Timeline for local behavior of a finite Borel measure
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2010 at 6:48 | vote | accept | gondolier | ||
| Nov 12, 2010 at 0:19 | comment | added | gondolier | 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 $\alpha > d$. | |
| Nov 11, 2010 at 17:51 | comment | added | R W | 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). | |
| Nov 11, 2010 at 16:58 | comment | added | rpotrie | Sorry, there were some holes in the proof. I hope now it is correct. | |
| Nov 11, 2010 at 16:57 | history | edited | rpotrie | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2010 at 16:32 | comment | added | R W | Why is it that $A_k=\bigcup B_n$, and even it were so, why is it enough to show that $\mu(B_n)\to 0$? | |
| Nov 11, 2010 at 16:10 | history | edited | rpotrie | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2010 at 12:27 | history | answered | rpotrie | CC BY-SA 2.5 |