Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

HTML conversions sometimes display errors due to content that did not convert correctly from the source. This paper uses the following packages that are not yet supported by the HTML conversion tool. Feedback on these issues are not necessary; they are known and are being worked on.

  • failed: scalerel
  • failed: stackengine

Authors: achieve the best HTML results from your LaTeX submissions by following these best practices.

License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2304.01730v2 [math.NT] 17 Jan 2024
\stackMath

A Remark on the Set of Exactly Approximable Vectors in the Simultaneous Case

Reynold Fregoli Department of Mathematics
University of Zürich
Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057
Zürich
reynoldfregoli@gmail.com
Abstract.

We compute the Hausdorff dimension of the set of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-exactly approximable vectors, in the simultaneous case, in dimension strictly larger than 2222 and for approximating functions ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ with order at infinity less than or equal to 22-2- 2. Our method relies on the analogous result in dimension 1111, proved by Yann Bugeaud and Carlos Moreira, and a version of Jarník’s Theorem on fibres.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11J13, 11J83
The author was supported by SNSF grant 200021–182089.

1. Introduction and Main Result

Let ψ:(0,1]:𝜓01\psi:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{(}0,1]italic_ψ : blackboard_N → ( 0 , 1 ] be a non-increasing function. The set of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-well-approximable numbers on the interval [0,1]01[0,1][ 0 , 1 ] is defined as

W(1,ψ):={α[0,1]:|αpq|<ψ(q) for infinitely many p,q}.assign𝑊1𝜓conditional-set𝛼01formulae-sequence𝛼𝑝𝑞𝜓𝑞 for infinitely many 𝑝𝑞W(1,\psi):=\left\{\alpha\in[0,1]:\left|\alpha-\frac{p}{q}\right|<\psi(q)\mbox{% for infinitely many }p,q\in\mathbb{N}\right\}.italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) := { italic_α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] : | italic_α - divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG | < italic_ψ ( italic_q ) for infinitely many italic_p , italic_q ∈ blackboard_N } .

This set is central to the theory of Diophantine approximation and, throughout the last century, multiple authors have contributed to the endeavour of establishing its metrical properties. In 1924, Khintchine [Khi24] proved that its Lebesgue measure can only attain the values 00 or 1111, depending on the convergence of the series qqψ(q)subscript𝑞𝑞𝜓𝑞\sum_{q\in\mathbb{N}}q\cdot\psi(q)∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ∈ blackboard_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ). A few years later, Jarník [Jar29] and, independently, Besicovitch [Bes34] showed that the Hausdorff dimension of the set W(1,ψ)𝑊1𝜓W(1,\psi)italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ), in the special case ψ(q)=qν𝜓𝑞superscript𝑞𝜈\psi(q)=q^{-\nu}italic_ψ ( italic_q ) = italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with ν>2𝜈2\nu>2italic_ν > 2, is equal to 2/ν2𝜈2/\nu2 / italic_ν. Finally, in 1931, Jarník [Jar31] computed the f𝑓fitalic_f-Hausdorff measure of W(1,ψ)𝑊1𝜓W(1,\psi)italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ), under mild assumptions on the functions ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ and f𝑓fitalic_f, thus producing a complete measure-theoretic description of this set. We refer the reader to [BDV06] for a more precise formulation of these statements and additional references.

In [Jar31], Jarník introduced the following subset of W(1,ψ)𝑊1𝜓W(1,\psi)italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ):

E(1,ψ):=W(1,ψ)0<c<1W(1,cψ).assign𝐸1𝜓𝑊1𝜓subscript0𝑐1𝑊1𝑐𝜓E(1,\psi):=W(1,\psi)\setminus\bigcup_{0<c<1}W(1,c\psi).italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) := italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) ∖ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < italic_c < 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W ( 1 , italic_c italic_ψ ) .

The numbers belonging to E(1,ψ)𝐸1𝜓E(1,\psi)italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) are known as ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-exactly-approximable, as the upper bound on their rational approximations cannot be improved. Relying on the theory of continued fractions, Jarník could show that the set E(1,ψ)𝐸1𝜓E(1,\psi)italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) is uncountable. However, the true size of this set was determined only quite recently by Yann Bugeaud [Bug03, Theorem 1], and, in greater generality, by Yann Bugeaud and Carlos Moreira [BM11, Theorem 4]. Both works also rely on the theory of continued fractions. Their results can be summarised as follows.

Theorem 1.1 (Bugeaud-Moreira).

Assume that the product q2ψ(q)normal-⋅superscript𝑞2𝜓𝑞q^{2}\cdot\psi(q)italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ) tends to 00 as q𝑞qitalic_q approaches infinity. Then, one has that

dimE(1,ψ)=dimW(1,ψ)=2λ,dim𝐸1𝜓dim𝑊1𝜓2𝜆\textup{dim}E(1,\psi)=\textup{dim}W(1,\psi)=\frac{2}{\lambda},dim italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) = dim italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ,

where λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ is the lower order at infinity111The lower order at infinity of a function g:(0,+)normal-:𝑔normal-→0g:\mathbb{N}\to(0,+\infty)italic_g : blackboard_N → ( 0 , + ∞ ) is defined as lim infxlogg(x)logx.subscriptlimit-infimumnormal-→𝑥𝑔𝑥𝑥\liminf_{x\to\infty}\frac{\log g(x)}{\log x}.lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_log italic_g ( italic_x ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_log italic_x end_ARG . The upper order at infinity of the function g𝑔gitalic_g is defined analogously but with a limit superior in place of the limit inferior. of the function 1/ψ1𝜓1/\psi1 / italic_ψ and dimdimension\dimroman_dim denotes the Hausdorff dimension.

The reader may also refer to [FW22] for recent results on the Fourier dimension of the set E(1,ψ)𝐸1𝜓E(1,\psi)italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ).

The problem of studying ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-approximable numbers α𝛼\alpha\in\mathbb{R}italic_α ∈ blackboard_R may naturally be generalised to vectors 𝜶n𝜶superscript𝑛\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}bold_italic_α ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. In this setting, two types of approximation have been widely studied: namely, the simultaneous and the dual type. The set of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-simultaneously-well-approximable vectors is defined as

W(n,ψ):={𝜶[0,1]n:maxi=1n|αipiq|<ψ(q) for infinitely many q,𝒑n},assign𝑊𝑛𝜓conditional-set𝜶superscript01𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑝𝑖𝑞𝜓𝑞 for infinitely many 𝑞𝒑superscript𝑛W(n,\psi):=\left\{\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in[0,1]^{n}:\max_{i=1}^{n}\left|\alpha_{% i}-\frac{p_{i}}{q}\right|<\psi(q)\mbox{ for infinitely many }q\in\mathbb{N},\ % \boldsymbol{p}\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}\right\},italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) := { bold_italic_α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG | < italic_ψ ( italic_q ) for infinitely many italic_q ∈ blackboard_N , bold_italic_p ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ,

while its dual counterpart, where the vector 𝜶𝜶\boldsymbol{\alpha}bold_italic_α is interpreted as a linear form, is defined as

(1) W*(n,ψ):={𝜶[0,1]n:|α1q1+αnqnp|<ψ(maxi=1n|qi|) for infinitely many 𝒒n{𝟎},p}.assignsuperscript𝑊𝑛𝜓conditional-set𝜶superscript01𝑛formulae-sequencesubscript𝛼1subscript𝑞1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑞𝑛𝑝𝜓superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑞𝑖 for infinitely many 𝒒superscript𝑛0𝑝W^{*}(n,\psi):=\Bigg{\{}\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in[0,1]^{n}:\left|\alpha_{1}q_{1}+% \dotsb\alpha_{n}q_{n}-p\right|<\psi\left(\max_{i=1}^{n}|q_{i}|\right)\\ \mbox{ for infinitely many }\boldsymbol{q}\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}\setminus\{% \boldsymbol{0}\},p\in\mathbb{Z}\Bigg{\}}.start_ROW start_CELL italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT * end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) := { bold_italic_α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : | italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_p | < italic_ψ ( roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL for infinitely many bold_italic_q ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ { bold_0 } , italic_p ∈ blackboard_Z } . end_CELL end_ROW

A generalisation of Khintchine’s measure-theoretic result, known as the Khintchine-Groshev Theorem, is well-known to hold in both settings [BV10]. Jarník’s dimensional result for the set W(1,ψ)𝑊1𝜓W(1,\psi)italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) has also been generalised to both the simultaneous and the dual cases (see [BD86] and references therein). Conversely, the set of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-exactly approximable numbers has so far eluded any such generalisation. A first contribution towards this was made in [BDV01], where Beresnevich, Dickinson, and Velani study metric properties of the set W(n,ψ)W(n,φ)𝑊𝑛𝜓𝑊𝑛𝜑W(n,\psi)\setminus W(n,\varphi)italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) ∖ italic_W ( italic_n , italic_φ ) (and its dual) for two given approximating functions ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ and φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ. Their techniques, however, rest on the assumption that the ratio ψ/φ𝜓𝜑\psi/\varphiitalic_ψ / italic_φ tends to infinity [BDV01, Section 2.5] and hence, do not apply to the setting of exact approximation in the sense of Jarník. In a more general context, the same problem was studied by Bandi, Ghosh, and Nandi. In [BGN23], these authors consider the set of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ-exactly approximable points in a general metric space, with respect to a discrete "well-distributed" subset, and prove related dimensional estimates. Nonetheless, the set of rational points in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is not well-distributed in the sense of [BGN23], leaving the problem of generalising Bugeaud’s and Moreira’s result to dimension n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 wide open.

