Submitted:
07 October 2024
Posted:
08 October 2024
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Intro
1.1. First Special Case of A
- for all B
- for all B?
1.1.1. Potential Answer
- Find a set , where the cardinality is and for every interval I, taking its cross product with to get the set desired.
- Construct a subset of with this property (then copy and paste the set to get the desired subset of ):
Note, we do this by constructing a strange map from . Take a real number , expand that number in binary as and map the value to the series . It’s possible using Khintchine’s inequality [2, p.187-205] to show the sum converges for a.e. . Thus, our desired set will just consist of those x for which the sum is positive.
The fact this set works is a little bit annoying to prove, but relies on Khintchine’s inequality [2, p.187-205] and the divergence of the Harmonic series. Essentially, we want to show that for any initial seqeuence of digits there is a positive probability that the final sum is positive and a positive probability that the final sum is negative.
1.2. Second Special Case of A
- for all B
- for all B
-
For all n-d boxes :
- (a)
- (b)
- (c)
- ?
1.3. Attempting to Analyze/Average A
1.3.1. Explanation of Problem 1
1.3.2. Explanation of Problem 2
1.3.3. Approach
- (i.e., is “almost everywhere" in )
- If (1) isn’t true, then
1.3.4. Explanation of Approach
1.4. Question
2. Extending the Expected Value of A w.r.t the Hausdorff Measure
- One way is defining a generalized, satisfying extension of the Hausdorff measure, on all A with positive & finite measure which takes positive, finite values for all Borel A. This can theoretically be done in the paper “A Multi-Fractal Formalism for New General Fractal Measures"[3], where in eq. 1 we replace the Hausdorff measure with the extended Hausdorff measure.
- Another way is finding generalized, satisfying average of all A in the fractal setting. This can be done with the papers “Analogues of the Lebesgue Density Theorem for Fractal Sets of Reals and Integers" [4] and “Ratio Geometry, Rigidity and the Scenery Process for Hyperbolic Cantor Sets" [5] where we take the expected value of A w.r.t the densities in [4,5].
3. Attempt to Define “Unique and Satisfying" in The Approach of §1.3
3.1. Note
- “Set theoretic limit" (§5.1)
- “Expected value on sequences of bounded sets" (§5.2)
- “Equivelant sequences of bounded sets" (§5.3, def. 1)
- “Nonequivelant sequences of bounded sets" (§5.3, def. 2)
- The “measure" on a sequence of bounded sets which increases at a rate linear or superlinear to that of “non-equivelant" sequences of bounded sets (§5.4.1, §5.4.2)
- The “actual" rate of expansion on a sequence of bounded sets (§5.5)
3.2. Leading Question
If we make sure to:
- (A)
See and (C)-(E) when something is unclear- (B)
Take all sequences of bounded sets whose “set theoretic limit" is A- (C)
Define C to be chosen center point of- (D)
Define E to be the chosen, fixed rate of expansion of a sequence of bounded sets- (E)
Define to be actual rate of expansion of a sequence of bounded sets (5.5)
-
Does there exist a unique choice function which chooses the set of all equivalent sequences of bounded sets where:
- The chosen, equivelant sequences of bounded sets should satisfy (B).
- The “measure" of all the chosen, equivalent sequences of bounded sets which satisfy (1) should increase at a rate linear or superlinear to that of non-equivalent sequences of bounded sets satisfying (B).
- The expected values, defined in the papers of §2, for all equivalent sequences of bounded sets are equivalent and finite
-
For the chosen, equivalent sequences of bounded sets satisfying (1), (2), and (3).
- The n-d Euclidean distance between criteria (3) and C is the less than or equal to that of all the non-equivalent sequences of bounded sets satisfying (1), (2), and (3)
- The “rate of divergence" [6] of , using the absolute value , is less than or equal to that of all the non-equivalent sequences of bounded sets which satisfy (1), (2), and (3)
-
When set is the set of all unbounded A, where the choice function chooses the set of all equivalent sequences of bounded sets satisfying (1), (2), (3) and (4), then:
- When , then
- Out of all choice functions which satisfy (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) we choose the one with the simplest form, meaning for each choice function fully expanded, we take the one with the fewest variables/numbers?
