1. Intro
Let and suppose function , where A and f are Borel. We want a satisfying average for all pathological f taking finite values only. The problem is the expected value of certain examples of f (§2.1,§2.2), w.r.t the Hausdorff measure in its dimension, is undefined (§2.3). To fix this, we take the expected value of a sequence of bounded functions converging to f (§2.3.2); however, depending on the sequence of bounded functions chosen, the expected value could be one of several values (thm. 1). Hence, we define a leading question (§3.1) which chooses sequences of bounded functions with the same satisfying and finite expected value, such the term “satisfying" is explained rigorously.
Note, the leading question () was inspired by two problems (i.e., informal versions of thm. 2 and 5):
- (1)
-
If is the set of all , where the expected value of f w.r.t the Hausdorff measure in its dimension is finite, then F is shy [13].
- (2)
-
If is the set of all , where two sequences of bounded functions that converge to f have different expected values, then F is prevelant [13].
In section , we clarify the leading question (§3.1) by applying the rigorous definitions of the leading question to specific examples (§5.2.1). We also define a “measure" (§5.3.1,§5.3.2) of the sequence of a bounded functions’ graphs. This is crucial for defining a satisfying expected value, where “measure" is defined by:
- (1)
Covering each graph with minimal, pairwise disjoint sets of equal Hausdorff measure (§8.1)
- (2)
Taking a sample point from each cover (§8.2)
- (3)
Taking a “pathway of line segments" starting with sample point to the sample point with the smallest Euclidean distance from (i.e., when more than one point has the smallest Euclidean distance to , take either of those points). Next, repeat this process until the pathway intersects with every sample point once (§8.3.1)
- (4)
Taking the length of each line segments in the pathway and remove the outliers which are more than times the interquartile range of the length of each line segment as (§8.3.2),
- (5)
Multiply the remaining lengths by a constant to get a probability distribution (§8.3.3)
- (6)
Taking the entropy of the distribution (§8.3.4)
- (7)
Taking the maximum entropy w.r.t all pathways (§8.3.5)
We give examples of how to apply the “measure" (§5.3.3-§5.3.5), then define the actual rate of expansion of a bounded functions’ graph (§5.4).
Finally, we answer the leading question in . Since the answer is complicated, is likely incorrect, and the leading question might not admit an unique expected value, it is best to keep refining the leading question (§3.1) instead of woring on an immediate solution.
2. Formalizing the Intro
Let and suppose function , where A and f are Borel. Let be the Hausdorff dimension, where is the Hausdorff measure in its dimension on the Borel -algebra.
We want an unique, satisfying average for each of the following functions (§2.1,§2.2) taking finite values only. We explain the method of averaging in later sections, starting from §2.3.1.
2.1. First Special Case of f
If the graph of f is G, we want an explicit f where:
- (1)
The function f is everywhere surjective [1] (i.e., f is defined on a topological space where its’ restriction to any non-empty open subset is surjective).
- (2)
2.1.1. Potential Answer
If , using this post [3]:
Consider a Cantor set with Hausdorff dimension 0 [4]. Now consider a countable disjoint union such that each is the image of C by some affine map and every open set contains for some m. Such a countable collection can be obtained by e.g. at letting be contained in the biggest connected component of (with the center of being the middle point of the component).
Note that has Hausdorff dimension 0, so has Hausdorff dimension one [2].
Now, let such that is a bijection for all m (all of them can be constructed from a single bijection , which can be obtained without choice, although it may be ugly to define) and outside let g be defined by , where has a graph with Hausdorff dimension 2 [14] (this doesn’t require choice either).
Then the function g has a graph with Hausdorff dimension 2 and is everywhere surjective, but its graph has Lebesgue measure 0 because it is a graph (so it admits uncountably many disjoint vertical translates).
Note, we can make the construction with union of rather explicit as follows. Split the binary expansion of x as strings of size with a power of two, say becomes . If this sequence eventually contains only strings of the form or , say after , then send it to , where . Otherwise, send it to the explicit continuous function h given by the linked article [14]. This will give you something from
Finally, compose an explicit (reasonable) bijection from to . In your case, the construction can be easily adapted so that the or target space is actually , then compose with .
In case we cannot obtain a unique, satisfying average from , consider the following:
2.2. Second Special Case of f
Suppose, we define
, where
, such that:
In the next section, we state why we want and §2.2.
2.3. Attempting to Analyze/Average f
Suppose, the expected value of
f w.r.t the Hausdorff measure in its dimension is:
Then, using
, the integral of
f w.r.t the Hausdorff measure
in its dimension is undefined: i.e., the graph of
f has Hausdorff dimension 2 with a zero 2-d Hausdorff measure (§2.1.1). Hence,
is undefined.
Moreover, obseve that in
,
f is nowhere continuous and defined on a countably infinite set, which means depending on the enumeration of
A or the sequence
, where the expected value of
f (when it exists) is:
the expected value
is any number from
to
. Hence, we need a specific enumeration that gives a unique, satisfying, and finite expected value, generalizing this process to nowhere continuous functions defined on
uncountable domains.
Thus, we want the “expected value of chosen sequences of bounded functions converging to f with the same satisfying and finite expected value" which we describe rigorously in later sections; however, consider the following definitions beginning with §2.3.1:
2.3.1. Definition of Sequences of Functions Converging to f
Let and suppose function , where A and f are Borel.
The sequence of functions , where and is a sequence of sets, converges to f when:
For any , there exists a sequence s.t. and .
2.3.2. Expected Value of Sequences of Functions Converging to f
Now, suppose:
(§2.3.1)
is the absolute value
be the Hausdorff dimension
is the Hausdorff measure in its dimension on the Borel -algebra
the integral is defined, w.r.t the Hausdorff measure in its dimension
The expected value of
is a real number
, when the following is true:
when no such
exists,
is infinite or undefined.
2.3.3. The Set of All Bounded Functions in a Function Space
Let and suppose the function , where A and f are Borel. Then, we define the following:
is the set of all bounded Borel functions in a function space
For example, is the set of all bounded Borel functions in and is the set of all bounded Borel subsets of . Note, however:
Theorem 1.
For all , suppose and . There exists a , where and (2.3.2)
For example, the expected values of the sequences of bounded functions converging to f (§2.3.1, §2.3.2) in and satisfy thm. 1. For simplicity, we illustrate this with .
2.3.4. Example Illustrating Theorem 1
For the second case of Borel
(§2.2), where
, and:
suppose:
and
where for
,
and for
Note,
and
are bounded since
f is bounded. Also, the set-theoretic limit of
and
is
: i.e.,
where:
(We aren’t sure how to prove the set-theoretic limits; however, a mathematician specializing in rational numbers and limits should be able to check.)
Hence, (thm. 1).
Now, suppose we want to average
and
, which we denote
and
. Note, this is the same as computing the following (i.e., the cardinality is
and the absolute value is
):
Hence, if we assume
in eq.
8, using [9]:
The sum counts the number of fractions with an even denominator and an odd numerator in set , after canceling all possible factors of 2 in the fraction. Let us consider the first case. We can write:
where counts the fractions in that are not counted in , i.e., for which . This is the case when the denominator is odd after the cancellation of the factors of 2, i.e., when the numerator c has a number of factors of 2 greater than or equal to that of , which we will denote by a.k.a the 2-valuation of , [11]. That means, c must be a multiple of . The number of such c with is simply the length of that inteval, equal to , divided by . Thus,
This obviously tends to zero, proving
Last, we need to show , where proving theorem 1.
