4
$\begingroup$

In the article "Funzioni BV e tracce" by Anzellotti and Giaquinta (MR555952, Zbl 0432.46031), at page 6 you can read (assume $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ open): "The following example shows that the hypothesis $\mathcal{H}^{n-1} (\partial \Omega) < + \infty$ cannot be replaced by the hypothesis $P(\Omega)< + \infty$, even if the the topological frontier and the reduced boundary of $\Omega$ coincide."

Now, I know that in general topological boundary and reduced boundary have nothing to do with each other, but I thought that if you have a set of finite perimeter, by De Giorgi's structure theorem they were essentially the same, in the sense that you can work equivalently with the perimeter or the Hausdorff measure (with the reduced boundary). Namely if you have a set of finite perimeter $E \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, by the structure theorem:

$$ D 1_E = \nu_E \mathcal{H}^{n-1} |_{\partial^* \Omega} ,$$

but if $\partial E= \partial^* E$, then:

$$+ \infty > P(E) = |D1_E|(\mathbb{R}^n)= \mathcal{H}^{n-1} (\partial ^* E)= \mathcal{H}^{n-1} (\partial E).$$

What's the caveat here that I am not seeing?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Reading through their example, I don't really follow what they gain by removing balls. If their $\Omega$ was instead taken as $A \setminus \cup S_i$, they will have (correctly) shown that $P(E; \Omega)$ finite does not imply $P(E; \mathbb{R}^n)$ finite, the caveat being that $P(\Omega) < \infty$ but $\mathcal{H}^1(\Omega) = \infty$ (which is not a contradiction, all the removed line segments are not reduced boundary). Instead of line segments they remove closures of unions of small balls centered on a dense set on each line segment: here it is less clear if the perimeter of $\Omega$ is ... $\endgroup$
    – user378654
    Commented Aug 25, 2023 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ finite, and certainly now there are some points where the topological boundary is also reduced boundary. But you can't have it both ways at once: if you consider just one of the closures of $\cup_j B_i^j$, it's clear its boundary has $\mathcal{H}^1$ measure at least $1/2$. If the perimeter is controlled by the sum of perimeters of the balls, as they I guess claim, then there are points which are not in the reduced boundary. If not, then the perimeters are not summable, invalidating the example. I guess a reasonable exercise is to compute exactly what the perimeters of these sets are. $\endgroup$
    – user378654
    Commented Aug 25, 2023 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @user378654 exactly, I get what they are doing but the removed segments are not the reduced boundary, as you say. I mean, I didn't go through the example in detail (that's why I didn't report it), what puzzles me is that they claim that the implication $P(\Omega)< +\infty$ + $\partial \Omega = \partial ^* \Omega \implies \mathcal{H}^{n-1} (\Omega)= P(\Omega)$ is false. $\endgroup$
    – tommy1996q
    Commented Aug 25, 2023 at 19:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @tommy1996q The comment by Anzelotti and Giaquinta is simply false. When we write a paper we and read our manuscript over and over again, we often find stupid mistakes before writing the final version. That requires many iterations of the process. In older days, without LaTeX and possibility of infinite iterations and corrections, it was easy to write something stupid and not correct it. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 30, 2023 at 22:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! I read through your answer and it is crystal clear, exactly what I was thinking, better explained. It's certainly possible that the reduced boundary has finite Hausdorff measure but the topological boundary doesn't, but not if they are equal! I think the issue is simply that when you read something in an article that doesn't seem right, you always assume you're not understanding something, especially if it's written by famous people. You just forget everyone can make a mistake $\endgroup$
    – tommy1996q
    Commented Aug 31, 2023 at 9:27

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I will use notation from the book:

L. C. Evans, R. F. Gariepy, Measure theory and fine properties of functions, Textbooks in Mathematics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (ISBN 978-1-4822-4238-6/hbk), 309 p. (2015), MR3409135, Zbl 1310.28001.

All the results that I am using below are carefully proved in Chapter 5 of that book.

Let $E\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be measurable. The measure theoretic boundary $\partial_* E$ consists of points $x$ such that $$ \limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{|B(x,r)\cap E|}{r^n}>0 \quad \textit{ and } \quad \limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{|B(x,r)\setminus E|}{r^n}>0. $$ For example, if $E=\Omega$ is open and $x\in\partial\Omega$ is a vertex of a cusp, then $x\in\partial\Omega\setminus \partial_*\Omega$. Thus in general $\partial\Omega$ is a larger set and one can construct a bounded open set with a nasty boundary full of narrow parts so that $$ \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*\Omega)<\infty \quad \textit{ but } \quad \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial\Omega)=\infty.\label{1}\tag{$*$} $$ While I haven't read the example of Anzellotti and Giaquinta carefully, I believe this is what they have.

If $E$ is bounded measurable and $\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*E)<\infty$, then $E$ has finite perimeter and the reduced boundary $\partial^*E$ satisfies $$ \partial^*E\subset\partial_*E, \quad \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*E\setminus\partial^*E)=0 \quad P(E)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial^*E)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*E). $$ Here $P(E)$ is the perimeter. Now let's look again at the example of bounded $E=\Omega$ satisfying \eqref{1}. Since $\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*\Omega)<\infty$, the set $\Omega$ has finite perimeter, and we have $$ P(\Omega)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*\Omega)<\infty \quad \textit{ but } \quad \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial\Omega)=\infty. \label{2}\tag{$**$} $$ If the reduced boundary coincides with the topological boundary and the set has finite perimeter, then we clearly have $$ \partial\Omega=\partial^*\Omega\subset\partial_*\Omega\subset\partial\Omega$$ and hence all sets are equal. Thus $P(\Omega)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial_*\Omega)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial\Omega)$. I think that the last part of the comment they made:

enter image description here

Not even in the case in which the topological boundary and the reduced boundary of $\Omega$ coincide.

is not correct, but the claim that it is possible to have \eqref{2} is true.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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