2
$\begingroup$

Given a real number $x \in (0, 1)$, we denote by $0.x_1x_2\ldots$ its binary expansion, where we always choose the expansion that ends in an infinite number of $1$’s whenever a choice has to be made.

Given two real numbers $a = 0.a_1a_2\ldots$ and $b = 0.b_1b_2...$ in $(0, 1)$, denote by $S(a, b)$ the set of indices $i$ for which $a_i \neq b_i$. We label the elements of $S(a, b)$ by $s_0, s_1,\ldots$, where the values of the sequence are chosen to be in increasing order. We suppress the dependence on $a, b$ when writing the sequence for clarity.

We say an increasing sequence $c_n$ of positive real numbers is anti-syndetic if for any polynomial $P$ with positive coefficients, there exists some $N \in \mathbb N$ such that $c_{n + N} > P(n)$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$.

A subset $D$ of $(0, 1)$ is said to be well approximating if for every $x \in (0, 1)$, there is a $d \in D$ such that the sequence $s_n$ associated with $S(x, d)$ is anti-syndetic.

Question: Does there exist a well approximating subset of $(0, 1)$ with Lebesgue measure zero?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @Buzz, if you like \ldots, you'll like the "semantic dots" \dotsc and co. (\dotsb, \dotsm, \dotsi) even more! $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 3:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is "anti-syndetic" a standard term? $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2021 at 3:18
  • $\begingroup$ It isn’t. One might say “polynomially unbounded gaps” for a more precise term but I don’t think this is standard either. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 3:21
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Say, if $D$ is the set of numbers $0.x_1x_2\ldots$ such that $x_{2^n}=1$ for all $n$, then for every $x\in (0, 1) $ there exists $d\in D$ for which $s_i$'s are distinct powers of 2, thus growing faster than any polynomial. Right? $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2021 at 6:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... and that would have measure 0. You’re right. The same example was given to me by Yuval Peres a bit earlier. Would you like to post this as an answer so I can flag it as accepted? $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 6:40

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Let $D$ consist of all numbers $d$ in $[0,1]$ such that in their binary expansion for every $k$ the digit at location $2^k$ vanishes, i.e., $d_{2^k}=0$. Then it is easy to check that $D$ has Lebesgue measure zero (Indeed it can be covered by $2^{2^k-k}$ intervals of length $2^{-2^k}$ for each $k$). For every $x \in (0,1)$ there is $d \in D$ that agrees with it in all digits except those that our powers of 2, so the elements of $S(x,d)$ satisfy $s_n \ge 2^n$ for all $n$.

(Answer first provided on another site yesterday; it is the same as Fedor Petrov's comment.)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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