2
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal C$ the Cantor set and $m_\alpha ^*$ the $\alpha$-Hausdorff measure with $\alpha =\frac{\ln(2)}{\ln(3)}$, i.e. $$m_\alpha ^*(E)=\lim_{\delta\to 0}\mathcal H_\alpha ^\delta(E)$$ where $$\mathcal H_\alpha ^\delta(E)=\inf \left\{\sum_{k}\operatorname{diam}(F_i)^\alpha \mid E\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty F_i, \operatorname{diam}(F_i)<\delta\right\}$$ and $\operatorname{diam}(A)=\{\|x-y\|: x,y\in A\}$ the diameter.

I had no problem to show that $m_\alpha ^*(\mathcal C)\leq 1$, but I have to show that $m_\alpha ^*(\mathcal C)=1$, then, I would like to show that $m_\alpha ^*(\mathcal C)\geq 1$. I really have no idea on how to proceed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Consider adding a tag for a broader subject area to which the question belongs. Some of these tags might fit. (from a bot) $\endgroup$ – user147263 Mar 6 '16 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ if $A_i \subset A_j$ then $\mathcal H_\alpha ^\delta(A_i) \le \mathcal H_\alpha ^\delta(A_j)$. and the Cantor set is defined as the limit of a sequence of sets $\endgroup$ – reuns Mar 6 '16 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ @user1952009: And so ? where does it go ? Thanks, $\endgroup$ – idm Mar 6 '16 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ what ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – reuns Mar 6 '16 at 21:23
2
$\begingroup$

For my own sake, I will use the more common notation $\mathcal{H}^{\alpha}$ for the $\alpha$-Hausdorff measure.


To show that $\mathcal{H}^{\alpha}(\mathcal{C}) \geq 1$ it is enough to show that $\sum_{j}\operatorname{diam}(I_j)^\alpha \geq 1$, whenever open intervals $I_j$ cover $\mathcal{C}$. As $\mathcal{C}$ is compact, it can be covered by finitely many $I_j$'s, so without loss of generality we can assume we only have $I_1, \dots, I_n$, as this can only decrease the sum.

Moreover, we can take each $I$ ($I=I_j$ for some $j=1,\dots,n$) to be the smallest interval containing two intervals $J$ and $J'$, which appear in the construction of the Cantor set (they don't need to appear at the same stage of the construction). Again, to do so we may shrink $I$, but this only decreases the sum.

If $J$ and $J'$ are the largest such intervals, by the construction of the Cantor set we know that $I$ must be made up of $J$, followed by an interval $K$ in the complement of $\mathcal{C}$, followed by $J'$. By construction, we also have $\operatorname{diam}{K} \geq \operatorname{diam}(J), \operatorname{diam}(J')$ and therefore $\operatorname{diam}(K) \geq \frac12 (\operatorname{diam}(J) + \operatorname{diam}(J'))$.

Then, we have \begin{align} \operatorname{diam}(I)^\alpha & = (\operatorname{diam}(J) + \operatorname{diam}(K) + \operatorname{diam}(J'))^\alpha \geq \\ & \geq \left(\frac32 (\operatorname{diam}(J) + \operatorname{diam}(J'))\right)^\alpha= \\ & = 2 \left(\frac12 (\operatorname{diam}(J) + \operatorname{diam}(J'))\right)^\alpha \geq \\ & \geq \operatorname{diam}(J)^\alpha + \operatorname{diam}(J')^\alpha, \end{align} using the fact that $3^\alpha=2$ and that $t^{\alpha}$ is a concave function.

This allows us to replace each $I_j$ with $J_j$ and $J'_j$, without increasing the sum of $\alpha$-th power of the diameters.

We proceed in this way, until, after finitely many steps, we can cover $\mathcal{C}$ with intervals of equal lengths $3^{-i}$. This must include all the intervals in the $i$-th stage of the construction of $\mathcal{C}$. Since for such intervals we have $\sum \operatorname{diam}(I)^\alpha \geq 2^i 3^{-\alpha i}= 2^i 3^{\log_3 2^{-i}}= 1$, the same inequality must hold for the initial intervals.


This proof can be found almost verbatim in "The geometry of fractal sets", by Falconer.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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