2014
DOI: 10.1112/plms/pdu004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On restricted families of projections in ℝ3

Abstract: ABSTRACT. We study projections onto non-degenerate one-dimensional families of lines and planes in R 3 . Using the classical potential theoretic approach of R. Kaufman, one can show that the Hausdorff dimension of at most 1/2-dimensional sets B ⊂ R 3 is typically preserved under one-dimensional families of projections onto lines. We improve the result by an ε, proving that if dim H B = s > 1/2, then the packing dimension of the projections is almost surely at least σ(s) > 1/2. For projections onto planes, we o… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
69
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(23 reference statements)
3
69
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Classical techniques, dating back as far as Kaufman's work [8] in 1968, can be used to show that the lower bounds in [7] and [6] (obtained without any curvature assumptions) are no longer sharp for the projections ρ θ . In [4], we verified the following proposition: The lower bound for dim π θ (B) holds without the curvature condition (1.2) and was already established in [7]. In contrast, the bounds in [7] and [6] give no information about dim ρ θ (B) in this situation (at least in case dim B ≤ 1) -the reason being example (I) above.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Classical techniques, dating back as far as Kaufman's work [8] in 1968, can be used to show that the lower bounds in [7] and [6] (obtained without any curvature assumptions) are no longer sharp for the projections ρ θ . In [4], we verified the following proposition: The lower bound for dim π θ (B) holds without the curvature condition (1.2) and was already established in [7]. In contrast, the bounds in [7] and [6] give no information about dim ρ θ (B) in this situation (at least in case dim B ≤ 1) -the reason being example (I) above.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…The main results in [4] were the verification of the first part of this conjecture for selfsimilar sets in R 3 without rotations, and a slight improvement over the min{dim B, 1/2} and min{dim B, 1} bounds for packing dimension dim p :…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The conjectured lower bound is min{dim H E, 2} and the bound min{dim H E, 1} for all values of dim H E was obtained in [26]. The further improvements stated below come from Fourier restriction methods [65].…”
Section: Projections In Restricted Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[26,65] Let E ⊂ R 3 be a Borel or analytic set, let θ(t) be a non-degenerate family of directions, and let proj V θ (t) denote projection onto the plane perpendicular to direction θ. Then, for almost all t ∈ (0, 1),…”
Section: Projections In Restricted Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%