25
$\begingroup$

This is a crosspost from MSE.

Can we find for any given $\varepsilon>0$ an open subset $A\subseteq[0,1]^2$ with measure $>\frac{1}{100}$ such that, for any smooth curve $\gamma:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^2$ of length $1$, the set $\gamma+A=\{\gamma(t)+a;t\in[0,1],a\in A\}$ does not contain any balls of radius $\varepsilon$?

I wouldn't mind changing the $\frac{1}{100}$ for any other positive constant. Also, I ask about smooth curves but it may make more sense to consider in general $1$-Lipschitz functions $\gamma:[0,1]\to[0,1]^2$.

I came across (something similar to) this question while thinking about this one.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I answered the original polyomino question (which corresponds to arbitrary rectifiable curves). The smooth curve version is a bit harder and I don't immediately see how to handle it, so it remains open at the moment :-) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented May 24, 2022 at 4:37
  • $\begingroup$ Cool! I'll try to understand the answer in detail when I have time $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Commented May 24, 2022 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ $A$ being open and by a compactness argument, couldn't we chose a finite set of points that $\gamma$ needs to go through for $\gamma+A$ to contain a closed ball of radius larger than $\epsilon$? Apologies, I know I'm missing something, but what is it? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 20, 2023 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @YaakovBaruch maybe no curve of length $\leq1$ can pass through all the points in that finite set $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Commented Apr 20, 2023 at 12:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, that length requierement slipped beteeen my eyes. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 20, 2023 at 15:10

1 Answer 1

22
+50
$\begingroup$

The answer is no: if $\varepsilon$ is small enough, then for every open $A \subset [0,1]^2$ of measure at least $1/100$, there exists a smooth curve $\gamma$ of length $\leq 1$ such that $\gamma+A$ contains a $\varepsilon$-ball. The idea is to randomly shift by translates first at extremely small scales to cover a lot of balls (or squares) at that scale, then at less small scales to cover a lot of balls (or squares) at this larger scale, and so forth until one is able to cover a macroscopic ball or square.

First some reductions. By enlarging $\varepsilon$ a little bit, we can assume it is a negative power of two, and replace "$\varepsilon$-ball" by "dyadic $\varepsilon$-square". By inner regularity, $A$ contains a finite union of balls of measure at least $1/200$, hence contains a finite union $A'$ of closed dyadic squares of measure at least $1/400$. If $N$ is large enough, we can view $A'$ as a union of dyadic $2^{-N}$-squares, and assume that the $2^{-N}$-neighbourhood of $A'$ lies in $A$. It will then suffice to find a piecewise polygonal path $\gamma'$ of length at most $1/2$ such that $\gamma'+A'$ contains a dyadic $\varepsilon$-square, since one can smooth $\gamma'$ out at a scale much less than $2^{-N}$ to find a smooth curve $\gamma$ of length at most $1$ such that $\gamma+A \subset \gamma'+A'$.

Now introduce the hyperdyadic scales $\varepsilon_n := \varepsilon^{2^n}$ and integers $J_n := \lfloor \log^{100} \frac{1}{\varepsilon_n} \rfloor$. Clearly there is $n_0$ such that $\varepsilon_{n_0+1} \leq 2^{-N}$, hence $A'$ is now a union of dyadic $\varepsilon_{n_0+1}$-squares. We will choose, for each $n=0,\dots,n_0$, a set $H_n$ of $J_n$ shifts in the ball $B(0, 10 \varepsilon_n)$. By an easy induction on $n_0$, it is possible to find a piecewise polygonal path $\gamma'$ passing through the sumset $$ H_0 + H_1 + \dots + H_{n_0}$$ (which is a finite set of cardinality at most $J_0 \dots J_{n_0}$) of length at most $$ \sum_{n=0}^{n_0} 20 \varepsilon_n J_0 \dots J_n$$ which one can calculate to be less than $1/2$ if $\varepsilon$ is small enough (the double exponential decay of the $\varepsilon_n$ beats the quadratic exponential growth of the $J_0 \dots J_n$). Hence it will suffice to locate $H_0,\dots,H_{n_0}$ such that $$ H_0 + H_1 + \dots + H_{n_0} + A'$$ contains a dyadic $\varepsilon$-square.

