The Assouad dimension of Kakeya sets in
Abstract
This paper studies the structure of Kakeya sets in . We show that for every Kakeya set , there exist well-separated scales so that the neighborhood of is almost as large as the neighborhood of . As a consequence, every Kakeya set in has Assouad dimension 3 and every Ahlfors-David regular Kakeya set in has Hausdorff dimension 3. We also show that every Kakeya set in that has “stably equal” Hausdorff and packing dimension (this is a new notion, which is introduced to avoid certain obvious obstructions) must have Hausdorff dimension 3.
The above results follow from certain multi-scale structure theorems for arrangements of tubes and rectangular prisms in three dimensions, and a mild generalization of the sticky Kakeya theorem previously proved by the authors.
1 Introduction
A Kakeya set is a compact subset of that contains a unit line segment pointing in every direction. The Kakeya set conjecture asserts that every Kakeya set in has Minkowski and Hausdorff dimension . This conjecture is proved in the plane [1, 2], and is open in three and higher dimensions. See [9, 18] for a survey of progress on the Kakeya conjecture.
In this paper, we study the structure of Kakeya sets in . We show that for every Kakeya set , there exist well-separated scales so that the neighborhood of is almost as large as the neighborhood of . The precise statement is given in Theorem 1.5 below. As a consequence, we prove several weaker variants of the Kakeya set conjecture: we prove that every Kakeya set in has Assouad dimension 3, and we prove that every Kakeya set in with “stably equal” Hausdorff and packing dimension (see Definition 1.3 below) must have Hausdorff and packing dimension 3. In order to explain these statements precisely, we require the following definitions.
Definition 1.1.
Let be non-empty. The Assouad dimension of , denoted , is the infimum of all for which there exist positive constants and so that for all , we have
In the above, denotes the -covering number of .
The Assouad dimension is always at least as large as the Hausdorff and Minkowski dimensions, i.e. if is bounded then we have . If is bounded and Ahlfors-David regular, then all of these dimensions are equal. See [5] for further details on Assouad dimension and its properties.
Our first result is the following weak version of the Kakeya set conjecture in .
Theorem 1.2.
Every Kakeya set in has Assouad dimension 3.
Remarks
1. Theorem 1.2 holds for a slightly more general class of sets, where the lines satisfy a mild strengthening of the Wolff axioms. See the remarks in Section 8 for details.
2. Fraser, Olson and Robinson [4] proved that every half-extended Kakeya set in (i.e. a subset of containing a half-infinite line segment in every direction) has Assouad dimension . However this is a somewhat different question. In brief, Fraser, Olson and Robinson showed that the Assouad dimension does not increase under a “zooming out” rescaling, which transforms an extended Kakeya set into one where all lines pass through the origin (the latter type of set has full Assouad dimension).
Next, we consider Kakeya sets with equal Hausdorff and packing dimension. Recall that for , the packing dimension is given by
where denotes the upper Minkowski dimension, and the infimum is taken over all decompositions into countably many sets. We have for every set , and if , then for every there exists a constant and a measure supported on so that for -a.e. we have the Frostman-type estimate
We would like to say that every Kakeya set in with equal Hausdorff and packing dimension must have dimension 3. Unfortunately, we cannot prove this statement, and indeed this would imply that every Kakeya set in has packing dimension 3: let be a Kakeya set, and let be a compact set with equal Hausdorff and packing dimension . Then is a Kakeya set with equal Hausdorff and packing dimension, and this common value is . In the above example, the Kakeya set has equal Hausdorff and packing dimension for the somewhat trivial reason that it is a union of a Kakeya set with potentially unequal Hausdorff and packing dimension, and a set of equal Hausdorff and packing dimension111We could even select to be a union of unit line segments pointing in different directions (specifically a dimensional set of directions), and modify so that is a union of unit line segments, with one line segment pointing in each direction.. In particular, if , then an -dimensional Frostman measure supported on would be null on . To exclude this type of situation, we introduce the following definition.
Definition 1.3.
We say a set compact set is a Kakeya set with stably equal Hausdorff and packing dimension if for all , there is a measure supported on with the following properties.
-
•
There is a constant so that for all we have
where .
-
•
There is a positive (two-dimensional Lebesgue) measure set of directions so that for each direction , there is a line pointing in direction for which has positive one-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
In particular, if is a Kakeya set with unequal Hausdorff and packing dimension, then the set described above will not have stably equal Hausdorff and packing dimension222Unless the set is itself a Kakeya set with stably equal Hausdorff and packing dimension..
Theorem 1.4.
Every Kakeya set in with stably equal Hausdorff and packing dimension has Hausdorff and packing dimension 3.
Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 will follow from a common discretized Kakeya estimate, which is the main technical contribution of this paper. In the statement below, denotes the -neighborhood of the set , a -tube is the -neighborhood of a unit line segment, and say two -tubes are essentially distinct if neither tube is contained in the 2-fold dilate of the other; see Section 2 for precise definitions.
Theorem 1.5.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes in , and suppose that each convex set of volume contains at most tubes from . For each , let be a measurable set, and suppose that .
Then there exists with and a ball of radius so that
(1.1) |
Remark 1.6.
In the above theorem, we have required that the tubes be essentially distinct and that every convex set contain at most tubes from . This condition is satisfied, for example, if and the tubes in point in -separated directions. Indeed; for the latter condition we need only consider convex sets of diameter roughly 1, and every set of this form is comparable to an ellipsoid whose axes have lengths with . If is a -tube contained in , then the direction of lies in a rectangular sector of of dimensions roughly ; if the tubes in point in -separated directions, we conclude that . The anti-clustering condition imposed in Theorem 1.5 and will be discussed further in Section 2.2.
Theorem 1.5 can be amplified to obtain the following variant, which says that if is a collection of -tubes satisfying the anti-clustering condition described above, then there are two well-separated scales so that the -neighborhood of is almost as large as its -neighborhood.
Corollary 1.7.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes in , and suppose that each convex set of volume contains at most tubes from . For each , let be a measurable set, and suppose that .
Then there exist sets , with , and there exist scales with so that
(1.2) |
1.1 Main ideas, and a sketch of the proof
Recall that every Kakeya set contains a two-dimensional family of unit line segments pointing in different directions. In the discretized setting, this corresponds to a set of -tubes pointing in -separated directions. The requirement that the line segments (or -tubes) point in different directions can be thought of as a type of anti-clustering condition—without this condition, for example, we could construct a two-dimensional family of coplanar line segments in , and the union of these line segments would have dimension at most 2.
In [17], Wolff imposed an anti-clustering condition on his collection of -tubes in that is slightly weaker than requiring the tubes to point in -separated directions. First, Wolff required that for , each -tube must contain at most -tubes; if we think of -tubes as points in the Grassmannian of (affine) lines in , then Wolff’s first requirement corresponds to a 2-dimensional Frostman non-concentration condition on the set of tubes. Second, Wolff required that for each , at most -tubes can be contained in any rectangular prism of dimensions . This second condition prevents the tubes from clustering into the -neighborhood of a plane. These two conditions are now referred to as the Wolff axioms.
In our arguments below, we will consider several anti-clustering conditions that are related to the Wolff axioms. The first one already appeared in the statement of Theorem 1.5; it is a mild generalization of the Wolff axioms, which we call the Convex Wolff Axioms. Next, we say a set of -tubes satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale if for every , the tubes in can be covered by -tubes, so that for each -tube in this cover, the portion of contained inside can be re-scaled to create a collection of -tubes that satisfy the convex Wolff axioms. Finally, we say a set of tubes satisfies a Frostman Condition at exponent if every -tube contains at most tubes from . Precise versions of these definitions are given in Section 2.2.
In Section 4, we show that if a set of tubes satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms and also satisfies a Frostman condition, then either it must satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale, or else the conclusion of Theorem 1.5 must hold for (or both). In broad strokes, the argument is as follows. Suppose that satisfies a Frostman condition but fails to satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale. Then the tubes in must cluster into rectangular prisms of dimensions for some Each such prism is essentially the intersection of the -neighborhood of a plane with the -neighborhood of a line. First, we consider the case that when two such prisms intersect, the corresponding planes make angle . Then the union of the -neighborhood of these planes will contain a ball of radius which is much larger than , and hence (1.1) holds. Second, we consider the case that when two such prisms intersect, the corresponding planes make angle . This forces the prisms cluster into rectangular prisms of dimensions , where are substantially larger than and , respectively. We can then repeat this argument at a larger scale. After finitely many iterations of this argument, we must find ourselves in the First Case. This concludes the argument.
The argument described above is a key geometric input for the proof of Theorem 1.5. With this geometric input, the proof of Theorem 1.5 proceeds by contradiction: suppose there exists a counter-example to Theorem 1.5, i.e. a set of tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms, for which (1.1) fails for every pair of scales and every ball of radius . The first step is to find a “worst possible” such counter-example to Theorem 1.5, i.e. a set of -tubes of largest possible cardinality satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms, for which the reverse of Inequality (1.1) holds for every pair of scales and every ball of radius , with the term replaced by for the largest possible exponent .
