2022
DOI: 10.1017/s030500412200024x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conformally invariant complete metrics

Abstract: For a domain G in the one-point compactification $\overline{\mathbb{R}}^n = {\mathbb{R}}^n \cup \{ \infty\}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n, n \geqslant 2$ , we characterise the completeness of the modulus metric $\mu_G$ in terms of a potential-theoretic thickness condition of $\partial G\,,$ Martio’s M-condition [35]. Next, we prove that $\partial G$ is uniformly perfect if … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is important to clarify that the theorem presented herein diverges from Theorem 5.2 in [23]. Specifically, our theorem assumes that f G is a A-uniform domain with a connected boundary, while Sugawa et al [23] regarded ∂ f G as uniformly perfect. The connectedness of ∂ f G is decisive in the following theorem, as demonstrated in Remark 3.5.…”
Section: Remark 33mentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is important to clarify that the theorem presented herein diverges from Theorem 5.2 in [23]. Specifically, our theorem assumes that f G is a A-uniform domain with a connected boundary, while Sugawa et al [23] regarded ∂ f G as uniformly perfect. The connectedness of ∂ f G is decisive in the following theorem, as demonstrated in Remark 3.5.…”
Section: Remark 33mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The connectedness of ∂ f G is decisive in the following theorem, as demonstrated in Remark 3.5. Conversely, in the proof of Theorem 5.2, Sugawa et al [23] employ the definition of the modulus metric μ G to establish an upper bound, whereas we utilize a general upper bound derived from Lemma 10.6(2) of [10] for y ∈ B n (x, sd G (x)). Moreover, the constant C(s) obtained here is more generality than the constant obtained by Sugawa et al in [23].…”
Section: Remark 33mentioning
confidence: 99%