Concerning the second case [9], it is again simpler to consider the complementary set of such that the denominator is odd when all possible factors of 2 are canceled. We can see that for , and these obviously include all those we had for smaller v. The “new" elements in with are those that have the denominator when written in lowest terms. Their number is equal to the number of , , which is given by Euler’s function. Since we also consider negative fractions, we have to multiply this by 2. Including , we have . There is no simple explicit expression for this (cf. oeis:A99957 [12]), but we know that [12]. On the other hand, the total number of all elements of is , since each time we increase v by 1, we have the additional fractions with the new denominator and the numerators are coprime with d, again with the sign + or −. From oeis:A002088 [10] we know that , so , which finally gives as desired.
Hence, and proving thm.1.
Thus, consider:
2.4. Definition of Prevalent and Shy Sets
A Borel set is said to be prevalent if there exists a Borel measure on X such that:
- (1)
for some compact subset C of X, and
- (2)
the set has full -measure (that is, the complement of has measure zero) for all .
More generally, a subset F of X is prevalent if F contains a prevalent Borel Set.
Moreover:
Hence:
If is prevelant, we say “almost every" element of X lies in F.
If is shy, we say “almost no" element of X lies in F.
2.5. Motivation for Averaging and
If
is the expected value of
f, w.r.t the Hausdorff measure
in its dimension,
Consider the following problems:
Theorem 2. If is the set of all , where is finite, then F is shy .
Note 3 (
Proof theorem 2 is true).
We follow the argument presented in Example 3.6 of this paper [13], take (measurable functions over A), let P denote the one-dimensional subspace of A consisting of constant functions (assuming the Lebesgue measure on A) and let (measurable functions over A without finite integral). Let denote the Lebesgue measure over P, for any fixed :
Meaning P is a one-dimensional, so f is a 1-prevalent set.
Note 4 (Way of Approaching Theorem 2). For all , suppose that and . If is the set of all , where there exists such that and is finite (2.3.2), then F should be prevalent (2.4) or neither prevalent nor shy (2.4).
Theorem 5. For all , suppose and . When is the set of all , where and , then F is prevalent (2.4).
Note 6 (Possible method to proving theorem 5 true). For all , suppose and . Therefore, suppose is the set of all whose lines of symmetry intersect at one point, where if , then note . In addition, is the set of symmetric which clearly forms a shy subset of . Since , we have proven that Q is also shy (i.e., a subset of a shy set is also shy). Since the complement of the shy set Q is prevalent, is prevalent, such that for all , where and . If this is correct, we have partially proven thm. 5.
Note 7 (Way of Approaching Theorem 5). Suppose and are arbitrary sets, such that for all , and . If is the set of all , where and is unique, then F should be prevelant (2.4).
Since thm. 2 and 5 are true, we need to solve both theorems at once with the following:
2.5.1. Approach
Suppose and are arbitrary sets, such that for all , and . If is the collection of all , where and is unique, satisfying (3) and finite, then F should be:
- (1)
a prevalent (§2.4) subset of
- (2)
If not prevalent (§2.4) then neither prevalent (§2.4) nor shy (§2.4) subset of .
3. Attempt to Define “Satisfying” in The Approach of §2.5.1
3.1. Leading Question
To define satisfying in the blockquote of the §2.5.1, we ask the leading question...
Suppose, there exists arbitrary sets and , where for all :
- (A)
and
- (B)
and
- (C)
is the sequence of the graph of each
- (D)
□ is the logical symbol for “it’s necessary"
- (E)
C is the chosen center point of (e.g., the origin)
- (F)
E is the fixed, expected rate of expansion of w.r.t center point C: e.g., (§3.1.C, §3.1.E)
- (G)
is the actual rate of expansion of w.r.t center point C (3.1.C, §3.1.E, 5.4)
Does there exist an unique choice function, which chooses an unique set and , where for all , and , such that:
- (1)
(§2.3.1)
- (2)
For all , where and , the “measure" (§5.3.1, §5.3.2) of (§3.1.C) must increase at a rate linear or superlinear to that of (§3.1.C)
- (3)
is unique and finite (§2.3.2)
- (4)
-
For some and satisfying (1), (2) and (3), when f is unbounded (i.e, skip (4) when f is bounded), for all sets and , where , , , and in (1), (2) and (3), s.t. (§2.3.1, §2.3.2, §3.1.D), for every , where both and satisfy (1), (2) and (3):
If the absolute value is and the -th coordinate of C (§3.1.E) is , (§2.3.1, §2.3.2)
-
If
, then for any linear
, where
and the Big-O notation is
, there exists a function
, where (§3.1.E-F):
In simpler terms, “the rate of divergence" of (§3.1.D-E) is less than or equal to “the rate of divergence" of (§3.1.D-E).
