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

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.