Since the conclusion of Theorem 1.5 is agnostic to location and scale, if we select ; consider only those tubes from that are contained in a -tube; and re-scale, then the reverse of Inequality (1.1) must continue to hold, with the same exponent . But this means that the newly obtained collection of tubes (obtained by restricting to a -tube and rescaling) cannot be larger (relative to the new scale ) than the original set , since was a set of largest possible cardinality for which the reverse of Inequality (1.1) holds at every location and scale with exponent . The above argument shows that must satisfy a Frostman condition. We can now apply the geometric input discussed above (and proved in Section 4): satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms (by assumption), and we just established that satisfies a Frostman condition. On the other hand, we are assuming that does not satisfy the conclusion of Theorem 1.5. We conclude that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale.
In summary, we have shown that if Theorem 1.5 is false, then there must exist a “worst possible” counter-example, and this counter-example must satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale. Finally, we arrive at a contradiction (and thus complete the proof of Theorem 1.5) using a slight variant of the Sticky Kakeya theorem from [16]. We state an informal version of this result below.
Theorem 1.8.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes in that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale. For each , let be a measurable set, and suppose that . Then
(1.3) |
Theorem 1.8 is closely related to previous work by the authors from [16]. In [16], the authors prove a variant of Inequality (1.3), in which the tubes satisfy slightly different hypotheses—the tubes are required to point in different directions and satisfy a Frostman condition at exponent 2. There are two places in [16] where one uses the hypothesis that the tubes point in different directions, and this hypothesis can be replaced by the Convex Wolff Axioms with minimal modification. A precise version of Theorem 1.8 is stated in Section 5. In Section 6 we briefly outline the proof of Theorem 1.8, and how it may be obtained by modifying the arguments in [16].
1.2 Thanks
The authors would like to thank Jonathan Fraser and Terence Tao for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Hong Wang is supported by NSF CAREER DMS-2238818 and NSF DMS-2055544. Joshua Zahl is supported by a NSERC Discovery Grant.
2 Notation and Definitions
We write or to mean there is a constant (which might depend on the ambient dimension ) so that . We write if and . If the constant is allowed to depend on an additional parameter such as , we then we denote this by . Many of our results will involve a small positive parameter, which we will call . We write to mean that there is a constant so that . As above, if the constant is allowed to depend on an additional parameter such as , we then we denote this by . Finally, during proof sketches and other informal remarks, we will sometimes write to suggest to the reader that that the real number is much smaller than the real number .
2.1 Tubes and their shadings
Recall that a -tube in is the -neighborhood of a unit line segment. We will use to denote a -tube, and to denote its coaxial line. If is a -tube (or more generally, the translation of a centrally symmetric convex set) and , we define to be the -fold dilate of . We say two tubes are essentially distinct if and .
We will sometimes be concerned with collections of tubes, plus shadings (i.e. distinguished subsets) of these tubes. To this end, we introduce the following definitions.
Definition 2.1.
Let be a collection of subsets of , and let . A collection of sets is called a -dense shading of if . is called a uniformly -dense shadings of if for each .
In practice, will either be a collection of -tubes, or a collection of rectangular prisms. We will use the notation to refer to a collection of -tubes and an associated shading .
Definition 2.2.
Let , let , and let . We say the shading is regular at scales if for each and each , we have
(2.1) |
If the quantity is apparent from context, then we will omit it and say that is regular.
The following is Lemma 2.7 from [10].
Lemma 2.3.
Let and let be a shading. Then there is a regular shading with .
The proof in [10] considers the special case where is a unit line segment (and hence ), but the proof is identical. In brief, we consider the quantity for each dyadic scale and each ball aligned to the dyadic grid. We delete those balls for which is too small (i.e. for which (2.1) fails), and we denote the surviving subset of by . At each dyadic scale we have only deleted a small fraction of , so at least half of survives this process.
2.2 Wolff axioms and their generalizations
In this section we will define several anti-clustering conditions that we can impose on our collection of tubes. In [17] (see also Definition 13.1 from [7]), Wolff introduced what are now called the Wolff axioms; this is a non-concentration condition that forbids a collection of -tubes from clustering near a fatter -tube, and also forbids a collection of -tubes from concentrating on (affine) 2-planes. The precise definition is as follows.
Definition 2.4.
Let be a set of -tubes in . We say satisfies the Wolff axioms if:
-
•
Every -tube can contain at most tubes from .
-
•
Every rectangular prism of dimensions can contain at most tubes from .
Remarks
1. In the above definition, the constant is generally chosen to be a large number depending only on the ambient dimension .
2. Every set of -tubes pointing in -separated directions will satisfy the Wolff axioms with constant .
3. Every set of -tubes contained in that satisfies the Wolff axioms has cardinality at most .
In the arguments that follow, we will need several variants of the Wolff axioms. We define these below.
Definition 2.5.
Let . We say a multi-set of sets in satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error if for all convex sets , we have
(2.2) |
In practice we will have , and the sets in will be either -tubes, or rectangular prisms (not necessarily axis-parallel) for some .
Remark 2.6.
If the elements of are convex, then . In particular, a set of -tubes in satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms must have cardinality .
Remark 2.7.
Let be a multi-set of subsets of . For each , let , and define the multi-set i.e. the multi-sets and have the same cardinality. If satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , then also satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
In our arguments below, we will often consider a Kakeya set (or more accurately a collection of -tubes) at many different scales. Typically, for a collection of -tubes , we will want to examine the coarsening of at a larger scale , and also examine the collection of -tubes from that are contained in inside each of these coarser -tubes. As observed in Remark 2.7 above, if satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms, then the coarsening of at a larger scale will also satisfy these axioms333In contrast, the more traditional condition that the tubes in point in -separated directions is not preserved after coarsening. However, the (rescaled) collection of -tubes from contained inside each coarser -tube might not satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms. Our next task is to introduce a slightly stricter variant of the Convex Wolff Axioms that addresses this issue.
Definition 2.8.
Let be a convex set and let . Let be the John ellipsoid that circumscribes , and let be an affine transformation that sends to the unit ball. The unit rescaling of relative to is the set . If be a multi-set of subsets of that are contained in , then the unit rescaling of relative to is the multi-set .
Remark 2.9.
In [16], the authors considered a similar definition in the special case where is a set of -tubes and is a -tube. In order for this definition to be compatible with the definition from [16] of a tube’s shading, the map was defined slightly differently, so that image of was the ellipsoid (for some fixed constant ), rather than the unit ball.
Definition 2.10.
Let be a set and be a multi-set of convex subsets of . We say that is a cover of if each set is contained in at least one set from . For each , we write to denote the multi-set . We say that is a -uniform cover of if for each pair of sets . Finally, we say that is a partitioning cover of if is a cover of , and for every pair of distinct , the sets and are disjoint, where denotes the 2-fold dilate of . In practice, and will be collections of -tubes and -tubes respectively, for some .
Remark 2.11.
Note that if satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and if is a -uniform partitioning cover of , then satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
Definition 2.12.
Let . We say a set of -tubes in satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error if the tubes in are essentially distinct, and for every , there exists and a set of -tubes that satisfies the following properties.
-
(i)
is a -uniform partitioning cover of .
-
(ii)
For each , the unit re-scaling of relative to satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
As the name suggests, Definition 2.12 is a multi-scale property. In particular, if satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale, then we can cover by fatter -tubes; both the -tubes and the (re-scaled) tubes from inside each -tube will again satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale. The precise statement is as follows.
Lemma 2.13.
Let be a set of -tubes in that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error . Let . Then there exists and a set of -tubes , so that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error , and for each , the unit rescaling of relative to satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error .
Proof.
Let be the largest integer with . For , let be a set of -tubes, with that satisfy Items (i) and (ii) from Definition 2.12. We claim that for , if , and , then . To see this, observe that if the intersection contains at least one tube , then . Since covers and the sets are disjoint, we conclude that .
The consequence of the above observation is the following: if we partially order the sets under inclusion, then we actually obtain a total ordering, and this ordering forms a tree with levels—the vertices at level are precisely the sets . By Item (i) of Definition 2.12, for each the sets have comparable cardinality, up to a multiplicative factor of . This tree is precisely what is needed to verify Lemma 2.13: given , we select an index so that , and we choose , ; note that since forms a partitioning cover of , the -tubes in are essentially distinct. ∎
Finally, we will introduce two additional anti-concentration conditions that will play a technical role in the arguments to follow.
Definition 2.14.
Let and let be a set of -tubes in . We say that satisfies a Frostman condition at dimension with error if the tubes in are essentially distinct, and for every and every -tube , we have .
Definition 2.15.
Let and let be a set of -tubes in . We say that satisfies the Self-Similar Convex Wolff Axioms with error if the tubes in are essentially distinct, and for every , there exists and a set of -tubes that satisfies the following properties.
-
(i)
is a -uniform partitioning cover of .
-
(ii)
For each , the unit re-scaling of relative to satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(iii)
For each , we have
(2.3) where is the unique number satisfying .
Note that Items (i) and (ii) above are identical to their counterparts in Definition 2.12. In particular, we have
(2.4) |
2.3 Discretized Assouad dimension
The conclusion of Theorem 1.5 involves a discretized analogue of Assouad dimension. We formalize this as follows.
Definition 2.16.