We will establish the more general claim that for any $0 \leq n \leq n_0+1$, we can select $H_n,\dots,H_{n_0}$ such that $$ H_n + \dots + H_{n_0} + A'$$ contains a union of dyadic $\varepsilon_{n}$-squares in $[0,1]^2$, of total measure at least $\frac{1}{400} - 1000^{-n-1}$; setting $n=0$ will give the claim.

We prove this claim by downward induction on $n$. When $n=n_0+1$ the claim follows since $A'$ itself is a union of dyadic $\varepsilon_{n_0+1}$ squares in $[0,1]^2$ of measure at least $\frac{1}{400}$. Now assume inductively that $0 \leq n \leq n_0$ and the claim has already been proven for $n+1$, thus we have already located $H_{n+1},\dots,H_{n_0}$ such that $$ H_{n+1} + \dots + H_{n_0} + A'$$ contains a union $B$ of dyadic $\varepsilon_{n+1}$-squares in $[0,1]^2$, of total measure at least $\frac{1}{400} - 1000^{-n-2}$.

We cover $B$ by dyadic $\varepsilon_n$-squares. If we let $B'$ be the union of all the dyadic $\varepsilon_n$-squares in which $B$ has relative density at least $1000^{-n-2}$, then $B \backslash B'$ has measure at most $1000^{-n-2}$, hence $B'$ (which contains $B \cap B'$) has measure at least $\frac{1}{400} - 2 \times 1000^{-n-2}$. We now use the probabilistic method, picking $H_n$ to be $J_n$ random elements of $B(0,10\varepsilon_n)$. A standard union bound calculation (discretising each $\varepsilon_n$-square at scale $\frac{1}{10} \varepsilon_{n+1}$, say into a lattice of cardinality $O( (\varepsilon_n/\varepsilon_{n+1})^2 )$) shows that each $\varepsilon_n$-square in $B'$ will lie in $H_n+B$ with probability at least $$ 1 - O( (\varepsilon_n/\varepsilon_{n+1})^2 ( 1 - 1000^{-n-3} )^{J_n} )$$ which by the choice of parameters can be seen to be at least $1 - 1000^{-n-2}$. Thus, by linearity of expectation (first moment method), one can choose $H_n$ so that $H_n+B$ covers a subcollection of $\varepsilon_n$-squares in $B'$ of measure at least $\frac{1}{400} - 1000^{-n-1}$, closing the induction.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Nice argument! (In case someone else misinterprets this, $\log^{100}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_n}$ does not mean iterating the $\log$ function $100$ times) $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Commented Apr 20, 2023 at 20:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @SaúlRM I have never seen the $\log^{100}$ to denote the $100$-fold iterated logarithm; I have sometimes seen $\log_{100}$ to denote it. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2023 at 18:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mathworker21 It is common in complex dynamics to use superscript $^n$ for the n-fold iteration. For example $\exp^2(z)=\exp(\exp(z))$. Woudn't $\log_{100}$ be the log base 100? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2023 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ @D.S.Lipham "Woudn't $\log_{100}$ be the log base 100?" It is, for any given paper, until I see the notation section :) . Don't shoot the messenger. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2023 at 19:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TerryTao My brain has slowed over the years so it's going to take me a bit more time to finish understanding every detail, but I'm pretty sure that "closed dyadic squares of measure at most 1/400" is a typo and you meant "at least". Or am I totally lost? (And I can't correct it by editing and rely on reviewers to prevent me from embarrassing myself because of limitations of the StackExchange software framework.) $\endgroup$ Commented May 11, 2023 at 21:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .