On some generic small Cantor spaces
Emma D'Aniello, Martina Maiuriello

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that generically, compact subsets of Euclidean cubes are zero-dimensional Cantor spaces with a stronger property called being strongly microscopic, highlighting typical fractal-like structures in high-dimensional spaces.
Contribution
It establishes that the typical compact subset in a Euclidean cube is a strongly microscopic zero-dimensional Cantor space, a novel generic property in topology.
Findings
Most compact subsets are zero-dimensional Cantor spaces.
These sets are strongly microscopic, a stronger form of zero-dimensionality.
The result applies to all Euclidean cubes of dimension n ≥ 1.
Abstract
Let , . We show that the typical (in the sense of Baire category) compact subset of is not only a zero dimensional Cantor space but it satisfies the property of being strongly microscopic, which is stronger than being of dimension zero.
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.
On some generic small Cantor spaces
Emma D’Aniello and Martina Maiuriello
(Date: March 17, 2024)
Abstract.
Let , . We show that the typical (in the sense of Baire category) compact subset of is not only a zero dimensional Cantor space but it satisfies the property of being strongly microscopic, which is stronger than dimension zero.
Key words and phrases:
Microscopic set, Cantor space, Baire category.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
28A05, 28A75, 54E52
1. Introduction
Microscopic subsets of the real line were introduced in [1]. Since then, they have been widely studied (see, for instance, [2], [3], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [20], [22], [23]). The collection of microscopic subsets of the real line is a -ideal and it is a proper subset of the family of the Hausdorff zero dimensional sets ([2], [12]). In [3], the authors consider the family of symmetric Cantor subsets of , and among other results, they obtain properties concerning the subfamily of microscopic sets. In [10], [11] and [14], the authors generalise the notion of a microscopic set in .
In [22] and [23] some Fubini type properties involving microscopic fibers are studied. In [13] and in [17], the notion of a microscopic set in the plane is investigated. The authors use the word “miscroscopic" when the coverings consist of rectangles and the expression “strong microscopic" when only coverings made of cubes are considered.
This note is motivated by the above mentioned results. In section 2, we investigate how “frequent" strongly microscopic, and therefore microscopic, compact sets are. We show that most compact subsets of , , are strongly microscopic. Our approach is the following. We furnish the class of nonempty closed subsets of with the Hausdorff metric. Since it is a complete metric space ([5], [9] [19]), we can make effective use of the Baire Category Theorem ([5], [21]). We find information concerning “typical" members of in Theorem 2.11. Indeed, we find that the typical compact subset of is a strongly microscopic Cantor space, where we recall the term typical is to indicate that the collection of sets having the property under consideration has first category complement in the complete metric space.
Moreover, in section 3, we provide, in any dimension, an example of a non-microscopic, Hausdorff zero dimensional Cantor space.
2. Microscopic sets are not exceptional in
Definition 2.1**.**
Let . We call interval any subset of of type , with intervals of the real line, for each . We call a cube if .
Clearly, an interval is open if is an open interval of the real line for every .
Definition 2.2**.**
A set is microscopic if for each there exists a sequence of intervals such that
[TABLE]
where is the Lebesgue measure on
Definition 2.3**.**
A set , , is strongly microscopic if for each there exists a sequence of cubes such that
[TABLE]
where is the Lebesgue measure on
Remark 2.4**.**
Let , . Then
[TABLE]
The above implication cannot be reverted [17].
Some simple properties about microscopic and strongly microscopic sets hold, and they are collected in the following proposition. The proof in [2] for the case works for any , with slight, obvious modifications.
Proposition 2.5**.**
The following hold in :
- (1)
Every countable set is strongly microscopic. 2. (2)
Every microscopic set is a null set (meaning it has Lebesgue -dimensional measure equal to [math]). 3. (3)
Every subset of a (strongly, resp.) microscopic set is (strongly, resp.) microscopic. 4. (4)
Every countable union of (strongly, resp.) microscopic sets is (strongly, resp.) microscopic. 5. (5)
Every strongly microscopic set has -dimensional Hausdorff measure equal to zero for all , and thus it has Hausdorff dimension zero.
Remark 2.6**.**
Clearly, the notion of a strongly microscopic set differs from the notion of a microscopic set when . When , Property of Proposition 2.5 does not hold if we replace “strongly microscopic" with “microscopic". For example, as also observed in [17], the set is a microscopic subset of , but its Hausdorff dimension is one.
Fix any . By and by we denote the collection of all microscopic subsets of and the family of all strongly microscopic subsets of , respectively.
In order to show that strongly microscopic sets, and therefore microscopic sets, are not exceptional among the compact subsets of , indeed they are very frequent, we need to recall some classical definitions and facts, and prove some preliminary results.
In the sequel, by , with and points of , we always mean the Euclidean distance in .
As usual, we define the diameter of a non-empty set , and we denote it by , as the greatest distance apart of pairs of points in , that is, . Given two sets and , we define their Euclidean distance, and we denote it by as . Hence, given a point , the distance between the point and the set is .
Let be the collection of non-empty, compact subsets of , . We furnish with the Hausdorff metric given by
[TABLE]
where the -neighbourhood or -parallel body, , of a set is the set of points within distance of . The Hausdorff metric space is also compact ([5], [9] [19]), and therefore complete.
Since is complete, we can use the Baire category theorem. Recall that a set is of the first category in the complete space whenever it can be written as a countable union of nowhere dense sets; otherwise, the set is of the second category ([5], [21]). A set is residual if it is the complement of a first category set, and an element of a residual set is called typical (or generic).
In the sequel, by , we denote the set of all vertices of , that is
[TABLE]
Given an interval of , with intervals of the real line, for each , we let
[TABLE]
where is the -dimensional Lebesgue measure of the real interval , that is its length.
Definition 2.7**.**
Let be open intervals (relative to ). Let be the collection of all such that:
- (1)
; 2. (2)
* for each .*
Next we generalise Lemma 2.5 of [4] to any finite dimension.
Lemma 2.8**.**
Let be open intervals (relative to ). Then is open in .
Proof.
Let . We need to find such that (we recall that ). For each , we choose and we define:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let We now show that . To this aim, let us consider . We first show that for each .
Let . As , it follows that . In fact:
- Case 1:
. Then, . If by contradiction , then so that and then This is in contrast with the fact that . 2. Case 2:
. Then, . As , it follows that there exists such that and hence .
Now, we prove that if then . In fact:
- Case i:
. Then, clearly since . 2. Case ii:
, with . If, by contradiction, , then by the definition of it cannot be . This is in contrast with the fact that .
Hence, the proof is complete. ∎
Proposition 2.9**.**
The typical compact subset of is a strongly microscopic set.
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
that is .
Let us start by showing that is dense in . Let . It is clear that is dense in and each element of is strongly microscopic. Thus is dense in
Now we prove that is a subset of For each let
[TABLE]
Clearly, Next, we show that, for every , the set is open. Fix . Let , and let be a covering of , where each is an open cube with . Then, as is compact, there exist finitely many open cubes such that:
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, for
Thus, if it is and hence So that is open. Therefore is a dense set, and hence the thesis. ∎
We recall that a topological space is a Cantor space if it is non-empty, perfect, compact, totally disconnected, and metrisable.
Hence, a topological space is a Cantor space if it is homeomorphic to the Cantor ternary set. As in [7], let denote the rational numbers and
[TABLE]
that is, denotes the collection of all points in with all the coordinates irrational.
Let, as in [7],
[TABLE]
We recall from [7] the following proposition:
Proposition 2.10**.**
The collection is a dense set of type in
From this result and from Proposition 2.9 we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 2.11**.**
The typical compact subset of is a strongly microscopic Cantor space.
Proof.
By Proposition 2.9, the collection of the non-empty, compact and strongly microscopic subsets of , that is is a dense set of type . By Proposition 2.10, the collection also is a dense set. Since the intersection of two dense sets is still a dense set, the thesis follows. ∎
3. Examples
Cantor spaces in can be of various type, for instance very irregular, symmetric, etc. The Cantor ternary set is symmetric but it is not microscopic. On the other hand, on the real line, there exist symmetric Cantor spaces that are microscopic. More is true: in [3], it is shown that in microscopic symmetric Cantor spaces form a residual family.
In , we find Cantor spaces of any positive dimension, self-similar and non, ([19], [5], [6], [3]) and therefore non-strongly microscopic. In [2], it was shown that, in , Hausdorff dimension zero is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition in order for a set, and in particular for a Cantor space, to be microscopic. In the next example, for any , we construct a Cantor space in having Hausdorff dimension zero but not being microscopic.
Definition 3.1**.**
In the following, for a general , by a cube we mean a non-degenerated closed cube, that is any interval of such that there exists a non-degenerate closed interval of the real line, , with for each . Clearly, when it is more natural to talk about closed intervals, when about closed squares, and when about closed cubes.