Let

E(n,ψ):=W(n,ψ)0<c<1W(n,cψ).assign𝐸𝑛𝜓𝑊𝑛𝜓subscript0𝑐1𝑊𝑛𝑐𝜓E(n,\psi):=W(n,\psi)\setminus\bigcup_{0<c<1}W(n,c\psi).italic_E ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) := italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) ∖ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < italic_c < 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W ( italic_n , italic_c italic_ψ ) .

The purpose of this short note is to establish the Hausdorff dimension of the set E(n,ψ)𝐸𝑛𝜓E(n,\psi)italic_E ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) for n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3 and under some assumptions on the decay of the function ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ. Our main result reads as follows.

Theorem 1.2.

Let ψ:(0,1]normal-:𝜓normal-→01\psi:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{(}0,1]italic_ψ : blackboard_N → ( 0 , 1 ] be as in Theorem 1.1, and assume that upper and lower order at infinity of the function 1/ψ1𝜓1/\psi1 / italic_ψ coincide and are equal to λ2𝜆2\lambda\geq 2italic_λ ≥ 2. Then, for n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3 one has that

dimE(n,ψ)=dimW(n,ψ)=n+1λ,dimension𝐸𝑛𝜓dimension𝑊𝑛𝜓𝑛1𝜆\dim E(n,\psi)=\dim W(n,\psi)=\frac{n+1}{\lambda},roman_dim italic_E ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) = roman_dim italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) = divide start_ARG italic_n + 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ,

where dimdimension\dimroman_dim denotes the Hausdorff dimension.

Our proof relies on the simple observation that, in the simultaneous case, a vector 𝜶n𝜶superscript𝑛\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}bold_italic_α ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with first component α1subscript𝛼1\alpha_{1}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT not belonging to W(1,cψ)𝑊1𝑐𝜓W(1,c\psi)italic_W ( 1 , italic_c italic_ψ ) cannot lie in the set W(n,cψ)𝑊𝑛𝑐𝜓W(n,c\psi)italic_W ( italic_n , italic_c italic_ψ ). In view of this, Theorem 1.1, in combination with a "fibred" version of Jarník’s theorem, is enough to yield the desired dimensional estimate. This approach heavily depends on the hypothesis that the order at infinity of the function 1/ψ1𝜓1/\psi1 / italic_ψ is larger than or equal to 2222, as this is required to apply Theorem 1.1. For technical reasons, we are also unable to deal with the case n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2, as our version of Jarník’s Theorem rests on Gallagher’s extension of Khintchine’s Theorem [Gal65, Theorem 1], which is only valid in dimension greater or equal to 2222. The analogue of our result in the dual case (for n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2) also appears in no way attainable through the methods that we develop here.

Remark 1.3.

As a consequence of our approach, we are also able to show that, when ψ(q)=ψν(q)=qν𝜓𝑞subscript𝜓𝜈𝑞superscript𝑞𝜈\psi(q)=\psi_{\nu}(q)=q^{-\nu}italic_ψ ( italic_q ) = italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) = italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with ν>2𝜈2\nu>2italic_ν > 2, the following implication holds:

2/ν(E(1,ψν))>0(n+1)/ν(W(n,ψν))=.superscript2𝜈𝐸1subscript𝜓𝜈0superscript𝑛1𝜈𝑊𝑛subscript𝜓𝜈\mathcal{H}^{2/\nu}(E(1,\psi_{\nu}))>0\Rightarrow\mathcal{H}^{(n+1)/\nu}(W(n,% \psi_{\nu}))=\infty.caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > 0 ⇒ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n + 1 ) / italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = ∞ .

However, the (2/ν)2𝜈(2/\nu)( 2 / italic_ν )-Hausdorff measure of the set E(1,ψν)𝐸1subscript𝜓𝜈E(1,\psi_{\nu})italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is at present unknown (see comments following Theorem 2 in [Bug03]). This implication will be proved at the end of Section 4.

While working on the present note, the author became aware of the work in preparation of H. Koivusalo, J. Levesley, B. Ward, and X. Zhang on a similar problem, which, to the best of his knowledge, explores entirely different techniques and does not supersede the result presented here.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Victor Beresnevich and Alexander Gorodnik for many fruitful discussions, and to Ben Ward for comments on an early version of the manuscript.

