A self-similar measure with dense rotations, singular projections and discrete slices
Ariel Rapaport

TL;DR
This paper constructs a planar self-similar measure with dense rotations and high dimension, demonstrating that in certain directions, projections are singular and slices are discrete, challenging typical dimension conservation expectations.
Contribution
It introduces a specific self-similar measure with dense rotations and shows that dimension conservation fails in a residual set of directions with singular projections and discrete slices.
Findings
Existence of directions with singular projections
Residual set of such directions
Typical slices are discrete
Abstract
We construct a planar homogeneous self-similar measure, with strong separation, dense rotations and dimension greater than , such that there exist lines for which dimension conservation does not hold and the projection of the measure is singular. In fact, the set of such directions is residual and the typical slices of the measure, perpendicular to these directions, are discrete.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Nonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation · Chaos control and synchronization
A self-similar measure with dense rotations, singular projections
and discrete slices
Ariel Rapaport
(Date: April 24, 2017)
Abstract.
We construct a planar homogeneous self-similar measure, with strong separation, dense rotations and dimension greater than , such that there exist lines for which dimension conservation does not hold and the projection of the measure is singular. In fact, the set of such directions is residual and the typical slices of the measure, perpendicular to these directions, are discrete.
Key words and phrases:
Self-similar measure, singular measure, dimension conservation.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 28A80, Secondary: 28A78.
Supported by ERC grant 306494
1. Introduction and statement of results
Let be a rotation matrix, with for all , and let . Consider a homogeneous IFS on
[TABLE]
with the strong separation condition (SSC), and a self-similar measure
[TABLE]
It is among the most basic planar self-similar measures. Hence it is a natural question in fractal geometry to study the dimension and continuity of the projections and slices
[TABLE]
Here is the unit circle of , is the orthogonal projection onto the line spanned by , and is the disintegration of with respect to , where is the Borel -algebra of . A more elaborate description of these disintegrations is given in Section 2.
Dimensionwise, the behaviour of the projections is as regular as possible. Indeed, Hochman and Shmerkin [HS] have proven that is exact dimensional, with
[TABLE]
for each . A version of this, for self-similar sets with dense rotations, was first proven by Peres and Shmerkin [PS]. Considering the continuity of the projections, Shmerkin and Solomyak [SS] have shown, assuming , that the set
[TABLE]
has zero Hausdorff dimension.
Let us turn to discuss the concept of dimension conservation and the dimension of slices. A Borel probability measure on is said to be dimension conserving (DC), with respect to the projection , if
[TABLE]
where stands for Hausdorff dimension. It always holds that is DC with respect to for almost every . This follows from results, valid for general measures, regarding the typical dimension of projections (see [HK]) and slices (see [JM]). Falconer and Jin [FJ1] have shown that is DC, with respect to for all , whenever is self-similar with a finite rotation group. An analogues statement, for self-similar sets with the SSC, was first proven by Furstenberg [F]. Another related result for sets is due to Falconer and Jin [FJ2]. They showed that if is self-similar, with and a dense rotation group, then for every there exists , with , such that for the set
[TABLE]
has positive length.
Taking these results into account, it is natural to ask whether the sets , defined above, and
[TABLE]
must be empty whenever the dimension of exceeds . A version, for self-similar sets, of this folklore question regarding is asked in Section 4 of [BFVZ]. The purpose of this paper is to show that and are not necessarily empty, and in fact can both be topologically large. The following theorem is our main result. Recall that a measure is said to be discrete if it is supported on a countable set.
Theorem 1.1**.**
There exist , a rotation matrix with for all , and a homogeneous planar self-similar IFS
[TABLE]
with the SSC, such that the self-similar measure satisfies , and each of the sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
contains a dense subset of .
If is a discrete measure on then clearly , hence we get the following corollary.
Corollary 1.2**.**
Let be the self-similar measure from Theorem 1.1, then the set
[TABLE]
contains a dense subset of .
Theorem 1.1 is related to an example obtained by Nazarov, Peres and Shmerkin [NPS]. They have presented a planar self-affine measure , with the SSC and having dimension greater than , such that the set of for which is singular contains a subset. We do not pursue this, but our argument can probably be used for showing that, for a residual set of directions , the slices are -typically discrete. Also related to Theorem 1.1 is a recent paper, by Simon and Vágó [SV], in which certain one-parameter families of self-similar measures on the line are constructed. For these families it holds that the similarity dimension of is greater than for every , but the set of parameters for which is singular is topologically large.
