MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mu$ be a finite Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$. I am interested in how does $\mu(B(x,r))$ behave, where $B(x,r)$ is the open ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$. For instance, as far as I recall, for each $\alpha \in [0,n]$, there exists finite $\mu$ so that $\mu(B(x,r)) \sim r^{\alpha}$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x$, which are called dimensionally-regular measures (with constant local dimension $\alpha$).

Here is my question: does there exist finite Borel measure$\mu$ such that that $\mu(B(x,r))$ vanishes superpolynomially fast, say, $\sim e^{-\frac{1}{r}}$, i.e.,

$\mu\left(\left\{x: \liminf_{r \to 0} r |\log \mu (B(x,r)) | > 0 \right\}\right) > 0$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

If I am not wrong, the answer is no (even for $\sigma$-finite measures). We can assume we are working with a finite measure $\mu$ in $[0,1]^d$.

Consider the sets $A_k =${$ x \ : \ \liminf_{r\to 0} |\log \mu(B(x,r))| r > 1/k$}. It is enough to show that the sets $A_k$ have zero measure.

Now, $A_k = \bigcap_N \bigcup_{n>N} B_n$ where $B_n =$ {$x \ : \ \mu(B(x,1/n))< e^{-n/k} $}.

To see this, notice that for every $x\in A_k$, there exists $n_0$ such that for every $n>n_0$ we have that $1/n |\log \mu(B(x,1/n))| > 1/k$.

So, it is enough to show that $\sum_{n>N} \mu(B_n)\to 0$ as $N\to \infty$.

For every $n>0$ we can divide $[0,1]^d$ in $C n^d$ cubes whose interiors cover $[0,1]^d$ and such that any of them is has diameter smaller than, say, $1/(10n)$.

Now, $\mu(B_n) \leq \sum_{i\in I} \mu(Q_i)$ where the $Q_i$ are the cubes which intersect $B_n$. Now, for each $Q_i$ with $i\in I$ we have that $$\mu(Q_i) \leq e^{-n/k}$$

since it is contained in $B(x,1/n)$ of a point $x\in B_n$.

So, $\mu(B_n) \leq C n^d e^{-n/k} \to 0$ and this implies that $\sum_{n>N} \mu(B_n) \to 0$ as $N\to \infty$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why is it that $A_k=\bigcup B_n$, and even it were so, why is it enough to show that $\mu(B_n)\to 0$? – R W Nov 11 '10 at 16:32
Sorry, there were some holes in the proof. I hope now it is correct. – rpotrie Nov 11 '10 at 16:58
Yes - it's OK now - except for one detail. In the last line you, of course, wanted to refer to summability of the series $\sum n^d e^{-n/k}$ (which is the easy direction of the Borel-Cantelli Lemma). – R W Nov 11 '10 at 17:51
Great. The same proof shows that it is impossible to have $\mu(B(x,r)) \sim r^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha > d+1$. I think the tight result should be $\alpha > d$. – mr.gondolier Nov 12 '10 at 0:19

I think in order to prove the sharp result you need to use a covering theorem. The best option seems to be Vitali's covering theorem for Radon measures, which says the following: let $\mu$ be a Radon measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$, let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be a set, and let $\mathcal{B}$ be a family of balls such that each point of $A$ is the center of balls in $\mathcal{B}$ of arbitrarily small radius. Then there is pairwise disjoint collection $\{ B_i\}\subset\mathcal{B}$ such that $\mu(A\backslash \bigcup_i B_i)=0$. For a proof, see e.g. Mattila's book, Theorem 2.8.

With this theorem it is easy to prove the following: if $\mu$ is a Radon measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$, then $$ \liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\mu(B(x,r))}{r^d} > 0 \quad \text{for } \mu\text{-a.e. } x. $$

To prove this, suppose $\mu$ is a measure such that the claim fails. We may assume without loss of generality that $\mu$ has bounded support (otherwise, let $\mu_N$ be the restriction of $\mu$ to $B(0,N)$; the theorem holds for all $\mu_N$ so it also holds for $\mu$).

Fix a small $\varepsilon>0$. Let $\mathcal{B}$ be the family of all balls $B$ of radius $r\le 1$ such that $\mu(B) < \varepsilon r^d$. Moreover, let $A$ be the set of all $x$ such that $\mu(B(x,r_i)) < \varepsilon r_i^d$ for a sequence $r_i\to 0$. Then $A$ satisfies the hypotheses of Vitali's covering lemma for the family $\mathcal{B}$. Also note that $A\supset A'$, where $$ A' = \{x\in\mathbb{R}^d: \liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\mu(B(x,r))}{r^d} = 0\}. $$ By assumption, $\mu(A')>0$.

Now let $\{ B_i\}$ be the disjoint collection of balls provided by Vitali's covering lemma. On one hand, we have $$ \mu(\bigcup_i B_i) \ge \mu(A) \ge \mu(A') >0. $$ On the other hand, by definition of the family $\mathcal{B}$ and the fact that $\{B_i\}$ is disjoint, $$ \mu(\bigcup_i B_i) = \sum_i \mu(B_i) \le \varepsilon \sum_i r_i^d < C \varepsilon, $$ where $r_i$ is the radius of $B_i$ and $C$ is a constant that depends only on the size of the support of $\mu$. By taking $\varepsilon$ small enough we obtain a contradiction.

As a corollary, we find that, indeed, it is impossible to have $\mu(B(x,r))\sim r^\alpha$ for any $\alpha>d$.

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks Pablo! Now I remembered I've seen this theorem from Federer's book before. Somehow I escaped my mind... – mr.gondolier Nov 23 '10 at 6:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.