2. Reduction to Fibres

For α𝛼\alpha\in\mathbb{R}italic_α ∈ blackboard_R, n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1, and ψ:(0,1]:𝜓01\psi:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{(}0,1]italic_ψ : blackboard_N → ( 0 , 1 ] we define

W(α,n,ψ):={𝒙[0,1]n:(α,𝒙)W(n+1,ψ)}.assign𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓conditional-set𝒙superscript01𝑛𝛼𝒙𝑊𝑛1𝜓W(\alpha,n,\psi):=\{\boldsymbol{x}\in[0,1]^{n}:(\alpha,\boldsymbol{x})\in W(n+% 1,\psi)\}.italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ) := { bold_italic_x ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ( italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∈ italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) } .

Then, the following lemma holds.

Lemma 2.1.

For any αE(1,ψ)𝛼𝐸1𝜓\alpha\in E(1,\psi)italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) and 𝐱W(α,n,ψ)𝐱𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓\boldsymbol{x}\in W(\alpha,n,\psi)bold_italic_x ∈ italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ) it holds (α,𝐱)E(n+1,ψ)𝛼𝐱𝐸𝑛1𝜓(\alpha,\boldsymbol{x})\in E(n+1,\psi)( italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∈ italic_E ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ).

Proof.

Since the number α𝛼\alphaitalic_α cannot be approximated by the function cψ𝑐𝜓c\psiitalic_c italic_ψ for any 0<c<10𝑐10<c<10 < italic_c < 1, the vector (α,𝒙)𝛼𝒙(\alpha,\boldsymbol{x})( italic_α , bold_italic_x ) cannot be simultaneously approximated by any such function. It follows that (α,𝒙)W(n+1,cψ)𝛼𝒙𝑊𝑛1𝑐𝜓(\alpha,\boldsymbol{x})\notin W(n+1,c\psi)( italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∉ italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_c italic_ψ ) for all 0<c<10𝑐10<c<10 < italic_c < 1. On the other hand, by definition of W(α,n,ψ)𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓W(\alpha,n,\psi)italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ), one has that (α,𝒙)W(n+1,ψ)𝛼𝒙𝑊𝑛1𝜓(\alpha,\boldsymbol{x})\in W(n+1,\psi)( italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∈ italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ). ∎

In view of Lemma 2.1, the following holds

(2) αE(1,ψ){α}×W(α,n,ψ)E(n+1,ψ)W(n+1,ψ).subscript𝛼𝐸1𝜓𝛼𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓𝐸𝑛1𝜓𝑊𝑛1𝜓\bigcup_{\alpha\in E(1,\psi)}\{\alpha\}\times W(\alpha,n,\psi)\subset E(n+1,% \psi)\subset W(n+1,\psi).⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α } × italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ) ⊂ italic_E ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) ⊂ italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) .

By (2) and Marstrand’s Slicing Lemma [Fal14, Corollary 7.12], we deduce that

dimE(1,ψ)+infαE(1,ψ)dimW(α,n,ψ)dimE(n+1,ψ)dimW(n+1,ψ).dimension𝐸1𝜓subscriptinfimum𝛼𝐸1𝜓dimension𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓dimension𝐸𝑛1𝜓dimension𝑊𝑛1𝜓\dim E(1,\psi)+\inf_{\alpha\in E(1,\psi)}\dim W(\alpha,n,\psi)\leq\dim E(n+1,% \psi)\leq\dim W(n+1,\psi).roman_dim italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) + roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dim italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ) ≤ roman_dim italic_E ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) ≤ roman_dim italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) .

Moreover, by Theorem 1.1, the equality dimE(1,ψ)=dimW(1,ψ)dimension𝐸1𝜓dimension𝑊1𝜓\dim E(1,\psi)=\dim W(1,\psi)roman_dim italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) = roman_dim italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) holds. Hence, it follows from (2) that

(3) dimW(1,ψ)+infαE(1,ψ)dimW(α,n,ψ)dimE(n+1,ψ)dimW(n+1,ψ).dimension𝑊1𝜓subscriptinfimum𝛼𝐸1𝜓dimension𝑊𝛼𝑛𝜓dimension𝐸𝑛1𝜓dimension𝑊𝑛1𝜓\dim W(1,\psi)+\inf_{\alpha\in E(1,\psi)}\dim W(\alpha,n,\psi)\leq\dim E(n+1,% \psi)\leq\dim W(n+1,\psi).roman_dim italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) + roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dim italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n , italic_ψ ) ≤ roman_dim italic_E ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) ≤ roman_dim italic_W ( italic_n + 1 , italic_ψ ) .

