist non-simple graphs whose reliability polynomials have at least $n$ inflection points for any integer $n$. They point out that no example is known of a simple graph whose reliability polynomial has more than two inflection points. What we show in this paper is that for each $n$, there exists a simple graph whose reliability polynomial has at least $n$ inflection points.
\section{Preliminaries}

Our proof consists of two major parts: we first demonstrate that there exist reliability polynomials whose second derivative satisfies certain bounds, and then from this collection of polynomials we form products which have arbitrarily many inflection points. The \emph{one-point union} of graphs $G$ and $H$, denoted $G*H$, is the graph union where exactly one vertex is chosen from each graph and the chosen vertices are identified. Regardless of the choices made the reliability polynomial of the one-point union of graphs is the product of the reliability polynomials of each graph. Ultimately, the graphs we use will be one-point unions of complete graphs, and in the following section we demonstrate that the second derivative of such graphs can be made arbitrarily small outside a given interval.

In this section we establish a few facts about reliability polynomials in general.  The reliability polynomial of a graph $G$ can be written in the form \begin{equation}\label{reldefn}
R(G)(q) = \sum_{i=0}^m N_i (1-q)^i q^{m-i},
\end{equation} where $m$ is the number of edges in $G$, and $N_i$ counts the number of connected spanning subgraphs of $G$ with $i$ edges.

We first prove a fact about all polynomials having a form similar to \eqref{reldefn}.
\begin{prop}\label{derivbound} Let $f(q) = \sum_{i=0}^m N_i(1-q)^iq^{m-i}$, where the $N_i$ are either all non-negative or all non-positive.  Then for $q \in [0,1]$,
\[q(1-q)|f'(q)| \leq m|f(q)|.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first compute

\begin{equation}\label{relderiv}
f'(q) = \sum_{i=0}^m N_i ((m-i)(1-q)^i q^{m-i-1} - i(1-q)^{i-1}q^{m-i}).
\end{equation}

Then we have
\begin{gather*}
q(1-q)|f'(q)| = \left|\sum_{i=0}^m (m-i)N_i(1-q)^{i+1} q^{m-i} - iN_i(1-q)^{i}q^{m-i+1}\right|\\
\leq m(1-q)\left|\sum_{i=0}^m N_i(1-q)^iq^{m-i}\right| + mq\left|\sum_{i=0}^m N_i(1-q)^iq^{m-i}\right| \leq m|f(q)|.
\end{gather*}

Note that the first inequality, where we bound the coefficients uniformly by $m$, uses the hypothesis that the $N_i$ have the same sign.
\end{proof}

In the form \eqref{reldefn} of a reliability polynomial, the coefficient $N_i$ counts a subset of the subgraphs of $G$ with $i$ edges, and thus we have $0 \leq N_i \leq \binom{m}{i}$.  Then clearly the above theorem applies when $f$ is a reliability polynomial.  However, we can also consider

\begin{equation}
(1-R(G))(q) = \sum_{i=0}^m \left(\binom{m}{i} - N_i\right)(1-q)^i q^{m-i}.
\end{equation}

By the above observation, the coefficients of this polynomial are non-negative, and so \hyperref[derivbound]{Lemma \ref*{derivbound}} applies to $1-R(G)$ as well.  Next we show that it can also be applied to $R(G)'(q)$.

\begin{prop}
Let $f(q) = \sum_{i=0}^m N_i(1-q)^iq^{m-i}$ be a reliability polynomial. Then $f'(q)$ can be written in the same form, and all of the coefficients are non-positive.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We already computed the derivative of such a function in \eqref{relderiv}; collecting like terms gives

\begin{equation}\label{relderivcollect}
f'(q) = \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} ((m-i)N_i - (i+1)N_{i+1})(1-q)^iq^{m-i-1}.
\end{equation}

Recall that $N_i$ represents the number of connected spanning subgraphs of $G$ with $i$ edges.  Thus we can think of $(m-i)N_i$ as counting the pairs consisting of a connected spanning subgraph of size $i$ together with a particular edge not in the subgraph.  Similarly, $(i+1)N_{i+1}$ counts the number of pairs consisting of a connected spanning subgraph of size $i+1$ and an edge in the subgraph.  However, since adding an edge to a connected spanning graph gives another connected spanning graph, $(m-i)N_i \leq (i+1) N_{i+1}$. Thus each of the coefficients in the expression for $f'(q)$ is non-positive.
\end{proof}

We note that, by the preceding argument, the coefficient of $(1-q)^i q^{m-i-1}$ in $R(G)'(q)$ counts the number of pairs consisting of a connected spanning subgraph of size $i+1$ and a bridge in the subgraph.  This gives the following result.

\begin{prop}\label{endpointderiv}
Let $f(q)$ be the reliability polynomial of a graph $G$.  If $G$ has no bridges, then $f'(0) = 0$. If $G$ has at least 3 vertices, then $f'(1) = 0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{relderivcollect}, we see that $f'(0) = 0$ when the coefficient of $(1-q)^{m-1}$ is zero.  Since there is only a single subgraph of size $m$, namely the graph $G$, this is equivalent to $G$ having no bridges.

Similarly, $f'(1) = 0$ whenever the coefficient of $q^{m-1}$ is zero.  In a subgraph with one edge, that edge is a bridge; thus, $f'(1) = 0$ if and only if there are no connected spanning subgraphs with one edge, which is clearly true if the graph $G$ has 3 or more vertices.
\end{proof}

\section{Bounding the Reliability of Complete Graphs}

For the first half of the proof, we will work directly with the reliability polynomials of complete graphs.  We make use of a recurrence relation given in Colbourn's book \cite{Colbourn}, which we restate here.  If $r_n(q)$ is the reliability of the complete graph $K_n$, then

\begin{align*}
r_1 &= 1;\\
r_n &= 1 - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}r_k.
\end{align*}

To make these polynomials easier to work with, we bound them by simpler polynomials.

\begin{lem} Let $\alpha = \frac{1}{8}$, and let $r_n$ denote $R(K_n)$.  For $q \in [0,\alpha]$ and $n \geq 2$, we have
\[1 - (n+1)q^{n-1} \leq r_n(q) \leq 1 - (n-1)q^{n-1}.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $n$.
The base case where $n=2$ is clear, since $r_2 = 1-q$.
Now, suppose the claim is true for $2 \leq k \leq n-1$.  We first note that, since $r_n = 1 - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}r_k$, we can rewrite the inequality we would like to prove as
\[(n-1)q^{n-1} \leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}r_k \leq (n+1)q^{n-1}.\]
We will first prove the left hand side of the inequality.  From the induction hypothesis, $r_{n-1} \geq 1 - nq^{n-2}$, and the fact that $r_k \geq 0$ for all $k$, we have
\[\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}r_k \geq q^{n-1} + (n-1)q^{n-1}(1 - nq^{n-2}).\]
If we can show that $q^{n-1}(1 - n(n-1)q^{n-2}) \geq 0$, it will follow that the right hand side is greater than $(n-1)q^{n-1}$, which was what we wanted.  If we suppose $q \leq \frac{1}{6}$, then it follows that $n(n-1)q^{n-2} \leq 1$ for $n \geq 3$, and the claim holds.

We now proceed to the right hand side of the inequality.  Since $r_k \leq 1$ for all $k$, and $n(n-k) \geq 2n-4$ when $2 \leq k \leq n-2$, we have \begin{align*}
		\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}r_k &\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)}\\
			&\leq nq^{n-1} + \sum_{k=2}^{n-2} \binom{n-1}{k-1}q^{k(n-k)} \\
			&\leq nq^{n-1} + 2^{n-1} q^{2n-4}.
\end{align*}
To show that this is less than or equal to $(n+1)q^{n-1}$, it suffices to show that $2^{n-1}q^{n-3} \leq 1$.  If $n \geq 4$, then it is enough to take $q \leq \frac{1}{8}$.  We may verify directly that
\[
r_3 = 1 - q^2 - 2q^2(1 - q) = 1 - 3q^2 + 2q^3 \leq 1 - 2q^2
\]
provided $q \leq \frac{1}{2}$, which is clearly satisfied since $q \leq \frac{1}{8}$.