3.2.1. Explaining Motivation Behind 3.2
- When defining “the measure" (§5.4.1,§5.4.2) of an unbounded set, we want a set with a “high" entropic density (i.e., we aren’t sure if this is infact what the “measure" measures.) For example, when , the “measure" mostly chooses bounded sequences of symmetrical shapes whose lines of symmetry intersect at one point rather than non-symmetrical shapes §5.4.1-§6, §8.
- Using ex. 1, when , depending on the bounded sequence of setschosen with a set theoretic limit of A: can be any point in (when it exists). To fix this, we take all , where has the smallest n-d Euclidean distance from a reference point (i.e., the center point ). The problem is there exists A, where the average of non-equivalent sequences (§5.3, def. 2) of bounded sets have the same minimum Euclidean distance from C.
- Hence, we take the sequence of sets whose actual rate of expansion from C (5.5) “diverges" [6] at the smallest rate from the chosen, fixed rate of expansion E from C (i.e., the “rate of divergence of , using the absolute value , is less than or equal to that of all the non-equivalent sequences of bounded sets which satisfy §3.2 criteria (1), (2), and (3)).
- Finally, since there might still be non-equivalent sequences (§5.3, def. 2) of bounded sets which satisfy 3.2.1 criteria (1), (2) and (3), but are congruent with different , we use equation T in §6.3 eq. 115 to choose a unique set of all equivalent sequences of bounded sets with the same expected value.
4. Question Regarding My Work
Is there a research paper which already solves the ideas I’m working on? (Non-published papers, such as mine [7], don’t count.)
5. Clarifying §3
Is there a simpler version of the definitions below?
5.1. Set Theoretic Limit of a Sequence of Bounded Sets
5.2. Expected Value of Bounded Sequences of Sets
5.2.1. Example 1
5.2.2. Example 2
5.3. Defining Equivelant and Non-Equivelant Sequences of Bounded Functions
5.3.1. Explanation
5.3.2. Example of Equivalent Sequences of Bounded Sets
-
For all , there exists a , where:We show this with the following:We also show:
-
For all , there exists a , where:We show this with the following:
5.3.3. Explanation
5.3.4. Example of Non-Equivalent Sequences of Bounded Sets
- 1.
-
For all , there exists a , where:We show this with the following:Since is a 1-d interval, . Hence:
5.3.5. Question
5.4. Defining the “Measure"
5.4.1. Preliminaries
- 1.
- For every , “over-cover" with minimal, pairwise disjoint sets of equal measure. (We denote the equal measures , where the former sentence is defined : i.e., enumerates all collections of these sets covering . In case this step is unclear, see §8.1.)
- 2.
- For every , r and , take a sample point from each set in . The set of these points is “the sample" which we define : i.e., enumerates all possible samples of . (In the case this is unclear, see §8.2.)
- 3.
-
For every , r, and ,
- (a)
- Take a “pathway” of line segments: we start with a line segment from arbitrary point of to the sample point with smallest n-dimensional Euclidean distance to (i.e., when more than one sample point has smallest n-dimensional Euclidean distance to , take either of those points). Next, repeat this process until the “pathway” intersects with every sample point once. (If this is unclear, see §8.3.1.)
- (b)
- Take the set of the length of all segments in (3a), except for lengths that are outliers [10] (i.e., for any constant , the outliers are more than C times the interquartile range of the length of all line segments as ). Define this . (In the case this is unclear, see §8.3.2.)
- (c)
- Multiply remaining lengths in the pathway by a constant so they add up to one (i.e., a probability distribution). This will be denoted . (In case this step is unclear, see §8.3.3.)