We will show in Section 4 that the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the above chain of inequalities coincide.

3. Jarník on Fibres

Let ψ:(0,1]:𝜓01\psi:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{(}0,1]italic_ψ : blackboard_N → ( 0 , 1 ] and let n=k+l𝑛𝑘𝑙n=k+litalic_n = italic_k + italic_l with k,l1𝑘𝑙1k,l\geq 1italic_k , italic_l ≥ 1. For 𝜶l𝜶superscript𝑙\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^{l}bold_italic_α ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define the set

W(𝜶,k,ψ):={𝒙[0,1]k:(𝜶,𝒙)W(n,ψ)}.assign𝑊𝜶𝑘𝜓conditional-set𝒙superscript01𝑘𝜶𝒙𝑊𝑛𝜓W(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\psi):=\left\{\boldsymbol{x}\in[0,1]^{k}:(\boldsymbol{% \alpha},\boldsymbol{x})\in W(n,\psi)\right\}.italic_W ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ψ ) := { bold_italic_x ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ( bold_italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∈ italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) } .

The goal of this section is to prove the following result, which in some sense may be regarded as a version of Jarník’s Theorem on coordinate subspaces (compare with [BRV16, Theorem 3.4]).

Proposition 3.1.

Let 𝛂W(l,ψ)𝛂𝑊𝑙𝜓\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in W(l,\psi)bold_italic_α ∈ italic_W ( italic_l , italic_ψ ) and let 0<sk0𝑠𝑘0<s\leq k0 < italic_s ≤ italic_k, with k2𝑘2k\geq 2italic_k ≥ 2. If

lim infqqkψ(q)s>0,subscriptlimit-infimum𝑞superscript𝑞𝑘𝜓superscript𝑞𝑠0\liminf_{q\to\infty}q^{k}\cdot\psi(q)^{s}>0,lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0 ,

then, one has that

s(W(𝜶,k,ψ))=s([0,1]k),superscript𝑠𝑊𝜶𝑘𝜓superscript𝑠superscript01𝑘\mathcal{H}^{s}(W(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\psi))=\mathcal{H}^{s}\left([0,1]^{k}% \right),caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ψ ) ) = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where ssuperscript𝑠\mathcal{H}^{s}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the s𝑠sitalic_s-Hausdorff measure.

To prove Proposition 3.1 we follow [RSS17]. Before proceeding to the proof, we need a slight change of language. For ϕ::italic-ϕ\phi:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R}italic_ϕ : blackboard_N → blackboard_R we introduce the sets

W~(n,ϕ):={𝒙[0,1]n:maxi=1nqxi<ϕ(q) for infinitely many q}assign~𝑊𝑛italic-ϕconditional-set𝒙superscript01𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛norm𝑞subscript𝑥𝑖italic-ϕ𝑞 for infinitely many 𝑞\tilde{W}(n,\phi):=\left\{\boldsymbol{x}\in[0,1]^{n}:\max_{i=1}^{n}\|qx_{i}\|<% \phi(q)\mbox{ for infinitely many }q\in\mathbb{N}\right\}over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( italic_n , italic_ϕ ) := { bold_italic_x ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_q italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ < italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) for infinitely many italic_q ∈ blackboard_N }

and

W~(𝜶,k,ϕ):={𝒙[0,1]k:(𝜶,𝒙)W~(n,ϕ)}.assign~𝑊𝜶𝑘italic-ϕconditional-set𝒙superscript01𝑘𝜶𝒙~𝑊𝑛italic-ϕ\tilde{W}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\phi):=\left\{\boldsymbol{x}\in[0,1]^{k}:(% \boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{x})\in\tilde{W}(n,\phi)\right\}.over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ϕ ) := { bold_italic_x ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : ( bold_italic_α , bold_italic_x ) ∈ over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( italic_n , italic_ϕ ) } .

Henceforth, we will assume that ϕ(q):=qψ(q)assignitalic-ϕ𝑞𝑞𝜓𝑞\phi(q):=q\cdot\psi(q)italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) := italic_q ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ). With this notation, we have that

W~(𝜶,k,ϕ)=W(𝜶,k,ψ).~𝑊𝜶𝑘italic-ϕ𝑊𝜶𝑘𝜓\tilde{W}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\phi)=W(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\psi).over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ϕ ) = italic_W ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ψ ) .

Moreover, the assumption of Proposition 3.1 now reads as lim infqqksϕ(q)s>0subscriptlimit-infimum𝑞superscript𝑞𝑘𝑠italic-ϕsuperscript𝑞𝑠0\liminf_{q\to\infty}q^{k-s}\phi(q)^{s}>0lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0.