This completes our induction proof, and so the bounds hold for all $n \geq 2$.
\end{proof}

We also prove another bound which will be used during the proof of the following theorem.

\begin{lem}\label{roverp2} Let $r_n(q) = R(K_n)(q)$, with $n \geq 3$.  Then for $q \in [0,1]$,
\[\frac{r_n(q)}{(1-q)^2} \leq \frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{2}^2.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $m = \binom{n}{2}$ denote the number of edges of $K_n$.  For $2 \leq i \leq m$, we have
\[\binom{m}{i} = \frac{m(m-1)}{i(i-1)}\binom{m-2}{i-2} \leq \frac{m^2}{2}\binom{m-2}{i-2}.\]
Recall that we can write $r_n(q) = \sum_{i=0}^{m} N_i (1-q)^iq^{m-i}$.  Since $N_i$ is the number of connected spanning subgraphs of $K_n$ of size $i$, we have $0 \leq N_i \leq \binom{m}{i}$ for all $i$, and $N_i = 0$ for $0 \leq i < n-1$.  Since $n \geq 3$, we can say
\begin{gather*}
\frac{r_n(q)}{(1-q)^2} = \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} N_{i+2}(1-q)^iq^{m-i-2} \leq \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} \binom{m}{i+2}(1-q)^iq^{m-i-2}\\
\leq \frac{m^2}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} \binom{m-2}{i}(1-q)^iq^{m-2-i} = \frac{m^2}{2} = \frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{2}^2.\qedhere
\end{gather*}
\end{proof}

Now we have enough in place to prove our first theorem.

\begin{thm} Let $0 < a < b < \frac{1}{8}$, and let $\epsilon > 0$.  Then there exists a graph $G$ such that $|R(G)''(q)| \leq \epsilon$ when $q$ in $[0,1] \setminus [a,b]$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first recall that $r_n$ denotes the reliability of the complete graph $K_n$ and the inequalities
\[1-(n+1)q^{n-1} \leq r_n(q) \leq 1-(n-1)q^{n-1}\]
are valid for $q \in [0,1/8]$.  Since we are only interested in upper bounds, we reformulate the left hand side as $1 - r_n(q) \leq (n+1)q^{n-1}$.

We compute
\[(r_n^\ell)''(q) = \ell(\ell-1)r_n^{\ell-2}(q)r_n'^2(q) + \ell r_n^{\ell-1}(q)r_n''(q),\]

from which we now obtain various bounds. Note that the coefficients of $1-r_n(q)$  are all non-negative. From our lemmas, we have
\begin{align*}
    &q(1-q)|r_n'(q)| \leq \binom{n}{2}|r_n(q)|;\\
&q(1-q)|r_n'(q)| = q(1-q)|(1-r_n)'(q)| \leq \binom{n}{2}|1-r_n(q)|;\\
&q(1-q)|r_n''(q)| \leq \binom{n}{2}|r_n'(q)|.
\end{align*}
For $q \in [0,1/8]$, we have
\begin{align*}
q^2(1-q)^2|(r_n^{\ell})''(q)| &\leq \ell(\ell-1)\frac{n^2(n-1)^2}{4}|r_n^{\ell-2}(q)||1-r_n(q)|^2\\
&\quad + \ell \frac{n^2(n-1)^2}{4}|r_n^{\ell-1}(q)||1-r_n(q)|\\
&\leq \frac{\ell^2n^6}{4}(1-(n-1)q^{n-1})^{\ell-2}q^{2n-2}\\
&\quad + \frac{\ell n^5}{4}(1-(n-1)q^{n-1})^{\ell-1}q^{n-1},
\end{align*}
where we have, in addition to using the lemmas, simplified $(n-1)(n+1) \leq n^2$.  We note that $(1-q)^2 \geq \frac{1}{4}$ when $q \leq \frac{1}{8}$, and so we may rearrange this inequality to obtain
\begin{align*}
|(r_n^{\ell})''(q)| &\leq \ell^2n^6(1-(n-1)q^{n-1})^{\ell-2}q^{2n-4}\\
&\quad +\ell n^5(1-(n-1)q^{n-1})^{\ell-1}q^{n-3}.
\end{align*}

We denote the two terms in the above bound by $f(q)$ and $g(q)$, respectively.  Note that $f$ and $g$ are both dependent on our choice of $\ell$ and $n$; from here on it will be useful to assume that $n \geq 4$.

We'd like to demonstrate that $f(q)+g(q) < \epsilon$ on $[0,a]$ and $[b,1/8]$.  To do this, we first show that $f+g$ is increasing on the first interval and decreasing on the second; then it suffices to show that $f(a)+g(a) < \epsilon$ and $f(b)+g(b) < \epsilon$.

Taking the derivative of $f$ and factoring, we see that the sign of $f'(q)$ is the same as that of the expression
\[-(\ell-2)(n-1)^2q^{n-1} + (2n-4)(1-(n-1)q^{n-1}).\]
This expression is non-negative precisely when
\[((\ell-2)(n-1)^2 + (2n-4)(n-1))q^{n-1} \leq 2n-4.\]
After some estimation, we see that if $\ell n(n-1)q^{n-1} \leq 2(n-2)$, then $f'(q) \geq 0$.  Since $n \geq 4$, it suffices to show $\ell nq^{n-1} \leq 1$.

The sign of $g'(q)$ is the same as that of
\[-(\ell-1)(n-1)^2q^{n-1} + (n-3)(1-(n-1)q^{n-1});\]
similarly, if $\ell n(n-1)q^{n-1} \leq n-3$, then $g'(q) \geq 0$.  Since $n \geq 4$, it suffices to show that $\ell nq^{n-1} \leq \frac{1}{4}$; if this is true, then the condition above holds as well, and so $(f+g)'(q) \geq 0$.  Moreover, since $\ell nq^{n-1} \leq \ell na^{n-1}$ for $q \in [0,a]$, it is sufficient to show that $\ell na^{n-1} \leq \frac{1}{4}$.

By the same sort of approximation, we see that if $\ell q^{n-1} \geq 1$, then $(f+~g)'(q) \leq 0$.  Again, if this is true at $b$, then it clearly holds for all $q \in [b,1/8]$ as well.

For $q \in [1/8,1]$, we have $\frac{1}{q^2} \leq 64$. Using our usual bounds, along with \hyperref[roverp2]{Lemma \ref*{roverp2}}, we see
\begin{align*}
|(r_n^{\ell})''(q)| &\leq \frac{1}{q^2} \ell^2 \binom{n}{2}^2 r_n^{\ell-1}(q) \frac{r_n(q)}{(1-q)^2}\\
&\leq 16\ell^2 \binom{n}{2}^4 r_n^{\ell-1}(q) \leq \ell^2n^8 r_n^{\ell-1}(q)\\
&\leq \ell^2n^8 r_n^{\ell-1}(1/8) \leq \ell^2n^8 (1-(n-1)(1/8)^{n-1})^{\ell-1}.
\end{align*}

Note that we were able to replace $q$ with $1/8$ since $q \in [1/8,1]$ and $r_n$ is decreasing.

We restate our conditions here: we want to find $\ell \geq 1$ and $n \geq 4$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ell na^{n-1} \leq \frac{1}{4}$,
\item $\ell b^{n-1} \geq 1$,
\item $f(a)+g(a) \leq \epsilon$,
\item $f(b)+g(b) \leq \epsilon$, and
\item $\ell^2n^8 (1-(n-1)(1/8)^{n-1})^{\ell-1} \leq \epsilon$.
\end{itemize}

If we can find $\ell,n$ satisfying these conditions, then the arguments above show that $|R(K_n^{\ell})''(q)| \leq \epsilon$ for $q \in [0,1] \setminus [a,b]$.

To show that all of the above inequalities can be satisfied, we define a sequence of $\ell_i$ and $n_i$ such that the quantities on the left become arbitrarily small (or large, in the case of the second one) for sufficiently large $i$.  We begin by choosing positive integers $N,k$ such that $a < N^{-1/k} < b$; this is possible because there is an integer between $b^{-k}$ and $a^{-k}$ for sufficiently large $k$.  Then, we let $\ell_i = N^i$ and $n_i = ik$.

Consider the first expression: we rewrite
\[\ell_i n_i a^{n_i-1} = \frac{ik}{a}(Na^k)^i,\]
which becomes small as $i$ goes to infinity, by an application of l'Hospital's rule and the fact that $Na^k < 1$.  Similarly, we can write
\[\ell_i b^{n_i-1} \geq (Nb^k)^i,\]
which tends to infinity since $Nb^k > 1$.