- (d)
- Take the shannon entropy [11][ p.61-95] of step (3c). We define this:which will be shortened to . (In case this is unclear, see §8.3.4)
- (e)
- Maximize the entropy w.r.t all "pathways". This we will denote:
(In case this step is unclear, see §8.3.5.) - 4.
- Therefore, the maximum entropy of w.r.t , using (1) and (2) is:
5.4.2. What Am I Measuring?
- (a)
- (b)
- 1.
- If using and we have:then what I’m measuring from increases at a rate superlinear to that of .
- 2.
- If using equations and (where we swap and , in and , with and ) we get:then what I’m measuring from increases at a rate sublinear to that of .
- 3.
-
If using equations , , , and , we both have:
- (a)
- or are equal to zero, one or
- (b)
- or are equal to zero, one or
then what I’m measuring from increases at a rate linear to that of .
5.4.3. Example of the “Measure" of Converging Super-Linearly to That of
- 1.
- When is the cardinality, for all and ,
- 2.
-
For all and , the largest can be is
- 1.
- 2.
- 1.
- 2.
- Cover the circle, with the same or larger-sized circle, which can be divided into minimum t “pie-slices" of equal area . Notice, .
- Take the centroid of each slice
- Out of all centroids in step 2, take the centroid with the largest x-coordinate: i.e., denote this point which is the start-point of the pathway of line segments in the resulting step
- Take the distances between all pairs of consecutive centroids, starting with , rotating counter-clockwise or clockwise. Either-way, the end result should change by only a negligible amount.
- Multiply the distances by a constant so they add up to 1 (i.e., a probability distribution)
- Take the shannon entropy of the distribution using log base 2 in §5.4.1(33d)-(33e). (Note, since the “pie-slices" of step 1 are congruent and the distances of step 4 are equal, the entropy of the distribution is the largest possible amount (i.e., note 42 crit. 1):
| Listing 1: Note 6 Steps (1)-(6) on |
![]() |
| Listing 2: Ouput of Code 1 |
![]() |
| Listing 3: Extra Code for Code 1 |
![]() |
![]() |
| Listing 4: Output of Code 3 |
![]() |
| Listing 5: Limit of 51 |
![]() |
- 1.
- For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words, for every , we want where:
| Listing 6: Limit of eq. 62 |
![]() |
![]() |
- 1.
-
For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words,for every , we want where:
| Listing 7: Limit of eq. 71 |
![]() |
5.4.4. Example of The “Measure" from Increasing at a Rate Sub-Linear to that of
5.4.5. Example of the “measure" of converging linearly to that of
- 1.
- When is the cardinality, for all and ,
- 2.
-
For all and , the largest can be is
- 1.
- 2.
- 1.
- 2.
- 1.
- For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words, for every , we want where:
- 1.
- For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words, for every , we want a , where:
5.5. Defining The Actual Rate of Expansion of Sequence of Bounded Sets From C
5.5.1. Definition of Actual Rate of Expansion of Sequence of Bounded Sets
5.5.2. Example
5.6. Reminder
6. My Attempt At Answering The Approach of §1.3
6.1. Choice Function
- 1.
- is the sequence of bounded sets satisfying (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the leading question in 3.2
- 2.
- is all sequences of bounded sets which satisfy (1) and of the leading question
- 3.
- but not in the set of equivelant sequences of bounded sets to . Note, using the end of def. 1, we represent this criteria as:
6.2. Approach
6.3. Potential Answer
6.3.1. Preliminaries (Definition of T in case of §3.2.1 (4))
- 1.
- If , then
- 2.
- If , then
- 3.
- If , then
6.3.2. Question
6.4. Explaining The Choice Function and Evidence The Choice Function Is Credible
- 1.
- The choice function in eq. 121 and eq. 122 is zero, when what I’m measuring from (§5.4.2 criteria 1) increases at a rate superlinear to that of , where .
- 2.