Let , let let , and let . We say that has discretized Assouad dimension at least , at scale and scale separation if there exist scales with , and a ball of radius , so that
If the scale is apparent from context, then for berevity we may say “ has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale separation .”
In this language, the conclusion of Theorem 1.5 says that the set has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale separation
3 Assouad-extremal Kakeya sets
In this section, we will suppose that Theorem 1.5 is false, and we seek to construct a “worst possible” counter-example to Theorem 1.5. In this and later sections, we will restrict attention to . Our example will be worst possible in two respects. First, Inequality (1.1) will fail as dramatically as possible, i.e. a reverse inequality will hold where the term on the RHS of (1.1) will be replaced by for the largest possible value of . Second, of all collections of tubes for which such a reverse inequality holds for this value of , we will choose a set of largest possible cardinality. The hypotheses of Theorem 1.5 ensure that has size at least ; we will choose a set of tubes of size , for the largest possible value of .
We now turn to the task of carefully defining the quantities and ; this will be done in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. This task is complicated by the fact that Theorem 1.5 involves a sequence of quantifiers, and we must unwind these quantifiers in the correct order.
3.1 Defining
Let be a set of tubes and their associated shading. Let , and let be a ball of radius whose intersection with has positive measure. Define to be the unique number satisfying
(3.1) |
Next, for , define
(3.2) |
where the infimum is taken over all pairs , where and is a ball of radius whose intersection with has positive measure. Observe that as , the set of admissible pairs becomes larger, and hence weakly decreases, i.e. is a weakly increasing function of .
For and , define
(3.3) |
where the supremum is taken over all choices of with the following properties:
-
•
is a set of essentially distinct -tubes contained in that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and is a -dense shading.
-
•
.
Again, is a weakly increasing function of . It is also a weakly increasing function of and weakly decreasing function of , since as become larger or becomes smaller, the set of admissible pairs becomes larger.
Define
Definition 3.1.
Define .
Unwrapping the above definitions, we have the following.
Lemma 3.2.
Let be as in Definition 3.1. For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , with a -dense shading.
Then has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale separation .
Proof.
Select sufficiently small so that Then there exists so that for all . The conclusion of Lemma 3.2 now holds for this choice of and . ∎
3.2 Defining
Note that is weakly monotone decreasing. We also have that , since if is a set of essentially distinct -tubes in , then must have volume . Define
(3.4) |
The quantity has the following interpretation. We have defined to be the smallest possible discretized Assouad dimension of a collection of essentially distinct tubes that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms. Every such collection of tubes must have cardinality at least , and in general we might expect that larger collections of tubes should have larger discretized Assouad dimension. Any collection of essentially distinct tubes of cardinality substantially larger than that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms must have discretized Assouad dimension larger than .
3.3 The existence of Assouad-Extremal Kakeya sets
Now that we have defined and , we are ready to construct a (hypothetical) “worst possible” counter-example to Theorem 1.5, in the sense described at the beginning of Section 3.
Definition 3.3.
For we say a pair is Assouad-extremal if it satisfies the following properties.
-
•
.
-
•
The tubes are contained in , essentially distinct, and satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
•
The shading is -dense.
-
•
For all with and all balls of radius , we have
(3.5)
Note that if is Assouad-extremal, then it is also Assouad-extremal for all .
Lemma 3.4.
For all , there exists and an Assouad-extremal set of tubes
Proof.
Fix with . Since is a weakly increasing function of and , we have . Thus there exists with .
In light of (3.3), there exists a set of tubes and their associated shading , so that (i) ; (ii) the tubes are contained in , essentially distinct, and satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; (iii) is a -dense shading; and (iv) we have . Thus by (3.2), for every pair of scales with and every ball of radius , we have
But this is precisely (3.5). ∎
4 Convex Wolff Axioms and multi-scale structure
The purpose of this section is to prove the following result.
Proposition 4.1.
For all , there exists , so that for all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let and let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , with a uniformly dense shading. Then at least one of the following must be true.
-
(A)
has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale , with scale separation .
-
(B)
There exists with , and satisfies the self-similar Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(C)
There exists and a set of -tubes, with the following properties.
-
(C.i)
The tubes in are essentially distinct, and .
-
(C.ii)
satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(C.iii)
For each , there exists with .
-
(C.i)
-
(D)
There exists , a -tube , and a set , so that the following holds.
-
(D.i)
-
(D.ii)
The unit rescaling of relative to satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(D.i)
Remark 4.2.
Conclusions (A) and (B) are somewhat self-explanatory. Conclusion (C) says that at a coarser scale, we can find a set of tubes that is richer than our original set . Conclusion (D) says that we can find a -tube so that the unit-rescaling of is richer than our original set .
An important step in proving Proposition 4.1 is to study arrangements of tubes that cluster into rectangular prisms. In the next section, we will show that unions of rectangular prisms of dimensions with have large Assouad dimension.
4.1 Arrangements of rectangular prisms
The next result is a straightforward consequence of Cauchy-Schwartz; it says that a union of prisms satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms must have almost maximal volume.
Lemma 4.3.
Let and . Let be a multi-set of rectangular prisms, and suppose that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Let be a -dense shading. Then
(4.1) |
Proof.
For each prism , there is an associated normal vector , which is well-defined up to uncertainty . For , define to be the (unsigned) angle between and .
Fix . We have
In the above computation, observe that if is non-empty and , then is contained in the rectangular prism concentric with . Since obeys the Convex Wolff Axioms, at most slabs can have this property. We conclude that
(4.2) |
Let . Since the shading is dense, by Cauchy-Schwartz we have
(4.3) |
Next, we will establish a geometric argument showing that a union of prisms, , satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms must either have nearly maximal discretized Assouad dimension, or the prisms must arrange themselves into prisms for and substantially larger than and , respectively. The precise statement is as follows.
Lemma 4.4.
For all , there exists so that the following is true for all . Let with . Let be a multi-set of prisms contained in , and suppose that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Let be a -dense shading.
Then at least one of the following two things must happen.
(A): There exists and a -ball so that
(4.4) |
(B): There are scales and , and a multi-set of prisms that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , so that the shading
(4.5) |
is -dense.
Remark 4.5.
Note that as , Conclusion (A) becomes stronger, while conclusion (B) becomes weaker (indeed, if then Conclusion (B) vacuously holds with and ). As , Conclusion (A) is unchanged, while Conclusion (B) becomes stronger.
Proof.
Step 1.
After dyadic pigeonholing, we can select a multiplicity and a -dense shading so that for all . Let be a regular (in the sense of Definition 2.2) refinement of , with for each .
If , then
where the second-last inequality used the hypothesis that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error (and hence ) and the final inequality used the hypothesis that and hence . If is sufficiently small depending on , then Conclusion (A) holds with , and we are done.
Step 2.
Suppose instead that . Each prism is the image of the set under a rigid motion . We define to be the image of the -axis under , and we define to be the image of the -plane under .
For each , define the “plane spread”
where the maximum is taken over all pairs for which and , and where denotes the unsigned angle between the normal vectors of and . Since and are defined up to uncertainty , is meaningfully defined if it is substantially larger than . If , define .
Step 3. Suppose there exists a prism and a number so that
(4.6) |
Since is a prism, for each we have . By pigeonholing, we can select a point so that
(4.7) |
After a harmless translation and rotation, we may suppose that is the -plane, i.e. , and that is contained in the “square” (note as well that ). Let denote the thickened square , i.e. is comparable to the neighborhood of .
Denote the set on the LHS of (4.7) by ; then for each there is a prism with and . This implies that . Since the shading is regular, we also have
(4.8) |
Define the linear map , so . Define
and let . For each , let ; this is comparable to a rectangular prism of dimensions roughly , and this prism makes angle with the -plane, i.e. the prism has a normal direction (defined up to uncertainty ) with . By (4.8) we have
(4.9) |
By pigeonholing, we can find a unit vector and a set with , so that for each . In particular, this implies , and hence the projection of to the -plane has magnitude ; denote the image of under this projection by .
(4.7) says that and hence . On the other hand, , and the latter set has volume . Since and is contained in the plane, by Fubini we can select a line pointing in direction that satisfies .
Select a -separated set of points , with , from ; we will index these points so that . Note that is a line segment of length between and , and hence if are a pair of indices with , then . Since points in direction , and , we conclude that , so in particular contains a point that has distance from . Thus either and do not intersect, or if they do intersect then their normal vectors satisfy In either case, we have
(4.10) |
The above inequality vacuously holds if are a pair of indices with , since in this case and we can use the trivial bound .
We conclude that
(4.11) |
and hence
where the second inequality used (4.9) and (4.11). Undoing the scaling transformation , we conclude that
Recall that is a rectangular prism of dimensions roughly . Define ; then by pigeonholing, we can find a ball of radius so that
By sufficiently small depending on and the implicit constants in the above quasi-inequality, we can ensure that
(4.12) |
and since , we have . Thus (4.12) implies (4.4), and hence Conclusion (A) holds.
Step 4. Suppose instead that for every prism and every , (4.6) fails. Let . Since , if we select sufficiently small then . Select a dense shading so that for each . Let consist of those with ; we will choose the implicit constant and implicit power of so that ).