For the next two inequalities, we analyze $f$ and $g$ separately.  First, we have
\begin{align*}
\log(f(q)) &= 2\log(\ell_i) + 6\log(n_i)  \\
&\quad +  (\ell_i-2)\log(1-(n_i-1)q^{n_i-1}) + (2n_i-4)\log(q).
\end{align*}
Note that $\log(1 - (n_i-1)q^{n_i-1}) \leq -(n_i-1)q^{n_i-1}$; since we'd like to show that $\log(f(q)) \to -\infty$ as $i \to \infty$, we may make this replacement.  Thus we must show that the expression
\begin{align*}
2i\log(N) + 6\log(ik) - (N^i-2)(ik-1)q^{ik-1} + 2i\log(q^k) - 4\log(q)
\end{align*}
becomes arbitrarily small as $i$ tends to infinity.  The term $4\log(q)$ is constant with respect to $i$, and so after some rearrangement, we need only consider
\begin{align*}
&2i\log(N) + 6\log(ik) - (N^i-2)(ik-1)q^{ik-1} + 2i\log(q^k)\\
&\leq 2i\log(Nq^k) + 6\log(ik) - N^{-1}(Nq^k)^i
\end{align*}
For $q=a$, the first term tends to negative infinity, and dominates the second, while the third term is also negative; thus $\log(f(a))$ can be made arbitrarily small, and $f(a) < \frac{\epsilon}{2}$ for sufficiently large $i$.  For $q=b$, we have $Nq^k > 1$, and so the third term dominates the first two terms, and again we can make $f(b)$ arbitrarily small.

Proceeding similarly, we collect the nonconstant terms of $\log(g(q))$, and make the same upward approximation as before :
\begin{align*}
\log(\ell) &+ 5\log(n) - (\ell-1)(n-1)q^{n-1} + n\log(q)\\
&= i\log(Nq^k) + 5\log(ik) - (N^i-1)(ik-1)q^{ik-1}\\
&\leq i\log(Nq^k) + 5\log(ik) - N^{-1}(Nq^k)^i.
\end{align*}
The arguments showing that $g(a)$ and $g(b)$ become arbitrarily small for sufficiently large $i$ are identical to those given above for $f$.

Finally, we consider the expression in the fifth inequality.  We have
\begin{align*}
\log(\ell^2&n^8 (1-(n-1)(\tfrac{1}{8})^{n-1})^{\ell-1})\\
&\leq 2i\log(N) + 8\log(ik) -(N^i-1)(ik-1)(\tfrac{1}{8})^{ik-1}\\
&\leq 2i\log(N) + 8\log(ik) -N^{-1}(N(\tfrac{1}{8})^k)^i.
\end{align*}

Since $N(\frac{1}{8})^k > 1$, the last term dominates the others, and evidently this can also be made arbitrarily small.

Thus, if we take $i$ sufficiently large, we see that $G = K_{n_i}^{\ell_i}$ satisfies the desired condition.
\end{proof}

\section{Main Result}

Now we proceed to the proof that there are reliability polynomials with arbitrarily many inflection points.  We choose a collection of intervals
\[I_{k,m} = (a_{k,m},b_{k,m}) \subset [0,1],\]
for $k \geq 0$ and $m \geq 1$, such that

\begin{itemize}
\item $0 < a_{0,1} < b_{0,1} < a_{1,1} < b_{1,1} < a_{2,1} < \cdots$, and $b_{k,1} < \frac{1}{8}$ for all $k \geq 0$;
\item $I_{k,m+1} \subset I_{k,m}$;
\item $\ell(I_{k,m}) = b_{k,m} - a_{k,m} \leq 2^{-m}$.
\end{itemize}

For $n \geq 3$, $m \geq 1$, $K_n^m$ has at least three vertices and no bridges.  By our previous theorem, along with \hyperref[endpointderiv]{Lemma \ref*{endpointderiv}}, we can find a collection of reliability polynomials $s_{k,m}: [0,1] \to [0,1]$, satisfying the following properties.

\begin{itemize}
\item $s_{k,m}(0) = 1$ and $s_{k,m}(1) = 0$;
\item $s_{k,m}'(0) = s_{k,m}'(1) = 0$, and $s_{k,m}'(q) \leq 0$ for all $q$;
\item $|s_{k,m}''(q)| \leq 2^{-m-1}$ for $q \notin I_{k,m}$.
\end{itemize}

We now collect the consequences as a series of lemmas.

\begin{lem} If $q \leq a_{k,m}$, then $|s_{k,m}'(q)| \leq 2^{-m-1}$ and $|1 - s_{k,m}(q)| \leq 2^{-m-1}$.  If $q \geq b_{k,m}$, then $|s_{k,m}'(q)| \leq 2^{-m-1}$ and $|s_{k,m}(q)| \leq 2^{-m-1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Consider the first statement; we suppose otherwise and apply the mean value theorem.  That is, we suppose there is a $c \in [0,a_{k,m}]$ such that $|s_{k,m}'(c)| \geq 2^{-m-1}$.  But this implies that there is a $d \in [0,c]$ with
\[|s_{k,m}''(d)| = \frac{|s_{k,m}'(c) - s_{k,m}'(0)|}{|c - 0|} > 2^{-m-1},\]
contradicting our assumption about the $s_{k,m}$.

Similarly applying the mean value theorem again shows that if there was a $c \in [0,a_{k,m}]$ with $|s_{k,m}(c) - 1| \geq 2^{-m-1}$ there  would be a $d$ at which the above bound is not satisfied, another contradiction.

The arguments for $q \in [b_{k,m},1]$ are similar.
\end{proof}

Now we'd like to show how {\em large} the derivatives must be on the intervals $I_{k,m}$.  In particular, we'd like to find a single point in each interval at which both the first and second derivatives are ``sufficiently large".

\begin{lem} In each $I_{k,m}$, there is a point $q_{k,m}$ satisfying $s_{k,m}'(q_{k,m}) < -2^{m - 2}$ and $s_{k,m}''(q_{k,m}) > 2^{2m - 2}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We note that for every $k \geq 0$, $m \geq 1$, we have $s_{k,m}(a_{k,m}) \geq \frac{3}{4}$ and $s_{k,m}(b_{k,m}) \leq \frac{1}{4}$; in particular, the difference is at least $\frac{1}{2}$.  Then by the mean value theorem, there is a $c \in I_{k,m}$ where

\[|s_{k,m}'(c)| = \frac{|s_{k,m}(b_{k,m})-s_{k,m}(a_{k,m})|}{|b_{k,m}-a_{k,m}|} \geq \frac{2^{-1}}{2^{-m}} = 2^{m - 1}.\]

Note that since $s_{k,m}'(q) \leq 0$ for all $q$, we have $s_{k,m}'(c) = -2^{m-1}$.  Now let $d$ be the smallest number such that $d > c$ and $s_{k,m}'(d) = -2^{m - 2}$; applying the mean value theorem again shows that there is a $q_{k,m} \in [c,d] \subset I_{k,m}$ satisfying

\[s_{k,m}''(q_{k,m}) = \frac{s_{k,m}'(d) - s_{k,m}'(c)}{d - c} \geq \frac{2^{m-2}}{2^{-m}} = 2^{2m - 2}.\]

Note that by the definition of $d$, we must have $s_{k,m}'(q_{k,m}) \leq s_{k,m}'(d) = -2^{m - 2}$.
\end{proof}

Now we show that there exist products of $s_{k,m}$ (that is, reliability functions of one point unions of complete graphs) with arbitrarily many inflection points.  This proof is modeled after the proof of the main result given in \cite{GM}.

\begin{thm} There exist functions $g_k : [0,1] \to [0,1]$ for $k \geq 0$, such that $g_k = s_{k,m_k} g_{k-1}$ for $k \geq 1$, and $g_k$ has at least $2k$ inflection points.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by induction on $k$. We are going to show that there is a sequence of reliability polynomials $g_k$, integers $m_k$, and points $q_k \in I_{k,m_k}$, for $k \geq 0$, such that

\begin{itemize}
\item $g_k''(q_i) > 0$ for $i=0,...,k$;
\item $\int_{q_{i-1}}^{q_i} g_k''(q) dq < 0$ for $i=1,...,k$;
\item $g_k = s_{k,m_k} g_{k-1}$ if $k \geq 1$.
\end{itemize}

We begin with the base case $k=0$.  We simply let $g_0(q) = s_{0,1}$, $q_0 = q_{0,1}$.  By our lemma, $s_{0,1}''(q_{0,1}) > 0$, and so the first condition holds; the other conditions hold vacuously.

Now suppose that we have found a $g_{k-1}$ satisfying the above properties, and we would like to find an $m_k$ such that $g_k = s_{k,m_k} g_{k-1}$ also satisfies them.

We first consider

\begin{equation}
(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})' = s_{k,m}'g_{k-1} + s_{k,m}g_{k-1}'.
\end{equation}

For each $i < k$, $q_i < a_{k,1}$, so $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}'(q_i) = 0$ and $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}(q_i) = 1$.   It follows that
\[\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_i) = g_{k-1}'(q_i).\]

Since

\[\int_{q_{i-1}}^{q_i} (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q) dq = (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_i) - (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_{i-1}),\]

we have

\[\lim_{m \to \infty} \int_{q_{i-1}}^{q_i} (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q) dq = \int_{q_{i-1}}^{q_i} g_{k-1}''(q) dq < 0.\]

Now we look at $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_{k,m})$, noting that the precise location of $q_{k,m}$ depends on $m$.  By construction, we have $s_{k,m}'(q_{k,m}) \leq -2^{m-2}$, but $|s_{k,m}(q_{k,m})| \leq 1$; thus, by taking $m$ sufficiently large, we can guarantee that $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_{k,m}) - (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'(q_{k-1}) < 0$.