Lemma 3.2.

Under the hypotheses of Proposition 3.1 it holds that

qs.tmaxiqαi<ϕ(q)min{qksϕ(q)s,1/2}=+.subscript𝑞s.tsubscript𝑖norm𝑞subscript𝛼𝑖italic-ϕ𝑞superscript𝑞𝑘𝑠italic-ϕsuperscript𝑞𝑠12\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q\ \textup{s.t}\\ \max_{i}\|q\alpha_{i}\|<\phi(q)\end{subarray}}\min\left\{q^{k-s}\phi(q)^{s},1/% 2\right\}=+\infty.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_q s.t end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_q italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ < italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_min { italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 1 / 2 } = + ∞ .
Proof.

Since 𝜶W(l,ψ)𝜶𝑊𝑙𝜓\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in W(l,\psi)bold_italic_α ∈ italic_W ( italic_l , italic_ψ ), the condition maxiqαi<ϕ(q)subscript𝑖norm𝑞subscript𝛼𝑖italic-ϕ𝑞\max_{i}\|q\alpha_{i}\|<\phi(q)roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_q italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ < italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) must be satisfied for infinitely many values of q𝑞qitalic_q. Then, the fact that lim infqqksϕ(q)s>0subscriptlimit-infimum𝑞superscript𝑞𝑘𝑠italic-ϕsuperscript𝑞𝑠0\liminf_{q\to\infty}q^{k-s}\phi(q)^{s}>0lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0 implies the divergence of the series. ∎

For 𝜶W(l,ψ)𝜶𝑊𝑙𝜓\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in W(l,\psi)bold_italic_α ∈ italic_W ( italic_l , italic_ψ ) let

ϕ𝜶(q):={ϕ(q)if maxiqαi<ϕ(q)0otherwise.assignsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝜶𝑞casesitalic-ϕ𝑞if subscript𝑖norm𝑞subscript𝛼𝑖italic-ϕ𝑞𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒0otherwise𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒\phi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(q):=\begin{cases}\phi(q)\quad\mbox{if }\max_{i}\|q% \alpha_{i}\|<\phi(q)\\ 0\quad\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}.italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) := { start_ROW start_CELL italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) if roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_q italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ < italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 otherwise end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW .

By Gallagher’s extension of Khintchine’s Theorem222Note that in [Gal65, Theorem 1] the approximating function is assumed less than 1111. For this reason we consider the function min{qksϕ(q)s,1/2}superscript𝑞𝑘𝑠italic-ϕsuperscript𝑞𝑠12\min\left\{q^{k-s}\phi(q)^{s},1/2\right\}roman_min { italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 1 / 2 } in Lemma 3.2. [Gal65, Theorem 1] and Lemma 3.2, we have that, under the hypotheses of Proposition 3.1, the following equality holds:

k(W~(k,qq1s/kϕ𝜶(q)s/k))=1.superscript𝑘~𝑊maps-to𝑘𝑞superscript𝑞1𝑠𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝜶superscript𝑞𝑠𝑘1\mathcal{H}^{k}\left(\tilde{W}(k,q\mapsto q^{1-s/k}\cdot\phi_{\boldsymbol{% \alpha}}(q)^{s/k})\right)=1.caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( italic_k , italic_q ↦ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = 1 .

Moreover, setting

ψ𝜶(q):={ψ(q)if maxiqαi<qψ(q)=ϕ(q)0otherwise,assignsubscript𝜓𝜶𝑞cases𝜓𝑞if subscript𝑖norm𝑞subscript𝛼𝑖𝑞𝜓𝑞italic-ϕ𝑞𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒0otherwise𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒\psi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(q):=\begin{cases}\psi(q)\quad\mbox{if }\max_{i}\|q% \alpha_{i}\|<q\cdot\psi(q)=\phi(q)\\ 0\quad\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases},italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) := { start_ROW start_CELL italic_ψ ( italic_q ) if roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_q italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ < italic_q ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ) = italic_ϕ ( italic_q ) end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 otherwise end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW ,

we have that

W~(k,qq1s/kϕ𝜶(q)s/k)=W~(k,qqψ𝜶(q)s/k)=W(k,ψ𝜶s/k).~𝑊maps-to𝑘𝑞superscript𝑞1𝑠𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝜶superscript𝑞𝑠𝑘~𝑊maps-to𝑘𝑞𝑞subscript𝜓𝜶superscript𝑞𝑠𝑘𝑊𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜓𝜶𝑠𝑘\tilde{W}(k,q\mapsto q^{1-s/k}\cdot\phi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(q)^{s/k})=\tilde% {W}(k,q\mapsto q\cdot\psi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(q)^{s/k})=W(k,\psi_{% \boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{s/k}).over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( italic_k , italic_q ↦ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ( italic_k , italic_q ↦ italic_q ⋅ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_W ( italic_k , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Then, by the Mass Transference Principle [BRV16, Theorem 3.5], we deduce that whenever