For each , define the “line spread”
(4.13) |
where the maximum is taken over all pairs for which and , and where denotes the unsigned angle between the lines and . Since and are defined up to uncertainty , is meaningfully defined if it is substantially larger than . If , define .
We claim there is a number so that the shading
(4.14) |
is dense. We argue as follows: if this was not the case, then
and hence there must exist a point with
(4.15) |
(the last condition follows from the fact that ). But this means that the rectangular prisms are contained in the dilate of a rectangular prism of dimensions . Since the prisms in satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , we have
(4.16) |
Comparing (4.15) and (4.16), we obtain a contradiction if and are sufficiently small.
Step 5. At this point we can fix , and we may suppose that the corresponding shading from (4.14) is dense. For each prism , let be the prism of dimensions obtained by anisotropically dilating . We claim that if are prisms and if , then . This follows from the fact that , and . In fact more is true—if we define , then is comparable to a prism of dimensions , and this prism is contained in . Furthermore, is comparable to a rectangular prism of dimensions .
Let consist of those rectangular prisms for which . Let ; recall that is a rectangular prism; for notational simplicity we will suppose , and that the intersection of with the -axis has measure . Define .
Select -separated points on the -axis, with . We will label the points so that . For each index , select a prism with and .
For each index , let be the neighborhood of , and let . Since (and hence ), we have
(4.17) |
is comparable to a prism of dimensions whose coaxial line makes angle with the axis. We have
and hence
We conclude that
(4.18) |
On the other hand, each set is contained in , and thus
(4.19) |
Recall that is a prism of dimensions , and . Define and . Then ; since , we can select sufficiently small so that , and hence .
By (4.19) we conclude that for each , if is the corresponding prism and is selected sufficiently small compared to and , then the shading given by (4.5) satisfies
(4.20) |
To finish the proof, define
(4.20) ensures that for each Since satisfies the Convex Wolff axioms with error and , we have that satisfies the Convex Wolff axioms with error , and hence by Remark 2.7 we have that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; if and is selected sufficiently small then this is . ∎
Proposition 4.6.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let with . Let be a multi-set of prisms contained in , and suppose that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Let be a -dense shading.
Then has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale and scale separation .
Proof.
Fix and let let be small quantities to be determined below. Let , with ; let be a set of prisms that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; and let be a -dense shading.
Define and define the shading . Let and . Let be small quantities to be specified below. We will perform the following iterative process for each . At the beginning of step , the following things will be true
-
•
We have a set of prisms, with .
-
•
satisfies the Convex Wolff axioms with error .
-
•
We have a shading that is dense.
-
•
For each , we have
(4.21)
Apply Lemma 4.4 to with as above and in place of . If is sufficiently small depending on and , then the Lemma can be applied (indeed, must be less than or equal to the quantity “” from the conclusion of Lemma 4.4). The quantity (and hence ) will be chosen sufficiently small so that Lemma 4.4 can be applied at each step.
Case (A). Suppose that Conclusion (A) from Lemma 4.4 holds, i.e. there exists and an -ball so that
Using (4.21), we conclude that
i.e. has discretized Assouad dimension at scale and scale separation . If this occurs, then we halt the iteration and conclude the proof.
Case (B). Next, suppose that Conclusion (B) holds. Let ; ; let be the set of prisms, with shading , as described by Lemma 4.4. We have that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and is dense. Furthermore, the shading satisfies (4.21) with in place of .
Case (B.i). Suppose that Conclusion (B) holds and . Recall that Thus we can apply Lemma 4.3 with in place of . We have
(4.22) |
We can select and sufficiently small so that the LHS of (4.22) has size at least . Since the set on the LHS of (4.22) is contained in , we conclude that has discretized Assouad dimension at scale and scale separation If this occurs, then we halt the iteration and conclude the proof.
Case (B.ii). Suppose ; then , so in particular . Thus we have verified all of the properties required to continue the iteration, with in place of . Note that ; , and the iterative process halts if . We conclude that this iterative process will halt after at most steps. ∎
4.2 Arrangements of tubes that cluster into rectangular prisms
In Section 4.1, we showed that unions of rectangular prisms that are far from being tubes (i.e. prisms of dimensions , with much smaller than ) have large discretized Assouad dimension. In this section, we will use these results to show that if an arrangement of -tubes clusters into prisms that are far from being (fatter) tubes, then the union of these tubes must have large discretized Assouad dimension. This is made precise in Lemmas 4.8 and 4.10 below. We begin with a technical lemma.
Lemma 4.7.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let and let . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes, with , and a uniformly -dense shading (see Definition 2.1). Let be a rectangle, and suppose each is contained in .
Then there exists a number and a set of essentially distinct prisms, so that
(4.23) |
and for each prism we have
(4.24) |
Proof.
For each , define the “line spread”
where the maximum is taken over all pairs of tubes intersecting . We define if at most one tube intersects . Let be a large number to be determined below. After dyadic pigeonholing, we can select so that the shading
satisfies
(4.25) |
(Note that the shading is not necessarily a subset of ). Our argument that such a shading must exist proceeds as follows: if we could not select a so that (4.25) holds, then the shading
satisfies . But for each , the set of tubes with are contained in the -neighborhood of a plane (since they are contained in ), and also make angle with a common unit vector; since the tubes in are essentially distinct, we conclude that tubes can satisfy , and hence
(4.26) |
If is selected sufficiently large then this is impossible, since the set on the LHS of (4.26) is contained in , which has volume .
At this point we have established the existence of an angle so that the associated shading satisfies (4.25). In the arguments that follow, the quantity has been fixed, and all implicit constants are allowed to depend on . Let
(4.27) |
Selecting the implicit constant in (4.27) appropriately, we can ensure that . For each , let be a set of -separated points from . For each , select with and . A argument (see e.g. (4.11)) plus the fact that shows that
(4.28) |
On the other hand, the set on the LHS of (4.28) is contained in , which is essentially a rectangular prism of dimensions . Denote this prism by . We have just shown that
(4.29) |
To conclude the proof, let and let . We claim that (4.23) holds for . Indeed, this follows from the fact that for each , and . By (4.29) we see that (4.24) holds for each , provided we select and sufficiently small. To conclude the proof, greedily select a set of essentially distinct rectangular prisms; we can perform this selection so that (4.23) continues to hold. ∎
Lemma 4.8.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Let be a shading with for each tube . Then at least one of the following must occur.
-
(A)
There is a set with so that for every and every rectangle , at most tubes from are contained in .
-
(B)
has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale and scale separation .
Remark 4.9.
Since satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms, we have that at most tubes are contained in each rectangle. If is substantially larger than , then the estimate from Conclusion (A) is stronger.
Proof.
We say a rectangle is “heavy” if it contains more than tubes from . If fewer than of the tubes are contained in heavy rectangles, let be the set of tubes that are not contained in heavy rectangles. Then Conclusion (A) holds, and we are done.
Suppose instead that at least tubes are contained in heavy rectangles. Since the tubes in are essentially distinct, each rectangle can contain at most tubes from . Thus if a rectangle is heavy, then we must have . Let denote this set of heavy rectangles (note that the rectangles in can have different dimensions). Let be a small quantity to be chosen below. Apply Lemma 4.7 to each rectangle , with in place of , and . We obtain a number and a set of rectangles. We have
(4.30) |
After dyadic pigeonholing, we can select so that if we define , then (4.30) continues to hold with in place of .
Define the multi-set
(In the above, is used to suggest that if the same rectangle is present in multiple sets , then this rectangle should occur multiple times in ; i.e. the union might create a multi-set). Let
Since satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , by (4.30) we have that the set (i.e. not multi-set) satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Finally, for each , let be a rectangle in with (if more than one contains , simply select one of them). Define the multi-set , i.e. is a multi-set with the same cardinality as . By Remark 2.7, we conclude that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
For each , define the shading
By Lemma 4.7, we have for each . To conclude the proof, apply Proposition 4.6 with as above, , and ; to ensure that Proposition 4.6 can be applied, we must select sufficiently small depending on (our choice of depends on the quantity “” from Proposition 4.6), and then sufficiently small depending on . Since we conclude that Conclusion (B) holds. ∎
Lemma 4.8 says that either a union of -tubes has large discretized Assouad dimension, or these tubes cannot concentrate into rectangular prisms. The next lemma is similar, except the latter conclusion is strengthened: either a union of -tubes has large discretized Assouad dimension, or these tubes cannot concentrate into rectangular prisms, for any . To prove this result, we apply Lemma 4.8 to the -thickening of the tubes in our arrangement, for many different values of . The precise statement is as follows.
Lemma 4.10.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and let be a uniformly -dense shading. Then at least one of the following must occur.
-
(A)
There is a set with so that the following holds. For every pair of numbers with of the form , there is a 1-uniform partitioning cover of (see Definition 2.10), where is a set of essentially distinct -tubes. Furthermore, for every rectangular prism , at most tubes from are contained in .
-
(B)
has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale and scale separation .
Proof.
Step 1.
Our first step is to regularize the set at scales of the form , with (we do not need to consider , since in that case there is nothing to prove). After repeated pigeonholing, we can select a set with and sets of -tubes , so that , and each set is a partitioning cover of (and hence also a partitioning cover of for all ). See e.g. Lemma 3.4 from [11] for an explicit description of this iterated pigeonholing process. We will choose sufficiently small so that . In particular, by Remark 2.11 this means that and each set satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
Step 2.