Next we need to consider

\begin{equation}
(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})'' = s_{k,m}''g_{k-1} + 2s_{k,m}'g_{k-1}' + s_{k,m}g_{k-1}''.
\end{equation}

For $q < a_{k,1}$, we have $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} (s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q) = g_{k-1}''(q)$, since $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}''(q) = 0$, $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}'(q) = 0$, and $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}(q) = 1$.  Thus by the induction hypothesis, for sufficiently large $m$ we have $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q_i) > 0$ for $i=0,...,k-1$.

Now we need only consider $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q_{k,m})$.  Since $g_{k-1}$ is a reliability polynomial, $g_{k-1}' \leq 0$, so the second term in the expansion of $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''$ is positive.  Since $s_{k,m} < 1$, the third term is bounded by the maximum of $|g_{k-1}''|$ on [0,1].  Finally, since $g_{k-1}$ is bounded away from 0 on $I_{k,1}$ and $\underset{m \to \infty}{\lim} s_{k,m}''(q_{k,m}) = \infty$, it follows that $(s_{k,m}g_{k-1})''(q_{k,m}) > 0$ for sufficiently large $m$.

If we let $m_k$ be sufficiently large such that all of the above constructions hold, and define $q_k = q_{k,m_k}$ and $g_k = s_{k,m_k} g_{k-1}$, then $g_k$ satisfies the induction hypothesis; thus we have constructed the desired $g_k$ for all $k \geq 0$.  We know that $g_k''(q_{i-1}) > 0$ and $g_k''(q_i) > 0$ for each $i = 1, \dots ,k$; but $\int_{q_{i-1}}^{q_i} g_k'' dq < 0$ tells us that $g_k''$ is negative somewhere on $[q_{i-1},q_i]$, which implies that there are at least 2 inflection points on this interval.  Thus $g_k$ has at least $2k$ inflection points, which was what we wanted to show.
\end{proof}

Note that the polynomial $g_k$ constructed in the above theorem is the product of the reliability polynomials of a number of complete graphs, and thus it is the reliability polynomial of the one-point union of those graphs. In Figure 1, the second derivatives of three such graphs are shown, demonstrating reliability polynomials of simple graphs having 3,4, and 5 inflection points.

\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{c3ip.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{c4ip.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{c5ip.pdf}
\caption{\label{Examples} The graphs of the second derivatives of $R(K_{2}^{5} * K_{3}^{4} * K_{4}^{3} * K_{5}^{92}), R(K_{2}^{2} * K_{4}^{2} * K_{14}^{750}),$ and $R(K_{2}^{5} * K_{3}^{4} * K_{5}^{116} * K_{14}^{100,000,000})$ respectively.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}

\section{Acknowledgements}
This research was conducted during the 2015 Research Experience for Undergraduates at University of Texas at Tyler under the direction of Dr. David Milan. We would like to thank the organizers of the UT Tyler REU for their guidance during this project. This REU was supported by the National Science Foundation (DMS-1359101).

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}


Strict inequality in the box-counting dimension product formulas

Abstract: It is known that the upper box-counting dimension of a Cartesian product satisfies the inequality $\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right)\leq \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right)$ whilst the lower box-counting dimension satisfies the inequality $\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right)\geq \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right)$. We construct Cantor-like sets to demonstrate that both of these inequalities can be strict.

\part{Use this type of header for very long papers only}

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{intro}
\noindent
In a metric space $X$ the Hausdorff dimension of a compact set $F\subset X$ is defined as the supremum of the $d\geq 0$ such that the $d$-dimensional Hausdorff measure $\mathcal{H}^{d}\left(F\right)$ of $F$ is infinite. The Hausdorff dimension takes values in the non-negative reals and extends the elementary integer-valued topological dimension in the sense that for a large class of `reasonable' sets these two values coincide. Sets with non-coinciding Hausdorff and topological dimensions are called `fractal', a term coined by Mandelbrot in his original study of such sets \cite{Mandelbrot75}. Hausdorff introduced this generalised dimension in \cite{Hausdorff18} and its subsequent extensive use in geometric measure theory is developed by Federer \cite{BkFederer69} and Falconer \cite{BkFalconer85}. The fact that the Hausdorff dimension satisfies $\dim_{H}\left(F\times G\right)\geq \dim_{H}\left(F\right) + \dim_{H}\left(G\right)$ for the Cartesian product of sets was proved in full generality in \cite{Marstrand53} (and later summarised in \cite{BkFalconer03} \S 7.1 `Product Formulae') after some partial results: The inequality was proved in \cite{BesicovitchMoran45} with the restriction that $0<\mathcal{H}^{s}\left(F\right),\mathcal{H}^{t}\left(G\right)<\infty$ for some $s,t$ and was extended to a larger class of sets in \cite{Eggleston53}. The paper \cite{BesicovitchMoran45} also provides an example for which there is a strict inequality in the product formula and again this is summarised in \cite{BkFalconer03} \S 7.1.
\paragraph*{}
In this paper we prove similar product inequalities for the upper and lower box-counting dimensions which are less familiar generalisations of dimension (treated briefly in \cite{BkFalconer03}; see \cite{BkRobinson10} for a more detailed exposition) and have applications to dynamical systems (see, for example, \cite{BkRobinson01}). Our main result is an example analogous to that in \cite{BesicovitchMoran45} which demonstrates that the box-counting product inequalities can be strict.
In a metric space $X$ the upper and lower box-counting dimensions of a compact set $F\subset X$ are defined by
\begin{align}
\dim_{B}\left(F\right) &= \limsup_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\label{dimB def}
\intertext{and}
\dim_{LB}\left(F\right) &= \liminf_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\label{dimLB def}
\end{align}
respectively, where $N\left(F,\delta\right)$ is the smallest number of sets with diameter at most $\delta$ which form a cover (called a $\delta$-cover) of $F$. Essentially, if $N\left(F,\delta\right)$ scales like $\delta^{-\varepsilon}$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0$ then these quantities capture $\varepsilon$ which gives an indication of how many more sets are required to cover $F$ as the length-scales decrease and so encodes how `spread out' the set $F$ is at small length-scales. These limits are unchanged if we replace $N\left(F,\delta\right)$ with one of many similar quantities (discussed by Falconer in \cite{BkFalconer03} \S 3.1 `Equivalent Definitions'). Of these quantities we will also make use of the largest number of disjoint closed balls of diameter $\delta$ with centres in $F$, which we denote $M\left(F,\delta\right)$.

