Submitted:
14 October 2024
Posted:
16 October 2024
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Intro
1.1. First Special Case of A
- 1
- for all B
- 2
- for all B?
1.1.1. Potential Answer
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] (pp. 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] (pp. 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
- 1.
- for all B
- 2.
- for all B
- 3.
-
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
- 1.
- (i.e., is “almost everywhere" in )
- 2.
- 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 Equation (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 Section 1.3
3.1. Note
- “Set theoretic limit" (Section 5.1)
- “Expected value on sequences of bounded sets" (Section 5.2)
- “Equivelant sequences of bounded sets" (Section 5.3, Definition 1)
- “Nonequivelant sequences of bounded sets" (Section 5.3, Definition 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 (Section 5.4.1, Section 5.4.2)
- The “actual" rate of expansion on a sequence of bounded sets (Section 5.5)
3.2. Leading Question
- (A)
- See Section 3.1 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 (Section 5.5)
- 1.
- The chosen, equivelant sequences of bounded sets should satisfy (B).
- 2.
- 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).
- 3.
- The expected values, defined in the papers of Section 2, for all equivalent sequences of bounded sets are equivalent and finite
- 4.
-
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] (pp. 275–322) 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)
- 5.
-
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
- 6.
- 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 Section 3.2
- 1.
- When defining “the measure" (Section 5.4.1, Section 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 Section 5.4.1-Section 6, Section 8.
- 2.
- 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 (Section 5.3, Definition 2) of bounded sets have the same minimum Euclidean distance from C.
- 3.
- Hence, we take the sequence of sets whose actual rate of expansion from C (Section 5.5) “diverges" [6] (pp. 275-322) 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 Section 3.2 criteria (1), (2), and (3)).
- 4.
- Finally, since there might still be non-equivalent sequences (Section 5.3, Definition 2) of bounded sets which satisfy Section 3.2.1 criteria (1), (2) and (3), but are congruent with different , we use equation T in Section 6.3 Equation (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 Section 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
- 1.
-
For all , there exists a , where:We show this with the following:We also show:
- 2.
-
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
How do we find A, where (Section 5.2)?
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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Appendix 8.3.3.)
- (d)
- Take the shannon entropy [11] (pp. 61-95) of step (3c). We define this:which will be shortened to . (In case this is unclear, see Section 8.3.4)
- (e)
- Maximize the entropy w.r.t all "pathways". This we will denote:
(In case this step is unclear, see Section 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
- When is the cardinality, for all and ,
-
For all and , the largest can be is
- Area
- Area
- 1.
- Cover the circle, with the same or larger-sized circle, which can be divided into minimum t “pie-slices" of equal area . Notice, .
- 2.
- Take the centroid of each slice
- 3.
- 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
- 4.
- 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.
- 5.
- Multiply the distances by a constant so they add up to 1 (i.e., a probability distribution)
- 6.
- Take the shannon entropy of the distribution using log base 2 in Section 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 4 crit. 2 & note 5 crit. 1):


- Limit[(.005 j - .004) Log[
- 2, (Ceiling[(6 (j^2) Pi)/eps] -
- 1)/(Ceiling[(6 ((j - 1)^2 ) Pi)/eps] - 1)], j -> Infinity]
- (*Output of code is .014427 if eps>0*)
- For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words, for every , we want where:

-
For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words,for every , we want where:

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
- When is the cardinality, for all and ,
-
For all and , the largest can be is
- For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words, for every , we want where:
- 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 Section 1.3
6.1. Choice Function
- is the sequence of bounded sets satisfying (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the leading question in Section 3.2.
- is all sequences of bounded sets which satisfy (1) and (2) of the leading question
- but not in the set of equivelant sequences of bounded sets to . Note, using the end of Definition 1, we represent this criteria as:
6.2. Approach
6.3. Potential Answer
6.3.1. Preliminaries (Definition of T in case of Section 3.2.1 (4))
- If , then
- If , then
- If , then
6.3.2. Question
6.4. Explaining The Choice Function and Evidence The Choice Function Is Credible
- (a)
- When , then:
- (b)
- When , then:
- 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.,





7. Questions
- Does Section 6 answer the in Section 3.2.
- Using Section 1.1 and Theorem 10, when does have a finite value?
- Using Section 1.2 and Theorem 10, when does have a finite value?
- If there’s no time to check questions 1 and 3, see Section 4.
8. Appendix of Section 5.4.1
8.1. Example of Section 5.4.1, step 1
- 1.
- 2.


8.2. Example of Section 5.4.1, step 2

8.3. Example of Section 5.4.1, step iii
8.3.1. Step 33a
- is the next point in the “pathway" since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of .
- is the third point since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of and .
- is the fourth point since it’s a point in with the smallest 2-d Euclidean distance to instead of , , and .
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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 author. 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).