- The choice function in eq. 121 and eq. 122 is zero, when for a given and there doesn’t exist c where eq. 119 is satisfied or .
- 3.
-
When c does exist, suppose:
- (a)
- When , then:
- (b)
- When , then:
Hence, for each sub-criteria under crit. (3), if we subtract one of their limits by their limit value, then eq. 121 and eq. is zero. (We do this by using the “c"-term in eq. 121 and ). However, when the exponents of the “c"-terms aren’t equal to , the limits of eq. 121 and aren’t equal to zero. We, infact, want this when we swap with . Moreover, we define function (i.e., eq. 120), where:
- (i)
- (ii)
- When then is zero, which makes eq. 121 and equal zero.
- (iii)
-
Here are some examples of the numerator of (eq. 120):
- A.
- When , , and , the numerator of is
- B.
- When , , and , the numerator of is
- C.
- When , , and , the numerator of is ceiling of constant times the volume of an n-dimensional ball with finite radius: i.e.,
- D.
- When , , and , the numerator of is ceiling of the volume of the n-dimensional ball: i.e.,
- 1.
- 2.
| Listing 8: Code for eq. 121 and 122 on note 11 |
![]() |
![]() |
7. Questions
- 1.
- Does 6 answer the in 3.2
- 2.
- Using 1.1 and thm. 3, when does have a finite value?
- 3.
- Using 1.2 and thm. 3, when does have a finite value?
- 4.
- If there’s no time to check questions 1 and 2, see 4.
8. Appendix of §5.4.1
8.1. Example of §5.4.1, step 1
- 1.
- 2.


8.2. Example of §5.4.1, step 2
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.

8.3. Example of §5.4.1, step 3
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- , using eq. 141, is:
8.3.1. Step 33a
- 1.
- is the next point in the “pathway" since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of .
- 2.
- is the third point since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of and .
- 3.
- is the fourth point since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of , , and .
- 4.
- we continue this process, where the “pathway" of is:
8.3.2. Step 33b

8.3.3. Step 33c
8.3.4. Step 33d
8.3.5. Step 33e
References
- a.k.a u/Xixkdjfk, B.K. Is there a set with positive Lebesgue measure in any rectangle of the 2-d plane which is extremely non-uniform? https://www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/1eedqbx/comment/lfdf9zb/?context=3.
- Garling, D.J.H., Inequalities: A Journey into Linear Analysis; Cambridge University Press, 2007; p. 187–205.
- Achour, R.; Li, Z.; Selmi, B.; Wang, T. A multifractal formalism for new general fractal measures. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2024, 181, 114655. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077924002066.
- Bedford, T.; Fisher, A.M. Analogues of the Lebesgue density theorem for fractal sets of reals and integers. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 1992, 3, 95–124. https://www.ime.usp.br/~afisher/ps/Analogues.pdf.
- Bedford, T.; Fisher, A.M. Ratio geometry, rigidity and the scenery process for hyperbolic Cantor sets. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 1997, 17, 531–564. https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9405217.
- Sipser, M. Introduction to the Theory of Computation, 3 ed.; Cengage Learning, 2012; pp. 275–322.
- Krishnan, B. Bharath Krishnan’s ResearchGate Profile. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bharath-Krishnan-4.
- Barański, K.; Gutman, Y.; Śpiewak, A. Prediction of dynamical systems from time-delayed measurements with self-intersections. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 2024, 186, 103–149.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021782424000345. [CrossRef]
- Caetano, A.M.; Chandler-Wilde, S.N.; Gibbs, A.; Hewett, D.P.; Moiola, A. A Hausdorff-measure boundary element method for acoustic scattering by fractal screens. Numerische Mathematik 2024, 156, 463–532. [CrossRef]
- John, R. Outlier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier.
- M., G. Entropy and Information Theory, 2 ed.; Springer New York: New York [America];, 2011; pp. 61–95. https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/it.pdf. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).