- (5)
-
When set is the set of all , where a choice function chooses a collection and , such that and satisfy (1), (2), (3) and (4), then F should be:
- (a)
a prevelant (§2.4) subset of
- (b)
If not (0a) then neither a prevelant (§2.4) nor shy (§2.4) subset of
- (6)
Out of all choice functions which satisfy (3.1), (3.1), (3.1), (3.1) and (3.1), we choose the one with the simplest form, meaning for each choice function fully expanded, we take the one with the fewest variables/numbers?
(In case this is unclear, see §5.)
We are convinced in (§3.1 crit. 3.1) isn’t unique nor satisfying enough to answer the approach of §2.5.1. Still, adjustments are possible by changing the criteria or by adding new criteria to the question.
4. Question Regarding My Work
Most don’t have time to address everything in my research, hence I ask the following:
Is there a research paper which already solves the ideas I’m woring on? (Non-published papers, such as mine [7], don’t count.)
5. Clarifying §3
See §3.1 once reading §5, and consider the following:
Is there a simpler version of the definitions below?
5.1. Example of Sequences of Bounded Functions Converging to f (§2.3.1)
The sequence of bounded functions , where and is a sequence of bounded sets, converges to Borel when:
For any there exists a sequence s.t. and (see [5] for info).
Example 0.1 (Example of §2.3.1). If and , where , then an example of , such that is:
- (1)
- (2)
for
Example 0.2
(More Complex Example). If and , where , then an example of , such that is:
- (1)
- (2)
for
5.2. Expected Value of Bounded Sequence of Functions
For some
(§2.3.1), the expected value of
is a real number
, when the following is true:
otherwise when no such
exists,
is infinite or undefined.
5.2.1. Example
Using example 0.1, when where:
- (1)
- (2)
for
If we assume
:
To prove eq. 19 is true, recall:
Since eq. 19 is true,
. Note, if we simply took the average of
f from
, using the improper integral, the expected value:
is
(when
,
, and
) or
(when
,
, and
), making
undefined. (However, using eq.
12-19, we get the
instead of an undefined value.)
5.3. Defining the “Measure"
5.3.1. Preliminaries
We define the “measure" of , in , which is the sequence of the graph of each (§2.3.1). To understand this “measure", continue reading.
- (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 . (If 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 the smallest -dimensional Euclidean distance to (i.e., when more than one sample point has the smallest -dimensional Euclidean distance to , take either of those points). Next, repeat this process until the “pathway” intersects with every sample point once. (In case 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 (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 . (If 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 is unclear, see §8.3.3)
- (d)
Take the shannon entropy [8] of step (3c). We define this:
which will be
shortened to
. (If this is unclear, see §8.3.4.)
- (e)
-
Maximize the entropy w.r.t all "pathways". This we will denote:
(In case this is unclear, see §8.3.5.)
- (4)
Therefore, the
maximum entropy, using (1) and (2) is:
5.3.2. What Am I Measuring?
We define and , which respectively are sequences of the graph for each of the bounded functions and (§2.3.1). Hence, for constant and cardinality
- (a)
Using (5.3.1) and (30e) of 5.3.1, suppose:
then (using
) we get
- (b)
Also, using (5.3.1) and (30e) of 5.3.1, suppose:
then (using
) we also get:
- (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, using
and
, we swap
r with
v and
with
) 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 .