Example 3.2 Fix . In the sequel, by we denote the Lebesgue -dimensional measure. The Cantor space we construct from the unit cube is a “Cantor dust" ([8], [19]) . At each stage of the construction we select smaller cubes in the way described below.
Fix a constant let and for
At the first step we select disjoint cubes in of measure and having one vertex in . We list these cubes as , with .
At the second step, in each of the previous cubes we select disjoint cubes of measure having one vertex in common with , and we list them as , with
At the k-th step, in each cube with we select disjoint cubes of measure and having one vertex in common with . We list these cubes as with
Now, we define a sequence as follows:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Notice that is the measure of what is left, at the -th step, in when we remove from it disjoint cubes each of measure . This works by the choice of , from which it follows that for each .
Therefore, for each , at the k-th step we have constructed a collection of cubes
[TABLE]
such that:
- (1)
each cube contains a vertex of and, for , each cube has only one vertex in common with ; 2. (2)
; 3. (3)
for each , with ,
[TABLE]
and, if we set , then is the Lebesgue measure of the largest cube contained in , having inner points in common with at most one cube , with 4. (4)
for each ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and where turns out to be the Lebesgue measure of the largest cube contained in , having inner points in common with at most one cube , with
Let
[TABLE]
Clearly, by construction, is a Cantor space.
Let . We now prove that .
Consider the map Clearly, Observe that
[TABLE]
where is the diameter of the cubes at the step. So that
[TABLE]
Hence, we conclude that for each and thus has Hausdorff dimension 0.
It remains to prove that is not microscopic. To this end, observe that
[TABLE]
where . Moreover, since for each there exists for which , then
[TABLE]
Let . Assume that is a sequence of rectangles such that If belongs to the set
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Hence, can intersect at most cubes remaining at the step. Let be the number of cubes constructed at the step which intersect some with , that is some . The following recursive estimate holds
[TABLE]
Now, we show that, for each ,
[TABLE]
By construction, we see that it holds for . In order to prove that also holds for , we argue by induction with basis and applying .
For ,
[TABLE]
The above estimate means that contains at most elements, and hence Therefore, for ,
[TABLE]
Hence, if we assume
[TABLE]
then we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, holds for every .
The inequality , in particular, means that there are cubes at the step that do not intersect any of the rectangles with .
For each fixed , let be the union of these cubes. By construction, is a decreasing sequence of nonempty compact sets. Consequently, the intersection is a nonempty compact subset of and, also by construction, none of the rectangles intersects . In particular, the union of the rectangles cannot cover and then cannot cover either. Hence is not microscopic.
Emma D’Aniello, Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Viale Lincoln n. 5, 81100 Caserta, Italia
Martina Maiuriello, Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Viale Lincoln n. 5, 81100 Caserta, Italia
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Appell, Insiemi et operatori "piccoli" in analisi funzionale , Rend. Ist. Mat. Univ. Trieste 33 (2001), 127–199.
- 2[2] J. Appell, E. D’Aniello, M. V a ¨ ¨ a \mathrm{\ddot{a}} th, Some remarks on small sets , Ricerche di Matematica,Vol. L, fas. 20 (2001), 255–274, addendum Vol. 2005.
- 3[3] M. Balcerzak, T. Filipczak, P. Nowakowski, Families of symmetric Cantor sets from the category and measure viewpoints , to appear in Georgian Math. J. (2019).
- 4[4] A.M. Bruckner, J. Ceder, Chaos in terms of the map x ↦ ω ( x , f ) maps-to 𝑥 𝜔 𝑥 𝑓 x\mapsto\omega(x,f) , Pacific J. Math. 156, no. 1 (1992), 63–96.
- 5[5] A.M. Bruckner, J.B. Bruckner, B.S. Thomson, Real Analysis , Prentice-Hall Inc., 1997.
- 6[6] E. D’Aniello, Non-self-similar sets in [ 0 , 1 ] N superscript 0 1 𝑁 {[0,1]}^{N} of arbitrary dimension , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 456 (2017), no. 2, 1123–1128.
- 7[7] E. D’Aniello, T.H. Steele, Attractors for iterated function schemes on [ 0 , 1 ] N superscript 0 1 𝑁 [0,1]^{N} are exceptional , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 424 (2015), 537–541.
- 8[8] G.A. Edgar, Measure, Topology and Fractal Measures , Springer-Verlag , New York, 1990.