We would like to apply Lemma 4.8 to each set in turn. If Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.8 holds at any step, then we conclude that Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10 holds and we halt. If not, then few tubes from can cluster into a prism; if each tube from contains the same number of tubes from , then Conclusion (A) of Lemma 4.10 holds, and we are done. The difficulty is that conclusion (A) of Lemma 4.10 only holds for a subset of the tubes in ; this complication introduces additional pigeonholing at each step, which in turn forces us to re-label all of the relevant objects. We now turn to the unpleasant details.
Define and apply Lemma 4.8 with in place of to , with the shading inherited from (recall that this shading is uniformly dense). If Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.8 holds, then Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10 holds, and we are done.
If Conclusion (A) of Lemma 4.8 holds, then we obtain a set with , so that for each and each rectangle (recall ), at most tubes from are contained in . After dyadic pigeonholing and refining , we can select sets and so that , and is the same for each , i.e. is a 1-balanced partitioning cover of .
Next, we will describe a slightly more elaborate version of the above process. Let , and suppose we have constructed sets , that have the following properties:
-
(a)
For , is a 1-balanced partitioning cover of (and hence also a 1-balanced partitioning cover of for ).
-
(b)
.
-
(c)
For and , each rectangle contains tubes from .
We construct sets as follows. For each , define the shading
Since is non-empty and each tube has a -dense shading, we conclude that , i.e. the shading is uniformly -dense. Since , this means that the shading is uniformly dense. We will select and sufficiently small so that Lemma 4.8 can be applied to the pair with in place of , and in place of . Let be the output of that lemma.
If Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10 holds, then has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale and scale separation . But this means that has has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale and scale separation ; if we select , then Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10 holds, and we are done.
Suppose instead that Conclusion (A) of Lemma 4.10 holds. Then there exists a set with , so that for each and each rectangle , at most tubes from are contained in .
After dyadic pigeonholing and refining , we can select sets and so that , and is a 1-balanced partitioning cover of . For each , define to be those tubes from that are contained in some tube from ; it is still the case that is a 1-balanced partitioning cover of , for , and by construction it is also the case that is a 1-balanced partitioning cover of .
Furthermore, (this is because the cardinality of was reduced by a factor of , and was a 1-balanced partitioning cover of ), and thus Item (c) remains true for in place of , and Item (c) remains true for , with in place of (indeed, the cardinality of has decreased by at most a multiplicative factor of compared to the cardinality of , and the cardinality of is no larger than that of )
All that remains is to verify Item (c) above for . Let , let be a rectangle, and let . We already know that at most tubes from can be contained in the . On the other hand, if is a -tube that is contained in and also contained in a tube , then . Since is a 1-balanced cover of , each tube in contains tubes from . We conclude that tubes from are contained in . The completes the step of the above iteration.
Step 3.
If the iterative process described above does not halt before the -th, step, then define . By selecting sufficiently small we ensure that . For each , we have the 1-balanced partitioning cover . If we select sufficiently small depending on , then Item (c) above ensures that for every and every rectangular prism , at most tubes from are contained in .
∎
4.3 Proof of Proposition 4.1
We are now ready to prove Proposition 4.1. For the reader’s convenience, we reproduce it here
Proposition 4.1.
For all , there exists , so that for all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let and let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , with a uniformly dense shading. Then at least one of the following must be true.
-
(A)
has discretized Assouad dimension at least at scale , with scale separation .
-
(B)
There exists with , and satisfies the self-similar Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(C)
There exists and a set of -tubes, with the following properties.
-
(C.i)
The tubes in are essentially distinct, and .
-
(C.ii)
satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(C.iii)
For each , there exists with .
-
(C.i)
-
(D)
There exists , a -tube , and a set , so that the following holds.
-
(D.i)
-
(D.ii)
The unit rescaling of relative to satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
-
(D.i)
Proof.
Step 1.
Let be a small quantity to be chosen below. Apply Lemma 4.10 with in place of . We conclude that either Conclusion (A) of Proposition 4.1 holds, there exists a set that satisfies Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10.
Step 2.
Suppose there exists of the form so that (here is a 1-uniform partitioning cover of , coming from Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10). Then by Remark 2.11, satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; this is at most , provided we choose . Thus Conclusion (C) holds, with .
Step 3. Our goal in this step is to show that either Conclusion (D) of Proposition 4.1 holds, or for every of the form , we have
(4.31) |
Note that the RHS of the above inequality was already established in Step 2. First, we consider the case where ; in this case (4.31) will always hold. Indeed, let be of the form . Then for each , we have
where the second inequality follows from the fact that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . We conclude that . In particular, if , and if we select sufficiently small, then
(4.32) |
and hence (4.31) holds.
Next we consider the case where . Suppose there exists some of the form for which Let be the smallest number of the form for which this is true. Note that , since the tubes in are essentially distinct, and thus .
Let . By Conclusion (B) of Lemma 4.10, for each of the form , each and each rectangular prism , we have
where the second inequality used the fact that and the minimality of , the third inequality used the assumption , and the fourth inequality used the assumptions and .
Define , and let be a convex set that contains at least one tube from . Then is comparable to a prism, for some ; increasing (and possibly by a factor of at most , we may suppose that is of the form . Thus we have
If we select , then our set satisfies Conclusion (D) from Proposition 4.1 and we are done.
Step 4. At this point, we have reduced to the case where (4.31) holds for all of the form . We will show that Conclusion (B) holds. To begin, note that Items (i) and (iii) from Definition 2.15 hold for : for each , we can select of the form ; is a partitioning cover of , so Item (i) holds, and Item (iii) holds by (4.31) (if then we can select and there is nothing to prove).
It remains to show that Item (ii) holds for ; as explained above it suffices to consider -tubes with of the form , and convex sets that are prisms, with of the form and . We would like to estimate the number of tubes from contained in .
5 Sticky Kakeya and the Self-Similar Wolff Axioms
Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem 1.5. Our first task is to analyze the structure of extremal collections of tubes. If , then such collections must satisfy the Self-Similar Convex Wolff Axioms.
5.1 Extremal Kakeya sets satisfy the Self-Similar Convex Wolff Axioms
Proposition 5.1.
Suppose from Definition 3.1 is positive. Then for all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be Assouad Extremal. Then there exists so that is Assouad extremal, and satisfies the Self-Similar Convex Wolff axioms with error .
Proof.
Step 1. By decreasing if necessary, we can suppose that . Let be the value from Proposition 4.1, with this choice of . Let be a small quantity to be chosen below ( will depend on and ), and let be the values from Proposition 4.1 for this choice of and .
Let and be small positive quantities to be chosen below. and will depend on the following quantities: . In addition, will depend on .
Let and let be Assouad Extremal. By pigeonholing, we can select a subset with so that for each . Then for some (recall that is defined in (3.4)), and satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Furthermore, for all with , and all balls of radius , we have
(5.1) |
Step 2. Apply Proposition 4.1 to . We will show that Conclusion (A) from Proposition 4.1 cannot hold. Suppose to the contrary that Conclusion (A) holds, i.e. there exists with and a -ball such that
(5.2) |
If we select (recall that ), then (5.2) contradicts (5.1). Hence Conclusion (A) cannot hold.
Step 3. We will show that Conclusion (C) from Proposition 4.1 cannot hold. Suppose to the contrary that Conclusion (C) holds, i.e. there exists and a set of -tubes satisfying Items (C.i), (C.ii) and (C.iii) from Conclusion (C). By Item (C.iii), we have that the shading
satisfies for each ; we will select and sufficiently small that for each .
Define
(5.3) |
(In the above equation, refers to the function , evaluated at the (positive) number ). Provided is selected sufficiently small (depending on ), we have , and hence by the definition of from (3.4), we have . Hence if is selected sufficiently small, then
i.e. there exists so that
Select sufficiently small so that , and thus implies . In particular, i.e. there exists with , and a -ball such that
(5.4) |
But if we select , then , and (5.4) contradicts (5.1). Hence Conclusion (C) cannot hold.
Step 4. We will show that Conclusion (D) from Proposition 4.1 cannot hold. Suppose to the contrary that Conclusion (D) holds, i.e. there exists , a -tube , and a set satisfying Items (D.i) and (D.ii) from Conclusion (D). Let , and let be unit rescaling of relative to . Let be the image of under this same rescaling. We have , and we will select and sufficiently small so that for all . The tubes in are essentially distinct; by Item (D.i) we have , and by Item (D.ii) we have that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error .
Arguing as in Step 3, we conclude that there exists with , and a -ball such that
Undoing the unit rescaling described above, we conclude there exists an ellipsoid of dimensions so that
Indeed, the above inequality follows from the observation that the image of a -ball centered at under the above rescaling is an ellipse of dimensions , and this ellipse contains a -ball centered at . In particular, we can find a -ball with , so that
(5.5) |
5.2 Proof of Theorem 1.5
Our proof of Theorem 1.5 follows by combining two main ingredients. The first is Proposition 5.1. The second is a variant of the Sticky Kakeya Theorem, which was proved by the authors in [16]. The precise statement we need is as follows.