In our construction of the rotational part , of the maps in the IFS, comes from a reciprocal of a complex Pisot number (see definition 2.1 below). While dealing with parametric families of measures, Pisot numbers have been used before, in several situations, in order to demonstrate the existence of exceptional parameters for which the corresponding measures are singular. This was first done by Erdős [E], who proved that the Bernoulli convolution corresponding to , i.e. the distribution of the random sum , is singular whenever is Pisot. The example from [NPS], mentioned above, also utilizes real Pisot numbers. In [SX], complex Pisot numbers are used in order to obtain examples of singular complex Bernoulli convolutions.
As a by-product of our construction, we obtain information on the Hausdorff measure of typical slices of self-similar sets at the critical dimension. Let be a planar self-similar set with the SSC, and denote by the Haar measure of . Write for the Hausdorff dimension of , and assume . For denote by the -dimensional Hausdorff measure. Given and write for the slice . Since , the Hausdorff dimension of is equal to , with finite -measure, for -a.e. (see Theorem 10.11 in [M]). However, it was not known whether the set
[TABLE]
must have positive -measure. In Corollary 2.3 from [R] the author has shown that if this holds, and has dense rotations, then is absolutely continuous for all . In our example from Theorem 1.1 we shall have , where is a normalizing constant. Hence we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 1.3**.**
Let be the IFS constructed in Theorem 1.1. Denote by its attractor, and write for the Hausdorff dimension of . Then and,
[TABLE]
It is interesting to note that, in contrast with Corollary 1.3, if is self-similar, with the SSC, finite rotation group and dimension greater than , then for typical affine -planes (see Corollary 2.2 in [R]).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the measure from Theorem 1.1 is constructed. In Section 3 we show that the set defined in (1.1) is residual. In Section 4 we complete the proof by establishing this for the set appearing in (1.2).
**Acknowledgment. **This paper is a part of the author’s PhD thesis conducted at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I would like to thank my advisor, Michael Hochman, for his support and useful suggestions. I would also like to thank Or Landesberg for helpful discussions.
2. Construction of
In this section we carry out the construction of the measure from Theorem 1.1. It will be convenient to identify with the complex plane . We shall use some simple facts from the theory of field extensions, for which we refer to chapters 17 and 18 in [I]. Our example involves complex Pisot numbers, which we now define.
Definition 2.1**.**
An algebraic integer is called a complex Pisot number if , , and all of the Galois conjugates of (i.e. the other roots of the minimal polynomial of ), except , are less than one in modulus.
Given algebraic numbers , we denote by the smallest subfield of containing . If are subfields of , we write for the degree of the field extension . The next lemma is probably known, but we could not find an appropriate reference. Hence the proof, which uses a bit of Galois theory, is given at the end of this section.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be a complex Pisot number with , then .
Now let be a complex Pisot number such that,
- •
;
- •
lies in ;
- •
the minimal polynomial of has constant term or .
For example, the polynomial has three roots,
[TABLE]
Since doesn’t have a root in , it follows from Gauss’s lemma that is irreducible over . Hence is the minimal polynomial of over , and
[TABLE]
This shows that is a complex Pisot number, and from Lemma 2.2 we get that . Since and the constant term of is , the number satisfies all of the required properties.
Write and note that may be thought of as a matrix , where and is a planar rotation by angle . From it follows for all . Let be the set of all for which the IFS
[TABLE]
satisfies the strong separation condition (SSC). Since , it is not hard to see that and in particular that . The next lemma is proven at the end of this section.
Lemma 2.3**.**
The set is dense in .
Clearly is open in , hence from and Lemma 2.3 it follows that there exists
[TABLE]
For and set
[TABLE]
then the IFS
[TABLE]
satisfies the SSC. Denote by the collection of all compactly supported Borel probability measures on . Let be the unique member of with
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Denote by the Euclidean inner product on , i.e. for . Write
[TABLE]
and for and . Note that is, up to affine equivalence, the pushforward of by the orthogonal projection onto the line . The following proposition is proven in Section 3.
Proposition 2.4**.**
There exists a dense subset of , such that is singular for all .
Let be the Borel -algebra of . For let be the disintegration of with respect to , as defined in Theorem 5.14 in [EW]. This means that is supported on for , and for each bounded *-*measurable
[TABLE]
Here the right hand side is the conditional expectation of given with respect to . In order to prove Theorem 1.1 it remains to establish the following proposition, which is done in Section 4.