k(W(k,ψ𝜶s/k))=k([0,1]k),superscript𝑘𝑊𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜓𝜶𝑠𝑘superscript𝑘superscript01𝑘\mathcal{H}^{k}\left(W(k,\psi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{s/k})\right)=\mathcal{H}^% {k}\left([0,1]^{k}\right),caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( italic_k , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s / italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

the following must hold:

s(W(k,ψ𝜶))=s([0,1]k).superscript𝑠𝑊𝑘subscript𝜓𝜶superscript𝑠superscript01𝑘\mathcal{H}^{s}\left(W(k,\psi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})\right)=\mathcal{H}^{s}% \left([0,1]^{k}\right).caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( italic_k , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , 1 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Hence, the proof is concluded on noting that W(k,ψ𝜶)=W(𝜶,k,ψ)𝑊𝑘subscript𝜓𝜶𝑊𝜶𝑘𝜓W(k,\psi_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})=W(\boldsymbol{\alpha},k,\psi)italic_W ( italic_k , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_W ( bold_italic_α , italic_k , italic_ψ ).

4. Proof of Theorem 1.2

Assume that l=1𝑙1l=1italic_l = 1 and k=n12𝑘𝑛12k=n-1\geq 2italic_k = italic_n - 1 ≥ 2. By definition of order at infinity, we have that for any ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0

ψ(q)qλε𝜓𝑞superscript𝑞𝜆𝜀\psi(q)\geq q^{-\lambda-\varepsilon}italic_ψ ( italic_q ) ≥ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ - italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for all sufficiently large values of q𝑞qitalic_q. Then, for 0<s<(n1)/λ0𝑠𝑛1𝜆0<s<(n-1)/\lambda0 < italic_s < ( italic_n - 1 ) / italic_λ and ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0 so small that (n1)sλ>sε𝑛1𝑠𝜆𝑠𝜀(n-1)-s\lambda>s\varepsilon( italic_n - 1 ) - italic_s italic_λ > italic_s italic_ε, we find

(4) lim infqqn1ψ(q)slim infqq(n1)s(λ+ε)>0.subscriptlimit-infimum𝑞superscript𝑞𝑛1𝜓superscript𝑞𝑠subscriptlimit-infimum𝑞superscript𝑞𝑛1𝑠𝜆𝜀0\liminf_{q\to\infty}q^{n-1}\cdot\psi(q)^{s}\geq\liminf_{q\to\infty}q^{(n-1)-s(% \lambda+\varepsilon)}>0.lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_ψ ( italic_q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n - 1 ) - italic_s ( italic_λ + italic_ε ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0 .

It follows from Proposition 3.1 that s(W(α,n1,ψ))=+superscript𝑠𝑊𝛼𝑛1𝜓\mathcal{H}^{s}\left(W(\alpha,n-1,\psi)\right)=+\inftycaligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n - 1 , italic_ψ ) ) = + ∞ for all s<(n1)/λ𝑠𝑛1𝜆s<(n-1)/\lambdaitalic_s < ( italic_n - 1 ) / italic_λ and all αE(1,ψ)𝛼𝐸1𝜓\alpha\in E(1,\psi)italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ). This shows that dimW(α,n1,ψ)(n1)/λdimension𝑊𝛼𝑛1𝜓𝑛1𝜆\dim W(\alpha,n-1,\psi)\geq(n-1)/\lambdaroman_dim italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n - 1 , italic_ψ ) ≥ ( italic_n - 1 ) / italic_λ for all αE(1,ψ)𝛼𝐸1𝜓\alpha\in E(1,\psi)italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ). Thus, by (3), we deduce that

(5) 2λ+n1λ=dimW(1,ψ)+infαE(1,ψ)dimW(α,n1,ψ)dimE(n,ψ)dimW(n,ψ)=n+1λ.2𝜆𝑛1𝜆dimension𝑊1𝜓subscriptinfimum𝛼𝐸1𝜓dimension𝑊𝛼𝑛1𝜓dimension𝐸𝑛𝜓dimension𝑊𝑛𝜓𝑛1𝜆\frac{2}{\lambda}+\frac{n-1}{\lambda}=\dim W(1,\psi)+\inf_{\alpha\in E(1,\psi)% }\dim W(\alpha,n-1,\psi)\leq\dim E(n,\psi)\\ \leq\dim W(n,\psi)=\frac{n+1}{\lambda}.start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_n - 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG = roman_dim italic_W ( 1 , italic_ψ ) + roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ∈ italic_E ( 1 , italic_ψ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dim italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n - 1 , italic_ψ ) ≤ roman_dim italic_E ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ≤ roman_dim italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) = divide start_ARG italic_n + 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG . end_CELL end_ROW