Theorem 5.2.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of -tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error , and let be a dense shading. Then
(5.6) |
As noted above, Theorem 5.2 is similar to the Sticky Kakeya Theorem proved by the authors in [16]. In Section 6 we will discuss the proof of Theorem 5.2, and how it differs from the arguments in [16]. Assuming this result for now, we can combine these two ingredients to prove Theorem 1.5 as follows
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
It suffices to show that . Suppose instead that . Let be the output from Theorem 5.2, with . By Proposition 5.1, there exists and a set with discretized Assouad dimension that satisfies the Self-Similar Convex Wolff Axioms (and hence the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale) with error , and for which is a dense shading. But then (6.2) says that has discretized Assouad dimension at least , which is a contradiction. ∎
6 Kakeya estimates for tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms at all scales
Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem 5.2. Theorem 5.2 is closely related to the discretized analogue of [16, Theorem 1.1], and specifically the estimate from that paper; the latter result says that if is a collection of -tubes in of cardinality roughly that point in -separated directions, and if satisfies a property called “stickiness,” then the union of the tubes must have volume . Stickiness is a technical property, which roughly speaking says that for each , the tubes in can be covered by a collection of -tubes that point in -separated directions (more accurately, the tubes point in -separated directions up to multiplicity ).
Stickiness is a multi-scale property, in the following sense: if is sticky, then for each we can cover by a sticky collection of -tubes. This multi-scale property was exploited throughout the arguments in [16]. Theorem 5.2 differs from [16, Theorem 1.1], because the stickiness hypothesis has been replaced by the hypothesis that the tubes satisfy the Convex Wolff axioms at every scale. As we will see below, however, this latter hypothesis is sufficient in order to repeat the arguments from [16]. Indeed, with two exceptions that will be explained below, the arguments from [16] can be repeated mutatis mutatis to obtain Theorem 5.2.
The proof of [16, Theorem 1.1] is divided into several sections. The paper begins by supposing that the result is false, and studying the structure of a (hypothetical) counter-example. In Section 2, the authors define what it means for a pair of tubes and their associated shading to be a worst possible counter-example to [16, Theorem 1.1]; this is called an -extremal pair. In our discussion below, we will call it a -extremal pair. In [16], Section 3, it is shown that an -extremal pair must look coarsely self similar at every intermediate scale . More precisely, for every such it is possible to cover the tubes in by a collection of -tubes, so that the corresponding collection of -tubes is a worst possible counter-example to [16, Theorem 1.1] at scale , and the -tubes inside each -tube also a form a (re-scaled) worst-possible counter-example at scale . The analogous statement and proof in our setting are nearly identical; we will state the former and briefly sketch the latter.
In Sections 3, 4, and 5 of [16], the authors use the multi-scale self-similarity established in Section 2 of [16] to show that an extremal pair must have certain structural properties called planiness and graininess, and in particular there must exist local grains that are described by a Lipschitz plane map, and global grains that are described by a slope function ; this will be described in greater detail below. The arguments from [16] can be repeated without modification to establish the same conclusions in the present setting. In particular, the hypothesis from [16] that the tubes point in -separated directions has not been used up until this step.
In Section 6 of [16], the authors show that the derivative of the slope function has magnitude roughly 1 (and in particular, this quantity is bounded away from 0). It is during this step that the authors use the hypothesis that the tubes point in -separated directions. With some small modifications, we can instead use the hypothesis that the tubes satisfy the Convex Wolff axioms at every scale; we will elaborate on this step in Section 6.4.
Finally, in Section 7 of [16], the authors recall an analogue of Wolff’s circular maximal function estimate [19, 14], and they show how this estimate contradicts the assumption that there exits a collection of sticky tubes whose union has volume much smaller than 1, thereby completing the proof of the theorem. This section of [16] uses the assumption that the tubes point in different directions, in order to obtain a rich planar arrangement of curves to which Wolff’s circular maximal theorem can be applied. With some modifications, the direction-separated assumption can be replaced with a weaker ball condition; we will explain this in detail in Sections 6.5 and 7.
6.1 Relevant definitions from [16]
Before describing the arguments in [16], it will be helpful to recall a few key definitions. First, a minor technical annoyance: tubes and cubes in [16] are defined slightly differently than in the present paper. In [16], a -tube in is defined to be a set of the form , where is a line in . This definition is adopted for technical reasons, and for consistency with the results in [16] we will use this definition throughout Section (6); the distinction between this definition and our previous definition in Section 1 is not important in the arguments that follow. Second, in [16], a shading is defined to be a union of axis-aligned -cubes contained in . Again, the distinction between this definition and our previous one from Section 2.1 is harmless: replace each tube (in the sense of Section 1) and a each shading (in the sense of Section 2.1) with the corresponding tube in the sense of [16] and the the shadings consisting of the union of axis-aligned -cubes that satisfy . This gives us a collection of tubes and shadings in the sense of [16], and if the conclusion of Theorem 1.5 holds for this latter collection of tubes and shadings, then it also holds for the original collection of tubes and shadings, except Inequality (1.1) has been weakened by an additional (harmless) factor of .
Tubes, covers, rescaling.
We will often refer to a collection of -tubes , and a shading of these tubes. We will refer to this pair as . We use to denote the set ; the shading will always be apparent from context. For , we define
(6.1) |
We say a pair is a refinement of if ; for each ; and for some absolute constant (in practice, will always suffice).
Let . In [16], the authors say that a -tube covers a -tube if their respective coaxial lines satisfy , where is an appropriately chosen metric on the affine Grassmannian of lines in ; see Section 2 of [16] for details. Note that if covers , then , and hence this definition is consistent with ours from Definition 2.10 (the definition in [16] is slightly stronger than Definition 2.10, but the distinction is harmless).
If and are pairs of (resp. ) tubes and their associated shadings, then we say covers if each is covered by at least one , and for each covering , we have . If this is the case, we write to denote the set of tubes in covered by . We say that is a balanced cover of if it is a cover, and in addition is the same for each -cube .
Let be a set of -tubes and their associated shading. Let be a -tube, and suppose each tube in is covered by . We define a new pair , which we call the unit rescaling of relative to . Informally, our definition is as follows: consider the linear transformation that sends the coaxial line of to the axis, and dilates the and directions by ; the image of under this transformation is comparable to the unit ball. The tubes in are those -tubes whose coaxial lines are the images of the coaxial lines of the tubes in under this transformation. The shadings consist of the union of axis-aligned -cubes that intersect the image of under the above transformation. See Section 3 of [16] for details. As above, the definition of unit rescaling in [16] is slightly different than Definition 2.8, but the distinction is harmless.
The plane map.
In the arguments in [16], the authors show that certain collections of tubes possess an important structural property called planiness. Let be a set of tubes and their associated shading. We say a function is a plane map for if
where is a unit vector parallel to the line coaxial with .
Discretized Ahlfors-David regular sets.
We say a set is a -ADset if for all , all , and all intervals of length , we have , where means the -covering number of . In practice we will have , and will be a small power of . See Section 4 of [16] for further discussion and motivation for this definition.
6.2 Extremal collection of tubes, and multi-scale structure
We are ready to begin the proof of Theorem 5.2. Suppose to the contrary that the result was false. Then there exists so that for all , there exists ; a set of -tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error ; and a -dense shading , so that
(6.2) |
Let be the supremum of all numbers with the above property; this supremum exists, since by hypothesis the set of admissible is non-empty, and it is bounded above by 3. Our goal is to show that we must in fact have , and thereby obtain a contradiction.
The following definition is the analogue of [16, Definition 3.1].
Definition 6.1.
Let . We say a pair is -extremal if
-
1.
satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at all scales with error .
-
2.
is -dense.
-
3.
It is immediate from the above definitions that for every , there exists a -extremal collection of tubes for some ; cf. [16, Lemma 3.1].
Our next task is to prove an analogue of [16, Proposition 3.2]. The precise statement is as follows.
Proposition 6.2.
For all , there exists and so that the following holds for all . Let be a -extremal collection of tubes, and let . Then there is a refinement of and a balanced cover of with the following properties.
-
(i)
is -extremal.
-
(ii)
For each , the unit rescaling of relative to is -extremal.
-
(iii)
For each ,
-
(iv)
For each and each ,
Proof.
The proof is nearly identical to the proof of the corresponding statement in [16, Proposition 3.2]. In [16], the first major step was to establish the existence of a cover of (or more accurately, a large subset ), with the property that both and the the re-scaled sets are sticky. In our case, this step was handled by Lemma 2.13. The second major step was to establish a shading on and a refinement of the shadings on the sets so that not too many tubes pass through each point (and as a consequence, the corresponding collections are -extremal).
Next we will give a slightly more detailed sketch, though we refer the reader to the proof of [16, Proposition 3.2] for full details. We begin by reducing to the case where each satisfies . This can be done by discarding those tubes with and then repeatedly pigeonholing to re-establish a collection of tubes that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale (with a slightly worse constant, say ); after this process, the cardinality of our collection of tubes has been reduced by at most a factor of .
Next, we apply Lemma 2.13 with ; we get a number ; and a collection of -tubes, as described by that Lemma. Of course, we may replace each tube by corresponding -tube, and denote the resulting collection by . After pigeonholing to re-establish the property that the tubes are essentially distinct, it is still the case that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error , and each of the re-scaled collections satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale with error .
