Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here's an interesting problem one can formulate for a student. This problem arises when considering special ergodic theorems:

On a finite dimensional manifold $M$ with a Lebesgue measure $\mu$, does every measure zero set equal a countable union of the sets of less than full Hausdorff dimension?

For a diffeomorphism $f$ of $M$ and a continuous function $\varphi$ on $M$, define $$\overline \varphi = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_0^{n-1} \varphi \circ f^k(x).$$ Then the Birkhoff theorem asserts that for almost all $x$, $\overline \varphi \rightarrow \int_M \varphi, n \rightarrow \infty$. But consider the set $K_{\alpha}$ of $x$ where $$\alpha \leq |\overline \varphi - \int \varphi|.$$ So Birkhoff says $\mu(K_\alpha)=0$, but what about the Hausdorff dimension of $\mu(K_\alpha)=0$? For some diffeomorphisms, for example hyperbolic maps, it was proven that $\dim_H K_\alpha < \dim X$. That fact gives a rise to my question. I expect a negative answer, but I can not find a counterexample.

share|improve this question
    
It's not clear what "decomposed" means. Do you mean that expressing the set of measure zero as union of the sets of a Hausdorff dimension less than full? Then, do you want to allow "uncountable" union? If so, any set of measure zero is union of points. –  i707107 Mar 29 '12 at 8:00
    
I mean expresing the set of measure zero as a countable (or less) union of the sets of a Hausdorff dimension less than full. In the remark, $\alpha$ could be taken $\frac{1}{n}$. So I do not accept such an easy solution. I hope, now it's more precise. –  Olga Mar 29 '12 at 8:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Consider a function $h$ defined on the unit interval $[0,1]$ which is monotone nondecreasing and for which $h(0)=0$, $h$ continuous at $0$. We may define a Hausdorff measure $H_h$ associated to $h$ (see Donoghue, Distributions and Fourier Transforms Academic Press New York 1969 p. 30--35, or C. A. Rogers, Hausdorff Measures, Cambridge University Press, 1970). When $h(x)=x^\alpha$ you get the ordinary Hausdorff measures $H_\alpha$. Consider also $f(x)=x\log(e/x)$.

Then a set $A\subset{\bf R}$ with $0< H_f(A)<1$ has measure of Lebesgue $0$ but it is not union of a numerable set $A=\bigcup A_n$ with $H_{\alpha_n}(A_n)=0$ and $0<\alpha_n<1$, because this implies $H_f(A_n)=0$ and so $H_f(A)=0$.

As similar construction applies to each ${\bf R}^n$.

share|improve this answer
2  
Perhaps I must explain that the existence of $A\subset{\bf R}$ with $0<H_f(A)<1$ is well known and due to Dvoretzky: Dvoretzky, A. A note on Hausdorff dimension functions. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 44, (1948). 13–16. –  juan Mar 29 '12 at 19:49
    
Thank you so much for your answer, as far as I understand, for $\mathbb{R}^n$ we have to consider $f_n(x)=x^n \log (e/x)$ and everything will work as it has to. And the number e in the definition of f doesn't value much - we can take any positive number we want. –  Olga Apr 3 '12 at 19:54
    
Yes, the constant $e$ is only to make $x \log(e/x)$ monotone on $[0,1]$. In fact $H_f = H_g$ if $f$ and $g$ coincide on an interval $[0,\varepsilon]$, therefore there is some liberty in choosing $f$. –  juan Apr 5 '12 at 11:09

Your Answer

 
discard

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.