For a proof of the last equality, the reader may refer to [Jar31] or [BV06, Corollary 1] (case n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1). This shows that dimE(n,ψ)=dimW(n,ψ)dimension𝐸𝑛𝜓dimension𝑊𝑛𝜓\dim E(n,\psi)=\dim W(n,\psi)roman_dim italic_E ( italic_n , italic_ψ ) = roman_dim italic_W ( italic_n , italic_ψ ).

As for Remark 1.3, we observe that when ψ(q)=ψν(q)=qν𝜓𝑞subscript𝜓𝜈𝑞superscript𝑞𝜈\psi(q)=\psi_{\nu}(q)=q^{-\nu}italic_ψ ( italic_q ) = italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) = italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, Equation (4) holds also for s=(n1)/ν𝑠𝑛1𝜈s=(n-1)/\nuitalic_s = ( italic_n - 1 ) / italic_ν. Hence, we have (n1)/ν(W(α,n1,ψν))=superscript𝑛1𝜈𝑊𝛼𝑛1subscript𝜓𝜈\mathcal{H}^{(n-1)/\nu}(W(\alpha,n-1,\psi_{\nu}))=\inftycaligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n - 1 ) / italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W ( italic_α , italic_n - 1 , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = ∞. The claim follows from [BV06, Lemma 4].

References

  • [BD86] J. D. Bovey and M. M. Dodson. The Hausdorff dimension of systems of linear forms. Acta Arith., 45:337–358, 1986.
  • [BDV01] V. Beresnevich, D. Dickinson, and S. Velani. Sets of exact ‘logarithmic’ order in the theory of Diophantine approximation. Math. Ann., 321(2):253–273, 2001.
  • [BDV06] Victor Beresnevich, Detta Dickinson, and Sanju Velani. Measure theoretic laws for lim sup sets, volume 846 of Mem. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2006.
  • [Bes34] A. S. Besicovitch. Sets of Fractional Dimensions (IV): On Rational Approximation to Real Numbers. J. London Math. Soc., 9(2):126–131, 1934.
  • [BGN23] P. Bandi, A. Ghosh, and D. Nandi. Exact approximation order and well-distributed sets. Adv. Math., 414:19, 2023. Id/No 108871.
  • [BM11] Y. Bugeaud and C. G. Moreira. Sets of exact approximation order by rational numbers. III. Acta Arith., 146(2):177–193, 2011.
  • [BRV16] V. Beresnevich, F. Ramírez, and S. Velani. Metric Diophantine approximation: aspects of recent work. In Dynamics and analytic number theory. Proceedings of the Durham Easter School, Durham, UK, March 31 – April 4, 2014, pages 1–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  • [Bug03] Y. Bugeaud. Sets of exact approximation order by rational numbers. Math. Ann., 327(1):171–190, 2003.
  • [BV06] V. Beresnevich and S. Velani. Schmidt’s theorem, Hausdorff measures, and slicing. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2006(19):24, 2006. Id/No 48794.
  • [BV10] V. Beresnevich and S. Velani. Classical metric Diophantine approximation revisited: the Khintchine-Groshev theorem. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2010(1):69–86, 2010.
  • [Fal14] K. Falconer. Fractal geometry. Mathematical foundations and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 3rd ed. edition, 2014.
  • [FW22] R. Fraser and R. Wheeler. Fourier Dimension Estimates for Sets of Exact Approximation Order: The Well-Approximable Case. International Mathematics Research Notices, page rnac256, 10 2022.
  • [Gal65] P. X. Gallagher. Metric simultaneous diophantine approximation. II. Mathematika, 12:123–127, 1965.
  • [Jar29] V. Jarník. Diophantische Approximationen und Hausdorffsches Maß. Rec. Math. Moscou, 36:371–382, 1929.
  • [Jar31] V. Jarník. Über die simultanen diophantischen Approximationen. Math. Z., 33(1):505–543, 1931.
  • [Khi24] A. Khintchine. Einige Sätze über Kettenbrüche, mit Anwendungen auf die Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen. Math. Ann., 92(1-2):115–125, 1924.
  • [RSS17] F. Ramírez, D. A. Simmons, and F. Süess. Rational approximation of affine coordinate subspaces of Euclidean space. Acta Arith., 177(1):91–100, 2017.