\paragraph*{}
We first recall the standard (see, for example, \cite{BkFalconer03}  or \cite{BkRobinson10}) proof of the box-counting product inequalities when $F$ and $G$ are compact sets in metric spaces $X$ and $Y$ respectively, although the inequality \eqref{dimLB product inequality} is less familiar (Robinson provides a proof in \cite{BkRobinson10}). We endow the product space $X\times Y$ with the usual Euclidean metric $d_{X\times Y}=\sqrt{d_{X}^{2}+d_{Y}^{2}}$, but the proof can be adapted for a variety of product metrics (see \cite{BkRobinson10}).
\begin{theorem}\label{product inequalities theorem}
For compact sets $F\subset X$ and $G\subset Y$ the box-counting dimensions of the product set $F\times G$ satisfy the inequalities
\begin{align}
\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right)&\leq \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right)\label{dimB product inequality}\\
\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right)&\geq \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right)\label{dimLB product inequality}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\set{U_{i}}_{i=1}^{n_{1}}$ and $\set{V_{j}}_{j=1}^{n_{2}}$ are $\delta$-covers of $F$ and of $G$ respectively then the set of products $\set{U_{i}\times V_{j}\vert i=1\ldots n_{1}, j=1\ldots n_{2}}$ is a cover of $F\times G$ with a total of $n_{1}n_{2}$ elements and the diameter of each $U_{i}\times V_{j}$ is no greater than $\sqrt{2}\delta$. As there exist $\delta$-covers of $F$ and $G$ consisting of $N\left(F,\delta\right)$ and $N\left(G,\delta\right)$ elements respectively this construction gives a $\sqrt{2}\delta$-cover of $F\times G$ consisting of $N\left(F,\delta\right)N\left(G,\delta\right)$ elements, hence
\begin{equation}\label{minimal cover inequality}
N\left(F\times G,\sqrt{2}\delta\right) \leq N\left(F,\delta\right)N\left(G,\delta\right).
\end{equation}
Next, if both $\set{x_{i}}_{i=1}^{n_{1}}\subset F$ and $\set{y_{j}}_{j=1}^{n_{2}}\subset G$ are sets of centres of disjoint balls with diameter $\delta$ then the balls with radius $\delta$ centred on the $n_{1}n_{2}$ points $\set{\left(x_{i},y_{j}\right)\vert i=1\ldots n_{1}, j=1\ldots n_{2}}\subset F\times G$, are also disjoint. As there exist sets of disjoint balls of diameter $\delta$ with centres in $F$ and $G$ consisting of $M\left(F,\delta\right)$ and $M\left(G,\delta\right)$ elements respectively the above construction gives $M\left(F,\delta\right)M\left(G,\delta\right)$ disjoint balls of diameter $\delta$ with centres in $F\times G$, hence
\begin{equation}\label{maximal disjoint inequality}
M\left(F\times G,\delta\right) \geq M\left(F,\delta\right)M\left(G,\delta\right).
\end{equation}
From \eqref{dimB def} and \eqref{minimal cover inequality} we see that
\begin{align}
\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right) &= \limsup_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F\times G,\sqrt{2}\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\left(\sqrt{2}\delta\right)}\notag\\
&\leq \limsup_{\delta\searrow 0} \left[\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\left(\sqrt{2}\delta\right)} + \frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\left(\sqrt{2}\delta\right)}\right]\label{limsup of sum}\\
&\leq \limsup_{\delta\searrow 0} \frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta -\log\sqrt{2}} + \limsup_{\delta\searrow 0} \frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta -\log\sqrt{2}}\notag\\
& = \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right). \nota
\intertext{From \eqref{dimLB def} and \eqref{maximal disjoint inequality} we have}
\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right) &= \liminf_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(M\left(F\times G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\notag\\
&\geq \liminf_{\delta\searrow 0}\left[\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\right]\label{liminf of sum}\\
&\geq \liminf_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \liminf_{\delta\searrow 0}\frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} \notag \\
&= \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right). \nota
\end{align}
\end{proof}
It is known that there are sets with unequal upper and lower box-counting dimension (see exercise 3.8 of \cite{BkFalconer03} or \cite{BkRobinson10} \S 3.1), however if these values coincide for a set $F$ we define their common value as the box-counting dimension of $F$. If sets $F$ and $G$ have well-defined box-counting dimension then the box-counting dimension of their product is also well behaved.

\begin{corollary}
If $\dim_{B}\left(F\right)=\dim_{LB}\left(F\right)$ and $\dim_{B}\left(G\right)=\dim_{LB}\left(G\right)$ then
\[\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right) = \dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right) = \dim_{B}\left(F\right)+\dim_{B}\left(G\right).\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From the inequalities \eqref{dimB product inequality} and \eqref{dimLB product inequality} we have
\[
\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right) \leq \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right) = \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right) \leq \dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right)
\]
but from the definition of the box-counting dimension $\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right)\leq \dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right)$ so we must have equality throughout the above.
\end{proof}

\paragraph*{}
In the following construction both sets $F$ and $G$ have non-coinciding upper and lower box-counting dimensions so that as $\delta\rightarrow 0$ the box-counting functions $\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}$ and $\frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}$ oscillate between two values. Further, by ensuring that these functions oscillate with different phases (see figure \ref{figure - product graph}) we can produce strict inequalities after \eqref{limsup of sum} and \eqref{liminf of sum} and so yield strict inequality in both product formulas, that is
\[
\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right) < \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right) < \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right) < \dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right).
\]

\begin{figure}
   \vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{productgraph.eps}
   \vspace*{8pt}
\caption{The box-counting functions for the sets $F$ and $G$ constructed in the next section (explicitly computed here for small $\delta$) oscillate between $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$ and $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$. The $x$-axis is scaled so that the slow oscillation can be graphed, and this oscillation continues as $\log\left(\log\left(-\log\left(\delta\right)\right)\right)\rightarrow \infty$, that is as $\delta\rightarrow 0$. The differing phases guarantee that the sum of these functions doesn't approach either $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}+\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$ or $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}+\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$.}
\label{figure - product graph}
\end{figure}

To this end we construct variations of the Cantor middle-third set from the initial interval $\left[0,1\right]$ except at each stage we use one of the three generators $\gen_{3},\gen_{5}$ or $\gen_{7}$ which remove the middle $\frac{1}{3},\frac{3}{5}$ or $\frac{5}{7}$ of each interval respectively. Note that if we exclusively use the $\gen_{3}$ generator we produce the usual Cantor middle-third set, which has lower and upper box-counting dimension $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$ and if we exclusively use the $\gen_{7}$ generator we produce a similar Cantor set with lower and upper box-counting dimension $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$. By switching generators at certain stages of our construction we can cause $\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}$ to oscillate between these values, providing that we apply the generators a sufficiently large number of times.

\paragraph*{}
To simplify notation, we choose a sequence of integers $K_{j}=10^{2^{j}}$ which increases sufficiently quickly that
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^{j} K_{i} &< K_{j+1} \label{Kj upper bound}\\
\sum_{i=0}^{j} K_{i} - K_{i-1} &>K_{j-1} \label{Kj lower bound}\\
\frac{\log\left(7\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}K_{j}&<K_{j+1}\label{Kj log3log7}
\intertext{and}
\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} K_{i}}{K_{j}} &\rightarrow 0 \quad \text{as $j\rightarrow \infty$} \label{Kj ratio limit}
\end{align}

\section{Constructing sets $F$ and $G$}
We construct two sets $F$ and $G$ using the following iterative procedure: For $F$ apply the following generator at the $j^{\text{th}}$ stage
\[
\begin{cases}
\gen_{3} & K_{6n}<j\leq K_{6n+1}\quad \text{for some} \quad n\in\mathbb{N}\\
\gen_{7} &K_{6n+1}<j\leq K_{6n+2}\quad \text{for some} \quad n\in\mathbb{N}\\
\gen_{5} & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
and for $G$ apply the following generator at the $j^{\text{th}}$ stage
\[
\begin{cases}
\gen_{3} & K_{6m+3}<j\leq K_{6m+4}\quad \text{for some} \quad m\in\mathbb{N}\\
\gen_{7} & K_{6m+4}<j\leq K_{6m+5}\quad \text{for some} \quad m\in\mathbb{N}\\
\gen_{5} & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Let $f_{3}\left(j\right)$ be the number of times $\gen_{3}$ has been applied and $f_{7}\left(j\right)$ the number of times $\gen_{7}$ has been applied in the construction $F$ by stage $j$. With this notation $\gen_{5}$ has been applied $j-f_{3}\left(j\right)-f_{7}\left(j\right)$ times by stage $j$. Similarly define $g_{3}\left(j\right)$ and $g_{7}\left(j\right)$ for the construction of $G$. Clearly these functions are non-decreasing and we refrain from writing them explicitly except to note that
\begin{equation}\label{explicit f(Kj)}
\begin{aligned}
f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)&=\sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+1} - K_{6i} &
f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)&=\sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+2} - K_{6i+1}\\
g_{3}\left(K_{6m+4}\right)&=\sum_{i=0}^{m} K_{6i+4} - K_{6i+3} &
g_{7}\left(K_{6m+5}\right)&=\sum_{i=0}^{m} K_{6i+5} - K_{6i+4}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{f constant on intervals}
\begin{split}
f_{3}\left(j\right)=f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right) \quad\text{for}\quad K_{6n+1}<j\leq K_{6n+6}\\
f_{7}\left(j\right)=f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right) \quad\text{for}\quad K_{6n+2}<j\leq K_{6n+7}\\
g_{3}\left(j\right)=g_{3}\left(K_{6m+3}\right) \quad\text{for}\quad K_{6m+3}<j\leq K_{6m+8}\\
g_{7}\left(j\right)=g_{7}\left(K_{6m+3}\right) \quad\text{for}\quad K_{6m+4}<j\leq K_{6m+9}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Denote the sets at the $j^{th}$ stage of the construction of $F$ and $G$ by
\begin{itemize}
\item[] $F_{j}$, which consists of $2^{j}$ intervals of length $3^{-f_{3}\left(j\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j\right)}5^{-j+f_{3}\left(j\right)+f_{7}\left(j\right)}$ and
\item[] $G_{j}$, which consists of $2^{j}$ intervals of length $3^{-g_{3}\left(j\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(j\right)}5^{-j+g_{3}\left(j\right)+g_{7}\left(j\right)}$
\end{itemize}
so that $F$ and $G$ are defined by $F=\bigcap F_{j}$ and $G=\bigcap G_{j}$. Note that for every $j$ the endpoints of the intervals in $F_{j}$ and $G_{j}$ are in $F$ and $G$ respectively as the generators only remove the middle of each interval.
\begin{proposition}\label{N=M=2j prop}
For $\delta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{length-scale for stage j}
3^{-f_{3}\left(j\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j\right)}5^{-j+f_{3}\left(j\right)+f_{7}\left(j\right)}\leq\delta< 3^{-f_{3}\left(j-1\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}5^{-\left(j-1\right)+f_{3}\left(j-1\right)+f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}
\end{equation}
we have $N\left(F,\delta\right)=M\left(F,\delta\right)=2^{j}$.
\end{proposition}
We refer to those $\delta$ in the range \eqref{length-scale for stage j} as length-scales corresponding to stage $j$ in the construction of $F$. Clearly every $1>\delta>0$ is a length scale corresponding to exactly one stage $j_{\delta}$ and $j_{\delta}\rightarrow\infty$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0$. We refer to length-scales corresponding to the construction of $G$ in an analogous fashion.