Proposition 2.5**.**
There exists a dense subset of , such that for each it holds that is discrete for -a.e. .
Proofs of Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3
Proof of Lemma 2.2.
By the assumptions on there exists , with , such that and are the Galois conjugates of . Set , let be the minimal polynomial of over , and let be the Galois group of the field extension . Note that is a splitting field for over , and that the roots of are , and . It follows, by Lemma 18.3 in [I], that the action of on induces an isomorphism from into a subgroup of , where is the symmetric group on letters. It also follows, by Theorem 18.13 in [I], that the extension is Galois. Hence, from Corollary 18.19 and Lemma 17.6 in [I], we get
[TABLE]
which shows that divides . Let be with for , then has order . This implies that divides , and so it must hold that is isomorphic to .
Now assume by contradiction that , then for some . Let be such that , and . Since and are distinct, both have order , and is isomorphic to , it follows that the group generated by and is . Clearly and from we get , hence for all . Let be with , then
[TABLE]
But we also have , which yields a contradiction, and so it must holds that . ∎
Proof of Lemma 2.3.
Let and be given, and let be with . Since
[TABLE]
we have that
[TABLE]
is dense in . It follows there exists with
[TABLE]
Let be the integer with , then
[TABLE]
From this, from , and from (2.1), the lemma follows. ∎
3. Proof of Proposition 2.4
Let , , , and , as obtained in Section 2. We shall show that there exists a dense subset of , such that for every the Fourier transform of does not decay to [math] at infinity.
Lemma 3.1**.**
There exist constants and , with
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be the Galois conjugates of other than . Since is an algebraic integer,
[TABLE]
From for , it follows there exists and such that (3.1) holds for . Since and for each integer
[TABLE]
the lemma follows. ∎
Given let be the Fourier transform of as a measure on , i.e. for
[TABLE]
The proof of the following proposition resembles the argument given by Erdős in [E].
Proposition 3.2**.**
There exists a constant with for all .
Proof.
Let be i.i.d. random variables with,
[TABLE]
Since is the unique Borel probability measure on with
[TABLE]
it is equal to the distribution of the random sum . Hence for every ,
[TABLE]
Since , where is defined in Lemma 2.3, for there exist with . Hence for ,
[TABLE]
Let us show that for every , where
[TABLE]
Recall that the set of algebraic integers is closed under addition, subtraction and multiplication. The product of with its Galois conjugates is equal to the constant term of the minimal polynomial of , which is by assumption. These conjugates are all algebraic integers, hence is an algebraic integer, and so is an algebraic integer for all . Let , then from the identity
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
Since is equal to
[TABLE]
it is an algebraic integer, and so it can’t be of the form with . It follows the first term in the product (3.3) is nonzero. In a similar manner the second term in (3.3) is nonzero, which shows .
Fix and , and let be with
[TABLE]
Let and be the constants from Lemma 3.1, and write
[TABLE]
From Lemma 3.1,
[TABLE]
This shows,
[TABLE]
Now let be such that for all with . Then from (3.2) it follows that for each ,
[TABLE]
which completes the proof. ∎
Let be the collection of all compactly supported Borel probability measures on . Given let be the Fourier transform of , i.e.
[TABLE]
Recall that
[TABLE]
and for and . For write
[TABLE]
where is the constant from Proposition 3.2.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let , then is an open and dense subset of .
Proof.
Note that for and
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
Now since is continuous it follows is open in . Set , then from Proposition 3.2
[TABLE]
for every integer . Let be with , then by (3.4). By assumption , hence is dense in , which proves the lemma. ∎
We can now complete the proof of Proposition 2.4.
Proof of Proposition 2.4.
Set , then is a dense subset of by Lemma 3.3 and Baire’s theorem. Let , then does not tend to [math] as . Hence, by the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma, is not absolutely continuous. From the law of pure types (see Theorem 3.26 in [B]) it now follows is singular, which completes the proof of the Proposition. ∎
4. Proof of Proposition 2.5
In order to prove Proposition 2.5 we shall use the following theorem due to Wiener (see Section VI.2.12 of [K]).
Theorem 4.1**.**
For every ,
[TABLE]
Let , and be as in Section 2. For write . Given set
[TABLE]
and let .