After refining the shadings , we may suppose that for each collection , the same number of tubes pass through each -cube in in the sense of (6.1); after further pigeonholing we may suppose that this number is the same (up to a multiplicative factor of 2) for each set ; call this number . Since is a (re-scaled) collection of tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale, if and are chosen sufficiently small then we must have ; this is Conclusion (iv) above.
Our next task is to define a shading on the tubes of . To begin, for each we consider the union of all -cubes that intersect . After pigeonholing, we can refine this shading so that each -cube intersects in a set of roughly the same size, and the same number of tubes from pass through each cube of ; call this number . We refine the corresponding shadings so that whenever ; in particular is now a balanced cover of . Note that Conclusion (iv) remains true after this procedure. Since satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , if and are chosen sufficiently small then we must have ; this is Conclusion (iii) above.
Finally, observe that , but on the other hand since was -extremal, we must have . We conclude that
and in particular Conclusions (i) and (ii) are satisfied. We refer the reader to [16] for complete details. ∎
6.3 Local and global grains
Using Proposition 6.2 in place of [16, Proposition 3.2], we can follow an identical argument as in [16] to obtain the analogue of [16, Proposition 4.1], which we recall here.
Proposition 6.3.
For all , there exists and a -extremal set of tubes with the following two properties.
-
1.
is a union of global grains with Lipschitz slope function.
There is a 1-Liptschitz function so that is a -ADset for each .
-
2.
is a union of local grains with Lipschitz plane map.
has a -Lipschitz plane map . For all and all , is a -ADset.
Following the same proof as [16, Section 5] using radial projections, we can upgrade the global grains slope function in Proposition 6.3 from Lipschitz to . This is the analogue of [16, Proposition 5.1]. The precise statement is as follows.
Proposition 6.4.
For all , there exists and a -extremal set of tubes with the following properties.
-
1’
Global grains with -slope function.
There is a function with so that is a -ADset for each .
-
2
Local grains with Lipschitz plane map.
has a -Lipschitz plane map . For all and all , is a -ADset.
6.4 The slope function has large slope
Our next task is to show that the global grains slope function in Proposition 6.3 has derivative with magnitude bounded away from 0. As discussed above, the proof of the analogous statement [16, Proposition 6.1] used the property that contains tubes pointing in many different directions. Here, we will use the property that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms at every scale. The precise statement we need is as follows.
Proposition 6.5.
For all , there exists and a -extremal set of tubes with the following properties:
-
1”
Global grains with nonsingular -slope function. There is a function with and for all , so that is a -ADset for each .
-
2
Local grains with Lipschitz plane map.
has a -Lipschitz plane map . For all and all , is a -ADset.
Before proving 6.5, we will establish the following technical result, which is the analogue of [16, Lemma 6.3].
Lemma 6.6.
For all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of tubes that satisfies the conclusions of Proposition 6.4, with in place of . Let be an interval, with . Suppose that
(6.3) |
and that can be covered by a union of cubes of side-length .
Then the slope function from Proposition 6.4 satisfies
Proof.
The proof is the same as [16, Lemma 6.3] until Step 4: contains parallel tubes.
Here is a summary of Steps 1-3. After a refinement, we may suppose that for each point ,
(6.4) |
After a translation and a rotation, we may suppose that and . Since , if for some , then for all , and so . We identify a subset with so that
-
1.
for each and each , the -rectangular prism
(6.5) has a large intersection with :
(6.6) -
2.
Let be the projection to the first and third coordinates, then
-
3.
There is a such that
where the on the LHS denote -dimensional measure and on the RHS denote -dimensional measure, and each defined in (6.5) satisfies
Cover by a set of interior-disjoint squares of side-length . Let be a square with center . By Item 2 from Proposition 6.4, is a -ADset. Write and define . Since
(6.7) |
Define , then
This finishes the summary of Steps 1-3 and we have introduced the necessary geometric objects and notations.
In Step 4, we will show that the constraints from the above steps will force many tubes from to be contained in a rectangular prism (henceforth called a slab, to match the terminology in [16]) for some constant , which contradicts the assumption that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms (see Definition 6.1 and Definition 2.5).
For each , define . Recalling (6.3) and (6.4), we have
(6.8) |
Recall that each intersects at most 3 prisms , and for each such prism we have . By pigeonholing, there exists a square and a set with
(6.9) |
It follows that is contained in the slab
By the Convex Wolff Axioms,
which yields a contradiction to (6.9). ∎
6.5 Twisted projections, and the completion of the proof
Recalling Definition 6.1 from [16], for we define the twisted projection . The consequence of Proposition 6.5 is the following analogue of [16, Corollary 6.5]
Lemma 6.7.
For all , there exists ; a set pair of -tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms with error and an -dense shading; and a function with and for all , so that
(6.11) |
To complete the proof of Theorem 5.2, it suffices to establish the following estimate, which is the analogue of [16, Proposition 7.1]
Proposition 6.8.
For all there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of -tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and let be a -dense shading. Let with and for all . Then
7 Twisted projections of tubes satisfying the Convex Wolff Axioms
Our goal in this section is to prove Proposition 6.8. In fact, we will prove a slightly stronger statement. We say a set of tubes satisfies the Tube Wolff Axioms with error , if for every -tube , at most tubes from are contained in ; since -tubes are convex, this is a special case of the Convex Wolff Axioms. We will prove the following mild generalization of Proposition 6.8
Proposition 7.1.
For all there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of -tubes satisfying the Tube Wolff Axioms with error , and let be a -dense shading. Let with and for all . Then
Before proving Proposition 7.1, we will need to introduce two closely related non-concentration conditions for subsets of , which arise from discretizing fractal sets. The first was proposed by Katz and Tao [8], while the second was explored by Orponen and Shmerkin [12].
Definition 7.2.
Let , , and . A non-empty bounded set is called a -Katz-Tao set if
Definition 7.3.
Let , , and . A non-empty bounded set is called a -Frostman set if
Remark 7.4.
If is a set of -tubes contained in a bounded set such as , then we can identify the coaxial line of each tube with a point in . If satisfies the Tube Wolff Axioms, then the corresponding set of points in forms a -Frostman set (technically the corresponding set of points might be a multi-set, but this is harmless—we can either extend the definition of a Orponen-Shmerkin-set to include this possibility, or infinitesimally perturb the tubes to avoid this situation).
Remark 7.5.
If is a -Katz-Tao set (resp. -Frostman set), then is a -Katz-Tao set (resp. -Frostman set), where , and conversely.
Lemma 7.6.
Let be a -Frostman set. Then there exists a -Katz-Tao set , with .
Proof.
Recall that the -dimensional Hausdorff content is defined as
where each in the covering is a cube and is the side-length of . By [3, Lemma 3.13], if , then there exists a -Katz-Tao set with . Thus in order to prove the lemma, it suffices to obtain the bound
(7.1) |
The remainder of the proof is devoted to establishing (7.1). By Remark 7.5, we can assume is a union of -balls (this introduces a harmless loss). Let be a cover of by balls. Sort the balls according to their side-length; it suffices to consider balls of side-length since is a union of -balls. By dyadic pigeonholing, there exists a dyadic number such that
Since is a -Frostman set, . The number of in the cover with is . This establishes (7.1) and concludes the proof. ∎
The following definition describes when a discretized set is homogeneous at many different scales.
Definition 7.7 (-uniform set up to scale ).
Let be a small parameter. A set is called an -uniform set up to scale if for any , if two -cubes , then the -covering numbers are comparable, in the sense that
Let be a small parameter and . Given an arbitrary set , [13, Lemma 2.15] says there exists an uniform set up to scale and . We call an -uniform refinement (usually is clear from context and we omit it from notation).
Even though [13, Lemma 2.15] is for dyadic cubes, the same argument works for any set and the relevant -balls , which we restate in our language below.
Lemma 7.8.
Let and let , . Then there exists an -uniform refinement such that
In particular, if and , then
Given an -uniform set with -covering number , the next lemma finds an Orponen-Shmerkin-set if one zooms in at sufficiently small scale.
Lemma 7.9.
For any , there exists such that for any , the following holds. Let be an -uniform set with . Then there exists such for any -cube ,
where is an affine transformation that maps to the unit cube.
Proof.
Let to be determined later. We shall apply the multi-scale decomposition techniques developed by Keleti and Shmerkin [11]. By [15, Lemma 5.21], there exists a decomposition of scales such that
-
•
, where depends only on .
-
•
For each -cube , is a -set, where is an affine transformation that maps to the unit cube.
-
•
.
In principle there is no control on the values of . However, we can fix this as follows. The “Merging Lemma,” [15, Lemma 5.20] says that if , then for each -cube , is a -set, where
Start with the output of [15, Lemma 5.21] applying to , if there exists , apply [15, Lemma 5.20] to merge the two intervals and to and the two numbers becomes . Rename the set of intervals and s and replace by . Iterate the process until for all . Now we have obtained a decomposition of scales such that
-
•
, where depends only on .
-
•
For each -cube , is a -set, where is an affine transformation that maps to the unit cube.
-
•
and .