\begin{proof}
For $\delta$ in the range \eqref{length-scale for stage j} the obvious cover consisting of all intervals in $F_{j}$ gives $N\left(F,\delta\right)\leq 2^{j}$. The opposite inequality comes from the fact that a set with diameter $\delta$ in this range intersects at most one $\left(j-1\right)^{\text{th}}$ stage interval $I$ but cannot cover both $j^{\text{th}}$ stage subintervals of $I$ (see figure \ref{figure - 2jballsneeded}) so at least $2\times 2^{j-1}=2^{j}$ elements are needed to form a cover of $F$ .\\
Next, $\delta$ in the range \eqref{length-scale for stage j} is less than the length of the intervals in $F_{j-1}$ so balls of diameter $\delta$ centred on the end points of the intervals of $F_{j-1}$ are disjoint and have centres in $F$ (see figure \ref{figure - 2jdisjointballscover}). This gives two disjoint balls for each interval, hence $M\left(F,\delta\right)\geq 2\times 2^{j-1}=2^{j}$.
For the opposite inequality suppose for a contradiction that $M\left(F,\delta\right)> 2^{j}$, then at least one of the $2^{j-1}$ intervals in $F_{j-1}$ contains the centres of least three disjoint balls with centres in $F$. Let $I$ be such an interval. At the next stage of the construction $I$ is split into two sub-intervals, one of which contains the centres of at least two of these three disjoint balls. However, this $j^{\text{th}}$ stage subinterval has length no greater than $\delta$ so two closed balls of diameter $\delta$ centred in this interval cannot be disjoint (see figure \ref{figure - 2jdisjointballsmax}), which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
   \vspace*{8pt
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{2jballsneeded.eps}
   \vspace*{8pt}
\caption{A section of the sets $F_{j-1}$ and $F_{j}$ (shown in black) to illustrate that each set (shown as grey ellipses) with diameter $\delta<3^{-f_{3}\left(j-1\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}5^{-\left(j-1\right)+f_{3}\left(j-1\right)+f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}$ (i.e. less than the length of the intervals of $F_{j-1}$) can neither intersect two intervals of $F_{j-1}$ nor cover two intervals of $F_{j}$.}
\label{figure - 2jballsneeded}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
   \vspace*{8pt
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{2jdisjointballscover.eps}
   \vspace*{8pt}
\caption{A section of the set $F_{j-1}$ (shown in black) to illustrate that balls (shown in grey) with diameter $\delta<3^{-f_{3}\left(j-1\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}5^{-\left(j-1\right)+f_{3}\left(j-1\right)+f_{7}\left(j-1\right)}$ (i.e. less than the length of the intervals of $F_{j-1}$) with centres the endpoints of the intervals $F_{j-1}$ are disjoint, giving two disjoint balls for each interval of $F_{j-1}$.}
\label{figure - 2jdisjointballscover}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
   \vspace*{8pt
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{2jdisjointballsmax.eps}
   \vspace*{8pt}
\caption{A sub-interval $I\subset F_{j-1}$ (shown in black) which contains the centres of three balls (shown in grey) with diameter $\delta\geq 3^{-f_{3}\left(j\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(j\right)}5^{-j+f_{3}\left(j\right)+f_{7}\left(j\right)}$ (i.e. greater than the the length of the intervals of $F_{j}$) with centres in $F$. As the centres are also contained in $F_{j}$ (also shown in black) at least one interval of $F_{j}$ contains the centres of two of these balls. Consequently, the distance between the centres is at most the length of an interval of $F_{j}$ which is at most $\delta$ which is the sum of the radii of the closed balls so the two balls are not disjoint.}
\label{figure - 2jdisjointballsmax}
\end{figure}
Adapting the argument we can prove a similar proposition for the set $G$.
\begin{proposition}\label{N=M=2j prop G}
For $\delta$ such that
\begin{equation}
3^{-g_{3}\left(j\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(j\right)}5^{-j+g_{3}\left(j\right)+g_{7}\left(j\right)}\leq\delta< 3^{-g_{3}\left(j-1\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(j-1\right)}5^{-\left(j-1\right)+g_{3}\left(j-1\right)+g_{7}\left(j-1\right)}
\end{equation}
we have $N\left(G,\delta\right)=M\left(G,\delta\right)=2^{j}$.
\end{proposition}

By taking logarithms we obtain the following more useful form of propositions \ref{N=M=2j prop} and \ref{N=M=2j prop G}
\begin{multline}\label{delta implies N(F,delta)}
f_{3}\left(j-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+f_{7}\left(j-1\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j-1\right)\log\left(5\right)\\
< -\log\delta \leq f_{3}\left(j\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+f_{7}\left(j\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + j\log\left(5\right)\\
\Rightarrow \log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right) = \log\left(M\left(F,\delta\right)\right) = j\log\left(2\right)
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}\label{delta implies N(G,delta)}
g_{3}\left(j-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+g_{7}\left(j-1\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j-1\right)\log\left(5\right)\\
< -\log\delta \leq g_{3}\left(j\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+g_{7}\left(j\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + j\log\left(5\right)\\
\Rightarrow \log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right) = \log\left(M\left(G,\delta\right)\right) = j\log\left(2\right)
\end{multline}

\paragraph*{}
The essential feature of our construction is that the sets $F$ and $G$ at some length-scales look like the Cantor middle-third set, while at other length-scales look like the Cantor middle-$\frac{5}{7}^{\text{th}}$ set. Further, this `local' behaviour is maintained over sufficient length-scales that the box-counting limits of $F$ and $G$ at these length-scales approach the box-counting dimensions of the relevant Cantor set, which we will establish in the following section. We conclude this section by proving that at any length-scale the sets $F$ and $G$ do not both look like the middle-third set nor do they both look like the middle-$\frac{5}{7}^{\text{th}}$ set.

