# Kolodziej's acta paper “the complex monge-ampere equation”——a detailed ploblem [closed]

Recently,I am reading kolodziej's acta paper,there are some ditails that i do not know clearly.

In the top line of page 99,"it's no restriction to assume that for each s we have $\nu(\cup_{I\in{B_s}}\partial I)=0$",i do not know why.Here $\nu=(dd^{c}v)^n$ and $v\in PSH(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}$,$\partial I$ is the boundary of some cube.

From Kolodziej's view,a poriori $\nu(\cup_{I\in{B_s}}\partial I)$ may not be zero.However,i think $\partial I$ can be seen as a part of a pluripolar set,then according to Bedford and Taylor's reasult,we know the above monge-ampere measure concentrates no mass on $\partial I$.So we get $\nu(\cup_{I\in{B_s}}\partial I)=0$,and it should not be a assumption!

I hope some expert in this field can help me.Thanks.

-

## closed as too localized by Franz Lemmermeyer, Angelo, Andrés E. Caicedo, Daniel Moskovich, Ryan BudneyDec 29 '10 at 6:26

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

One way to argue is this: We have $\nu(\Omega)<1$. (For example a $\sigma$-finite Borel measure would suffice.) If you fix the subdivisions $\beta_s$ of $I_0$, then for $\mathcal{H}^{2n}$-almost every $t \in C^n$ we have $\nu(\partial (I+t))=0$ for every $I \in \bigcup_s \beta_s$. Therefore you can move the grid slightly to have the claim satisfied.