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let , then is a dense open subset of .
Proof.
Since is open in for every the same holds for . Let and be given. For write . Since and , there exists with
[TABLE]
Set and for write . It holds that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, since is continuous and -periodic, there exists with . Set , then
[TABLE]
and so . Now since and are arbitrary and
[TABLE]
it follows that is dense in , which proves the lemma. ∎
Set , then is a dense subset of by Lemma 4.2. Fix and recall that is the disintegration of with respect to , where is the Borel -algebra of . In order to prove the proposition, it suffices to show that is discrete for -a.e. . Write
[TABLE]
for each let , and note that .
Lemma 4.3**.**
Let be the constant from Proposition 3.2, then for each there exists with
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . Since there exists and with . Write , then by Proposition 3.2,
[TABLE]
Let be the orthogonal projection onto , i.e.
[TABLE]
From (4.3) and since is supported on for ,
[TABLE]
Now since is self-adjoint, is equal to , and from (4.1) is a rotation,
[TABLE]
From this and Jensen’s inequality the lemma follows. ∎
Let us define the set,
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.4**.**
It holds that .
Proof.
Let be the numbers obtained in Lemma 4.3. Since is compact and
[TABLE]
there exists such that is supported on for -a.e. . It follows that is -Lipschitz for -a.e. . Hence there exist and intervals , such that for every it holds
[TABLE]
has length , and for -a.e. ,
[TABLE]
We now get from (4.2) that for each ,
[TABLE]
which gives,
[TABLE]
Now by Theorem 4.1 and the bounded convergence theorem,
[TABLE]
This gives , where
[TABLE]
Let , then there exists
[TABLE]
with . Since it follows , where is defined in (4.4), and so
[TABLE]
Now from we get
[TABLE]
which proves the lemma. ∎
Write and let be the IFS constructed in Section 2. Recall that , for each there exists with for , and satisfies the SSC. Let be attractor of , write for the restriction of the Borel -algebra to , and let be such that for and .
Lemma 4.5**.**
It holds that .
Proof.
The system is measure preserving and isomorphic to a Bernoulli shift. We shall show that
[TABLE]
from which the lemma will follow by the zero-one law.
Given a word write and . For and let be the unique word of length for which , where is the empty word and . For and set
[TABLE]
For , and let
[TABLE]
where is the open disk in with centre [math] and radius . From Lemma 3.3 in [FH] we get that for each and ,
[TABLE]
Fix , then for -a.e.
[TABLE]
Since satisfies the SSC,
[TABLE]
hence,
[TABLE]
From this and (4.5) it follows that for -a.e. ,
[TABLE]
Now since ,
[TABLE]
For every ,
[TABLE]
Hence from (4.6) it follows that for -a.e. ,
[TABLE]
where we have used the fact that for -a.e. .
Let , then from (4.7) we get that it holds
[TABLE]
which shows,
[TABLE]
Now since is isomorphic to a Bernoulli shift, it follows that . But by Lemma 4.4 we have , which completes the proof of the lemma. ∎
We can now complete the proof of Proposition 2.5.
Proof of Proposition 2.5.
As mentioned above, it suffices to show is discrete for -a.e. . By lemma (4.5) we have , and so for -a.e. . Fix such a and let . Since and for ,
[TABLE]
This shows that is discrete, which completes the proof. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BFVZ] V.Beresnevich, K.Falconer, S.Velani, and A.Zafeiropoulos, Marstrand’s Theorem Revisited: Projecting Sets of Dimension Zero. Preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08554.
- 2[B] L.Breiman, Probability. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.
- 3[EW] M.Einsiedler and T.Ward, Ergodic Theory with a View Towards Number Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 259). Springer, London, 2011.
- 4[E] P.Erdős, On a family of symmetric Bernoulli convolutions. Amer. J. Math. 61 (1939), 974–976.
- 5[FJ 1] K.Falconer and X.Jin, Exact dimensionality and projections of random self-similar measures and sets. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 90(2):388–412, 2014.
- 6[FJ 2] K.Falconer and X.Jin, Dimension conservation for self-similar sets and fractal percolation. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2015: 13260–13289, 2015.
- 7[FH] D.-J. Feng and H. Hu, Dimension theory of iterated function systems. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 62 (2009), 1435-1500.
- 8[F] H.Furstenberg, Ergodic fractal measures and dimension conservation. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 28 (2008), 405-422.