\begin{lemma}\label{delta not in both length-scales upper}
No $\delta$ is both a length-scale corresponding to some stage in $\left(K_{6n},K_{6n+2}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and a length-scale corresponding to some stage in $\left(K_{6m+3},K_{6m+5}\right]$ in the construction of $G$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume for a contradiction that $\delta$ is such a length-scale, that is
\begin{multline}\label{fg inequality 1}
3^{-f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}5^{-K_{6n+2}+f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)+f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}\\ \leq \delta < 3^{-f_{3}\left(K_{6n}\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(K_{6n}\right)}5^{-K_{6n}+f_{3}\left(K_{6n}\right)+f_{7}\left(K_{6n}\right)}
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}\label{fg inequality 2}
3^{-g_{3}\left(K_{6m+5}\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(K_{6m+5}\right)}5^{-K_{6m+5}+g_{3}\left(K_{6m+5}\right)+g_{7}\left(K_{6m+5}\right)}\\ \leq \delta < 3^{-g_{3}\left(K_{6m+3}\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(K_{6m+3}\right)}5^{-K_{6m+3}+g_{3}\left(K_{6m+3}\right)+g_{7}\left(K_{6m+3}\right)}
\end{multline}
We first demonstrate that this could only hold if $n=m$. From \eqref{fg inequality 1} and \eqref{fg inequality 2} we have $7^{-K_{6n+2}} \leq \delta < 3^{-K_{6n}}$ and $7^{-K_{6m+5}} \leq \delta < 3^{-K_{6m}}$ respectively, which in turn yield $7^{-K_{6n+2}} < 3^{-K_{6m}}$ and $7^{-K_{6m+5}} < 3^{-K_{6n}}$. Taking logarithms we get
\[
K_{6m} < K_{6n+2}\frac{\log\left(7\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}< K_{6n+3}\quad\text{and}\quad K_{6n} < K_{6m+5}\frac{\log\left(7\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}< K_{6m+6}
\]
where the final inequalities follow from the growth property \eqref{Kj log3log7}. We conclude that $6m< 6n+3$ and $6n< 6m+6$, which implies that $m=n$. With this restriction, if $\delta$ is such a length-scale then the lower bound from \eqref{fg inequality 1} and the upper bound from \eqref{fg inequality 2} imply
\begin{multline*}
3^{-f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}7^{-f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}5^{-K_{6n+2}+f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)+f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)} \\
< 3^{-g_{3}\left(K_{6n+3}\right)}7^{-g_{7}\left(K_{6n+3}\right)}5^{-K_{6n+3}+g_{3}\left(K_{6n+3}\right)+g_{7}\left(K_{6n+3}\right)}
\end{multline*}
For clarity we suppress the argument of the functions and take logarithms which yields
\begin{equation}\label{supressed argument condition}
\left[\log\left(5\right)-\log\left(3\right)\right]\left(f_{3}-g_{3}\right) + \left[\log\left(5\right)-\log\left(7\right)\right]\left(f_{7}-g_{7}\right) + \log\left(5\right)\left(K_{6n+3}-K_{6n+2}\right) < 0.
\end{equation}
The bounds in \eqref{Kj upper bound} and \eqref{Kj lower bound} give
\begin{align}
g_{3}\left(K_{6n+3}\right)-f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right) &= \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{6i+4} - K_{6i+3} - \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+1}-K_{6i}\notag\\
&< K_{6n-1} - K_{6n} < 0 \label{g3-f3}
\intertext{and}
f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)-g_{7}\left(K_{6n+3}\right) &= \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+2} - K_{6i+1} - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{6i+5} - K_{6i+4}\notag\\
&< K_{6n+3} - K_{6n-2}. \label{f7-g7}
\end{align}
Consequently we drop the positive first term of \eqref{supressed argument condition} which implies
\begin{align*}
\left[\log\left(5\right)-\log\left(7\right)\right]\left(K_{6n+3} - K_{6n-2}\right) + \log\left(5\right)\left(K_{6n+3}-K_{6n+2}\right) &< 0
\intertext{which is that}
\left[2\log\left(5\right)-\log\left(7\right)\right]K_{6n+3} + \left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]K_{6n-2} - \log\left(5\right)K_{6n+2} &< 0
\end{align*}
After dropping the positive middle term and rearranging we get
\begin{align*}
K_{6n+3}&< \frac{\log\left(5\right)}{\left[2\log\left(5\right)-\log\left(7\right)\right]}K_{6n+2}
\intertext{so that}
K_{6n+3}&< \frac{\log\left(7\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}K_{6n+2}
\end{align*}
however, by condition \eqref{Kj log3log7} the right hand side is less than $K_{6n+3}$ giving the required contradiction.
\end{proof}
Consequently, at any length-scale the sets $F$ and $G$ do not both look like the Cantor middle-third set. This lemma gives the following useful corollary:

\begin{corollary}\label{subsequence corollary upper}
Every sequence $\set{\delta_{i}}$ with $\delta_{i}\rightarrow 0$ either contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{n}}}$ with each $\delta_{i_{n}}$ corresponding to some stage $j_{\delta_{i_{n}}}\in \left(K_{6n+2},K_{6n+6}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ or contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{m}}}$ corresponding to some stage $j_{\delta_{i_{m}}}\in \left(K_{6m+5},K_{6m+9}\right]$ in the construction of $G$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If the sequence $\set{\delta_{i}}$ did not contain such a subsequence, then there is a $\Delta>0$ such that each $\delta_{i}<\Delta$ is neither a length-scale corresponding to some stage  $j\in\left(K_{6n+2},K_{6n+6}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ nor a length-scale corresponding to some stage $j\in \left(K_{6m+5},K_{6m+9}\right]$ in the construction of $G$. Consequently, $\delta_{i}$ is a length scale corresponding to a stage $j\in\left(K_{6n},K_{6n+2}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ and also a length-scale corresponding to a stage $j\in\left(K_{6m+3},K_{6m+5}\right]$ which, from lemma \ref{delta not in both length-scales upper}, is contradictory.
\end{proof}

The corresponding lemma that $F$ and $G$ do not both look like the Cantor middle-$\frac{5}{7}^{\text{th}}$ set at any length-scale and the corresponding corollary for subsequences are proved in a similar way.

\begin{lemma}\label{delta not in both length-scales lower}
No $\delta$ is both a length-scale corresponding to some stage in $\left(K_{6n+1},K_{6n+3}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and a length-scale corresponding to some stage in $\left(K_{6m+4},K_{6m+6}\right]$ in the construction of $G$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$,
\end{lemma}

\begin{corollary}\label{subsequence corollary lower}
Every sequence $\set{\delta_{i}}$ with $\delta_{i}\rightarrow 0$ either contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{n}}}$ with each $\delta_{i_{n}}$ corresponding to some stage $j_{\delta_{i_{n}}}\in \left(K_{6n+3},K_{6n+7}\right]$ in the construction of $F$ or contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{m}}}$ corresponding to some stage $j_{\delta_{i_{m}}}\in \left(K_{6m},K_{6m+4}\right]$ in the construction of $G$.
\end{corollary}

\section{Calculating box-counting dimensions}
In order to establish the box-counting dimensions of $F$ and $G$ we need the following proposition on the behaviour of the generator-counting functions at the limit:

\begin{proposition}\label{f Kj ratio limit}
\[
\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+l}\right)}{K_{6n+l}} \rightarrow
\begin{cases}
1 & l=1\\
0 & 0\leq l < 6,\; l\neq 1
\end{cases}\quad
\frac{f_{7}\left(K_{6n+l}\right)}{K_{6n+l}} \rightarrow
\begin{cases}
1 & l=2\\
0 & 0\leq l < 6,\; l\neq 2
\end{cases}
\]
\[
\frac{g_{3}\left(K_{6m+l}\right)}{K_{6m+l}} \rightarrow
\begin{cases}
1 & l=4\\
0 & 0\leq l < 6,\; l\neq 4
\end{cases}\quad
\frac{g_{7}\left(K_{6m+l}\right)}{K_{6m+l}} \rightarrow
\begin{cases}
1 & l=5\\
0 & 0\leq l < 6,\; l\neq 5
\end{cases}
\]
as $n,m\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{explicit f(Kj)} we have
\[
\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{K_{6n+1}} = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+1} - K_{6i}}{K_{6n+1}} = 1 + \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{6i+1}}{K_{6n+1}} - \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i}}{K_{6n+1}}
\]
which converges to 1 as $n\rightarrow \infty$ by \eqref{Kj ratio limit}.
By \eqref{f constant on intervals} we have $f_{3}\left(K_{6n+l}\right)=f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)$ for $2\leq l<6$ so
\[
\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+l}\right)}{K_{6n+l}} = \frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{K_{6n+l}} = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{6i+1} - K_{6i}}{K_{6n+l}}
\]
which converges to 0 as $n\rightarrow \infty$ by \eqref{Kj ratio limit}. Similarly, $f_{3}\left(K_{6n+0}\right) = f_{3}\left(K_{6\left(n-1\right)+1}\right)$ so
\[
\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+0}\right)}{K_{6n+0}} = \frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6\left(n-1\right)+1}\right)}{K_{6n}} = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{6i+1} - K_{6i}}{K_{6n}} \rightarrow 0
\]
The remaining results follow analogously.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{upper box lemma}
$\dim_{B}\left(F\right)=\dim_{B}\left(G\right)=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that $\dim_{B}\left(F\right)\leq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$. Writing $j_{\delta}$ for the stage associated with the length-scale $\delta$ we have from \eqref{delta implies N(F,delta)}
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log \delta}&< \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + f_{7}\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)}\\
&\leq \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)}
\intertext{and as $f_{3}\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)< j_{\delta}-1$}
&< \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)} = \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{\left(j_{\delta}-1\right)\log\left(3\right)}\\
\end{align*}
which converges to $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0$. Similarly we can show $\dim_{B}\left(G\right)\leq\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$