Let be the smallest such that . It follows from
that
Define . For any -cube and . Since , is a union of -balls that is a -set if . The conclusion holds with replaced by . ∎
Lemma 7.10.
Let . Suppose is a cube of side-length and is a -Katz-Tao set with Then there exists a -Katz-Tao set with so that for each axis-aligned -cube that intersects , we have that is a translation of .
Proof.
Divide the unit cube into a union of cubes of side length . For each , let denote the translation that maps the center of to the center of . Define . Since the side-length of is greater than the side-length of , are disjoint, and so .
It remains to verify that is a -Katz-Tao set. By the construction of , it suffices to check that for each ,
To see this, when , we have On the other hand, when , we have
We prove a single scale version of Proposition 7.1.
Lemma 7.11.
For all there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a set of -tubes satisfying the Tube Wolff Axioms with error , and let be a -dense shading. Let with and for all . Then there exists and -shading such that
(7.2) |
The quantity on the RHS of (7.2) will be closely related to the graph of cinematic functions (see [16, Definition 7.1]). To estimate it, we recall [16, Theorem 7.2].
Theorem 7.12.
Let be a compact interval and let be a family of cinematic functions (see [16, Definition 1.6]). Then for all , there exists so that the following holds for all . Let be a -separated set that satisfies the Frostman non-concentration condition
(7.3) |
Then
where is the -neighborhood of graph(g).
Proof of Lemma 7.11.
Let and be a small parameter to be chosen later. For each dyadic number , let be the set of such that , where the sum is over a -separated set of and was defined in (6.1). By pigeonholing, there exists such that is a -dense shading.
Apply Lemma 7.8 to find an -uniform subset such that . By double counting, this implies that for a -fraction of , . Define .
Observe that the image of the line under the twisted projection is the curve
After possibly refinement and rotation, each tube is -neighborhood of a line of the form intersecting the unit cube. Let denote set of parameters of these lines, i.e.
Since satisfies the Tube Wolff axioms, if then every -tube contains at most tubes from , and hence the point set of parameters is a -Frostman set.
Let . By Fubini, there exists a such that . Apply Lemma 7.8 to refine to be an -uniform subset.
So far we only know the -covering number of but not the spacing condition. To apply Theorem 7.12, we need to know the spacing of . By Lemma 7.9, there exists such that for any -cube , is a -set with .
By Lemma 7.6, since is a -set, there exists a -Katz-Tao set with Then is a -Katz-Tao set contained in , a cube of side-length . By Lemma 7.10, there exist translations such that the set is a -Katz-Tao set with For each and , define the shading on the tube , where , as
For each , define . Then for each fixed pair ,
(7.4) |
where the union is taken over all and the corresponding . To see that (7.4) holds, let . Then if and only if
Therefore,
which establishes (7.4). Finally, integrating (7.4) in yields
(7.5) |
Proof of Proposition 7.1.
Let to be determined. Let be the set of tubes with , then Apply Lemma 7.8 to find an -uniform subset with . Then becomes a set of -tubes satisfying the Tube Wolff Axioms with error and is a -dense shading. To ease the notation, still let denote .
By Lemma 7.11, we can find a scale and a -shading such that
Consider as the set of distinct -tubes containing at least one tube in . Since is -uniform, satisfies the Tube Wolff Axioms with error . Define be a shading on as . Therefore, is a -dense shading. Apply Lemma 7.11 on and find and corresponding such that
Since for any , , we have
Iterate the above process and obtain correspondingly scales until . Since , . When is sufficiently small depending on ,
We conclude with replaced by . ∎
8 The consequences of Theorem 1.5
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Suppose to the contrary that that there exists a Kakeya set with for some , i.e. there exists so that
(8.1) |
Replacing by , we may suppose that (8.1) holds with .
Let be the values from Theorem 1.5, with . Let be chosen sufficiently small (we will describe the choice of in further detail below), and let be a set of -tubes contained in that point in separated directions; in particular the tubes in are essentially distinct and satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; we will select sufficiently small so that . For each let ; this is a 1-dense shading.
Apply Theorem 1.5 with . We conclude that there exists with , and a ball of radius so that (1.1) holds, and hence
(8.2) |
Comparing (8.1) and (8.2), we obtain a contradiction, provided is selected sufficiently small depending on , and the implicit constant in (8.2). We conclude that every Kakeya set in has Assouad dimension 3. ∎
Remark 8.1.
As noted in the introduction, the conclusion of Theorem 1.2 continues to hold if we remove the hypotheses that the lines point in different directions, and replace this with the requirement that the lines satisfy a variant of the Wolff axioms. This is most easily stated in the discretized setting: For all , there exists so that the following holds. Let be a set of -tubes that satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error . Then has discretized Assouad dimension at scale and scale separation .
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
Suppose to the contrary that there exists a Kakeya set with essentially equal Hausdorff and packing dimension . Without loss of generality, we can assume . Let ; in what follows, all implicit constant may depend on . Let and be the quantities from Theorem 1.5 for this choice of . Let . Since has essentially equal Hausdorff and packing dimension, we can find a measure supported on so that
(8.3) |
and there exists and a set of positive measure, so that for each there is a line pointing in direction , with .
Let be a -separated subset of of cardinality . For each , let be a -tube with coaxial line , which satisfies . Define the shading
We have for each tube ; we will select sufficiently small so that . Let . Since the tubes in point in -separated directions, the tubes are essentially distinct and satisfy the Convex Wolff Axioms with error ; we will select sufficiently small so that satisfies the convex Wolff Axioms with error at most . Thus we can apply Theorem 1.5 to conclude there exist scales with , and a ball of radius so that (1.1) holds.
Let be a -separated subset of of cardinality . Then by (8.3) we have
Re-arranging and using the fact that as well as the definition of and , we conclude that
If is selected sufficiently small, then this is impossible. We conclude that every Kakeya set in with essentially equal Hausdorff and packing dimension must have dimension 3. ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.7.
Let . Let and be the quantities from Theorem 1.5 with in place of . Let , let be a set of essentially distinct -tubes in that satisfies the Convex Wolff Axioms with error , and let be a shading with .
Let . For each , apply Theorem 1.5 to with the shading ; let , and be the output from this theorem. Define . We repeat this process until , at which point we have
After dyadic pigeonholing, we can select with , and a set of indices with the following properties.
-
•
For each index we have and
-
•
Next, we can greedily select a set of indices so that the above properties continue to hold (with the implicit constant in the second item worsened slightly), so that the sets are pairwise disjoint.
References
- [1] A. Cordoba. The Kakeya maximal function and the spherical summation multipliers. Am. J. Math. 99:1–22, 1977.
- [2] R. Davies. Some remarks on the Kakeya problem. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 69:417–421, 1971.
- [3] K. Fässler and T. Orponen. On restricted families of projections in . Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 109 (2014), no. 2, 353–381.
- [4] J. Fraser, E. Olson, and J. Robinson. Some results in support of the Kakeya conjecture. Real Anal. Exch.. 42(2): 253–268, 2017.
- [5] J. Fraser. Assouad Dimension and Fractal Geometry. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK. 2020.
- [6] S. Gan, L. Guth, and D. Maldague. An exceptional set estimate for restricted projections to lines in . J. Geom. Anal. 34:15, 2024.
- [7] N.H. Katz, I. Łaba, and T. Tao. An improved bound on the Minkowski dimension of Besicovitch sets in . Ann. of Math. 152, 383–446, 2000.
- [8] N.H. Katz and T. Tao. Some connections between Falconer’s distance set conjecture, and sets of Furstenburg type. New York J. Math. 7, 149–187, 2001.
- [9] N.H. Katz and T. Tao. Recent progress on the Kakeya conjecture. Publicacions Matematiques, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Harmonic Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, U. Barcelona, pp. 161–180, 2002.
- [10] N.H. Katz, S. Wu, and J. Zahl Kakeya sets from lines in . Ars Inven. Anal. paper no 6, 1–23, 2023.
- [11] T. Keleti and P. Shmerkin. New bounds on the dimensions of planar distance sets. Geom. Funct. Anal., 29(6):1886–1948, 2019.
- [12] T. Orponen and P. Shmerkin. On the Hausdorff dimension of Furstenberg sets and orthogonal projections in the plane. To appear, Duke Math. J. arXiv:2106.03338, 2021.
- [13] T. Orponen and P. Shmerkin. Projections, Furstenberg sets, and the sum-product problem. arXiv:2301.10199, 2023
- [14] M. Pramanik, T. Yang, J. Zahl. A Furstenberg-type problem for circles, and a Kaufman-type restricted projection theorem in . arXiv:2207.02259, 2022.
- [15] P. Shmerkin and H. Wang. On the distance sets spanned by sets of dimension in . arXiv:2112.09044, 2021.
- [16] H. Wang and J. Zahl. Sticky Kakeya sets and the sticky Kakeya conjecture. arXiv:2210.09581, 2022.
- [17] T. Wolff. An improved bound for Kakeya type maximal functions. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 11(3):651–674, 1995.
- [18] T. Wolff. Recent work connected with the Kakeya problem, in Prospects in Mathematics (Princeton, NJ, 1996), pp. 129–162, Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, RI, 1999.
- [19] T. Wolff. A Kakeya-type problem for circles. Am. J. Math 119(5):985–1026, 1997.