Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with hausdorff-dimension
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 103792
Questions about dimensions of possibly highly irregular or "rough" sets, Hausdorff–Besicovitch dimension and related concepts such as box-counting or Minkowski–Bouligand dimension.
4
votes
Accepted
Hausdorff dimension of the non-differentiability set of a locally Lipschitz function
You can't find a reference because it's false. Rademacher's theorem (Lebesgue-almost everywhere differentiability) is the best one can do.
In fact, for every Lebesgue-null set $E \subset \mathbf{R}$, …
- 5,048
3
votes
Accepted
Hausdorff dimension and non-empty intersections with lines
This is true if the dimension of $A$ is strictly larger than $d-1$; on the other hand taking $A = \{ x^d = 0 \}$ shows that $s = d-1$ is not enough. To prove the first claim we use the co-area formula …
- 5,048
3
votes
Accepted
Hausdorff dimension of the non-differentiability set a convex function
I just stumbled across your question. I have no idea how the proofs of these results go—and I am inclined to believe that they would indeed also prove the version you seek—but here's a way to deduce t …
- 5,048