\paragraph*{}
Next, if we take the sequence $\set{\delta_{n}}$ with
\[
-\log\delta_{n} = f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ f_{7}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ K_{6n+1}\log\left(5\right)
\]
we have from \eqref{delta implies N(F,delta)} that $\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)= K_{6n+1}\log\left(2\right)$. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{n}} &= \frac{K_{6n+1}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ f_{7}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ K_{6n+1}\log\left(5\right)}\\
&= \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{K_{6n+1}}\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+\frac{f_{7}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{K_{6n+1}}\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ \log\left(5\right)}\\
&\rightarrow \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right) + 0 + \log\left(5\right)} = \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}
\end{align*}
as $n\rightarrow\infty$ by the convergence results \eqref{f Kj ratio limit} so that $\dim_{B}\left(F\right)\geq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$\\
A similar sequence gives the corresponding inequality for $G$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lower box lemma}
$\dim_{LB}\left(F\right)=\dim_{LB}\left(G\right)=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For all $\delta>0$ the implication \eqref{delta implies N(F,delta)} gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log \delta} &\geq \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{ f_{3}\left(j_{\delta}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ f_{7}\left(j_{\delta}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+j_{\delta}\log\left(5\right)}\\
&\geq \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{ f_{7}\left(j_{\delta}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+j_{\delta}\log\left(5\right)}\\
&> \frac{j_{\delta}\log\left(2\right)}{ j_{\delta}\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+j_{\delta}
\log\left(5\right)}=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}
\end{align*}
Next, if we take the sequence $\set{\delta_{n}}$ with
\[
-\log\delta_{n} = f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ K_{6n+2}\log\left(5\right)
\]
we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{n}} &= \frac{K_{6n+2}\log\left(2\right)}{ f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ K_{6n+2}\log\left(5\right)}\\
&= \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}{K_{6n+2}}\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+\frac{f_{7}\left(K_{6n+2}\right)}{K_{6n+2}}\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ \log\left(5\right)}\\
&\rightarrow \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{0 + \log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right) + \log\left(5\right)} = \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}
\end{align*}
as $n\rightarrow\infty$ by the convergence results \eqref{f Kj ratio limit}. Hence $\dim_{LB}\left(F\right)=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$, and similarly $\dim_{LB}\left(G\right)=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$.
\end{proof}
Consequently, both $F$ and $G$ have unequal upper and lower box-counting dimensions:
\begin{corollary}
$\dim_{LB}\left(F\right)=\dim_{LB}\left(G\right) < \dim_{B}\left(F\right)=\dim_{B}\left(G\right)$.
\end{corollary}

\paragraph*{}
Whilst the above lemmas demonstrate that for $F$ and $G$ there are sequences of length-scales $\set{\delta_{n}}$ with $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{n}}$ equal to $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)}$ or equal to $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}$ we now show that for a large class of sequences (in fact the very sequences that corollaries \ref{subsequence corollary upper} and \ref{subsequence corollary lower} produce) this limit, if it exists, is bounded by $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{deltan N(F,deltan) converge to log2log5}
Suppose $\set{\delta_{n}}$ is a sequence such that each length-scale $\delta_{n}$ corresponds to the construction of $F$ at some stage $j_{n}\in \left(K_{6n+2},K_{6n+6}\right]$, then if the limit exists
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{n}}\leq\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
Essentially, these stages are sufficiently far from the range $\left(K_{6n},K_{6n+1}\right]$ where $\gen_{3}$ is applied so that the set $F$ does not look like the Cantor middle-third set at these stages. The proof relies on the fact that by stage $j_{n}$ the generator $\gen_{3}$ has not been applied for at least the last $K_{6n+2}-K_{6n+1}$ stages.
\begin{proof}
For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ from \eqref{delta implies N(F,delta)}
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{n}} &\leq \frac{j_{n}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(j_{n}-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+f_{7}\left(j_{n}-1\right)\left[\log\left(7\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right] + \left(j_{n}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)}\\
&\leq \frac{j_{n}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(j_{n}-1\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ \left(j_{n}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)}
\intertext{From \eqref{f constant on intervals} we have $f_{3}\left(j_{n}-1\right)=f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)$ so that}
&=\frac{j_{n}\log\left(2\right)}{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+ \left(j_{n}-1\right)\log\left(5\right)}\\
&=\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\frac{f\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{j_{n}}\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+\log\left(5\right)-\frac{1}{j_{n}}\log\left(5\right)}.
\intertext{Next, as $j_{n}>K_{6n+2}$}
&\leq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\frac{f_{3}\left(K_{6n+1}\right)}{K_{6n+2}}\left[\log\left(3\right)-\log\left(5\right)\right]+\log\left(5\right)-\frac{1}{j_{n}}\log\left(5\right)}\\
&\rightarrow \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}
\end{align*}
as $n\rightarrow\infty$ by the convergence result \eqref{f Kj ratio limit}.
\end{proof}
The corresponding result for $G$, proved in a similar way, is as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{deltan N(G,deltan) converge to log2log5}
Suppose $\set{\delta_{m}}$ is a sequence such that each length-scale $\delta_{m}$ corresponds to the construction of $G$ at some stage $j_{m}\in \left(K_{6m+5},K_{6m+9}\right]$, then if the limit exists
\[\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta_{m}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{m}}\leq\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
The following results for lower bounds are also proved similarly.
\begin{lemma}\label{deltan M(F,deltan) converge to log2log5}
Suppose $\set{\delta_{n}}$ is a sequence such that each length-scale $\delta_{n}$ corresponds to the construction of $F$ at some stage $j_{n}\in \left(K_{6n+3},K_{6n+7}\right]$, then if the limit exists
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta_{n}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{n}}\geq\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}
\]
\end{lemma}
and
\begin{lemma}\label{deltan M(G,deltan) converge to log2log5}
Suppose $\set{\delta_{m}}$ is a sequence such that each length-scale $\delta_{m}$ corresponds to the construction of $G$ at some stage $j_{m}\in \left(K_{6m},K_{6m+4}\right]$, then if the limit exists
\[\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta_{m}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{m}}\geq\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}.
\]
\end{lemma}

Finally, we find a bound on the box-counting dimensions of the product $F\times G$.

\begin{theorem}\label{strict upper box product inequality}
$\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right)\leq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have from \eqref{limsup of sum} that
\[
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \frac{\log\left(N\left(F\times G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log \delta} \leq \limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\left[\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\right]
\]
so it is sufficient to show that the right hand side is no greater than $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}$. Suppose that $\set{\delta_{i}}$ is a sequence with $\delta_{i}\rightarrow 0$ such that the limits $\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{i}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i}}$ and $\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta_{i}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i}}$ exist. Corollary \ref{subsequence corollary upper} guarantees that this sequence either contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{n}}}$ satisfying the hypothesis of lemma \ref{deltan N(F,deltan) converge to log2log5} or contains a subsequence $\set{\delta_{i_{m}}}$ satisfying the hypothesis of lemma \ref{deltan N(G,deltan) converge to log2log5} so at least one of $\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i_{n}}}$ and $\frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i_{n}}}$ converges to $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}$. Using the upper box-counting dimension from lemma \ref{upper box lemma} to bind the other term yields
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i_{n}}} + \frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i_{n}}} \leq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}
\]
a bound which also hold for the original sequence $\set{\delta_{i}}$.
As $\set{\delta_{i}}$ was an arbitrary convergent sequence,
\[
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\left[\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\right] \leq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(3\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
$\dim_{B}\left(F\times G\right)< \dim_{B}\left(F\right) + \dim_{B}\left(G\right)$
\end{corollary}

\begin{theorem}
$\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right)\geq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{liminf of sum} we have
\[
\liminf_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \frac{\log\left(M\left(F\times G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} \geq \liminf_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \left[\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} \right]
\]
so it is sufficient to prove that the right hand side is no less than $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}$. Suppose that $\set{\delta_{i}}$ is a sequence with $\delta_{i}\rightarrow 0$ such that the limits $\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(F,\delta_{i}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i}}$ and $\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log\left(N\left(G,\delta_{i}\right)\right)}{-\log \delta_{i}}$ exist. In a similar fashion to theorem \ref{strict upper box product inequality}, corollary \ref{subsequence corollary lower} and lemmas \ref{deltan M(F,deltan) converge to log2log5} and \ref{deltan M(G,deltan) converge to log2log5} guarantee that at least one of  $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{i_{n}}}$ and $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta_{i_{n}}\right)\right)}{-\log\delta_{i_{n}}}$ is no less than $\frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)}$ so
\[
\liminf_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \left[\frac{\log\left(M\left(F,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta} + \frac{\log\left(M\left(G,\delta\right)\right)}{-\log\delta}\right] \geq \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(5\right)} + \frac{\log\left(2\right)}{\log\left(7\right)}
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
$\dim_{LB}\left(F\times G\right) > \dim_{LB}\left(F\right) + \dim_{LB}\left(G\right)$
\end{corollary}

\begin{acknowledgements}\label{ackref}
I am greatly indebted to my PhD supervisor, James Robinson, for highlighting that there was no example of a strict product inequality in the box-counting literature and to the generosity of Isabelle Harding and Matt Gibson in providing accommodation whilst much of this work was completed.
\end{acknowledgements}