5.3.3. Example of The “Measure” of Increasing at Rate Super-Linear to that of
Suppose, we have function
, where
, and:
such that:
and
where for
,
and
Hence, when
is:
and
is:
Note, the following:
Since and is countably infinite, there exists minimum which is 1. Therefore, we don’t need . We also maximize (§5.3.1 step 5.3.10e) by the following procedure:
- (1)
For every
, group
into elements with an even numerator when simplified: i.e.,
which we call
, and group
into elements with an odd denominator when simplified: i.e.,
which we call
- (2)
Arrange the points in from least to greatest and take the 2-d Euclidean distance between each pair of consecutive points in . In this case, since all points lie on , take the absolute difference between the x-coordinates of then call this . (Note, this is similar to 5.3.1 step 5.3.10a).
- (3)
Repeat step (5.3.3) for , then call this . (Note, all point of lie on .)
- (4)
Remove any outliers from (i.e., d is the 2-d Euclidean distance between points and ). Note, in this case, and should be outliers (i.e., for any , the lengths of are more than C times the interquartile range of the lengths of ) leaving us with .
- (5)
Multiply the remaining lengths in the pathway by a constant so they add up to one. (See P[r] of code for an example)
- (6)
Take the entropy of the probability distribution. (See entropy[r] of code for an example.)
We can illustrate this process with the following code:
Taking Table[{r,entropy[r]},{r,3,8}], we get
and notice when:
the output of code can be defined:
Hence, since
:
and
(I need help proving this):
Hence,
entropy[r] is the same as:
Using this post [15], we assume an approximation of Table[entropy[v],{v,3,Infinity}] or
is:
Hence, using §5.3.2 (0a) and §5.3.2 (5.3.2), take
(where
is Euler’s Totient function) computing the following:
where:
- (1)
For every
, we find a
, where
, but the absolute value of
is minimized. In other words, for every
, we want
where:
Finally, since
, we wish to prove
within §5.3.2 crit. 5.3.2:
where using mathematica, we get the limit is greater than one:
Also, using §5.3.2 (1b) and §5.3.2 (2), take
(where
is Euler’s Totient function) to compute the following:
where:
- (1)
-
For every , we find a , where , but the absolute value of is minimized. In other words,
for every
, we want
where:
Finally, since
, we wish to prove
within §5.3.2 crit. 5.3.2:
where using mathematica, we get the limit is greater than one:
Hence, since the limits in eq. 61 and eq. 71 are greater than one and less than
: i.e.,
what we’re measuring from increases at a rate superlinear to that of (i.e., 5.3.2 crit. 5.3.2).
5.3.4. Example of The “Measure" from Increasing at a Rate Sub-Linear to that of
Using our previous example, we can use the following theorem:
Theorem 8.
If what we’re measuring from increases at a rate superlinear to that of , then what we’re measuring from increases at a ratesublinearto that of
Hence, in our definition of super-linear (§5.3.2 crit. 5.3.2), swap
for
and for
regarding
and
(i.e.,
and
) and notice thm. 8 is true when:
5.3.5. Example of The “Measure" from Increasing at a Rate Linear to that of
Suppose, we have function
, where
, and:
such that:
and
where for
,
and
Hence, when
is:
and
is:
We already know, using eq.
50:
Also, using § 5.3.3 steps 5.3.3-5.3.3 on :
where the output is
Notice when:
- (1)
- (2)
- (3)
the output of code can be defined:
Hence, since
:
since
(this is proven in [16]):
Hence,
entropy[r] is the same as:
Therefore, using §5.3.2 (0a) and §5.3.2 (5.3.20a), take
to compute the following:
where:
- (1)
For every
, we find a
, where
, but the absolute value of
is minimized. In other words, for every
, we want
where:
To solve for v, we try the following code:
Note, the output is:
Figure 1.
Plot of loweralphr.
Figure 1.
Plot of loweralphr.
Finally, since the lower bound of
loweralphr is zero, we have shown:
Next, using §5.3.2 (0b) and §5.3.2 (5.3.2), take
and swap
and
with
and
, to compute the following:
where:
- (1)
For every
, we find a
, where
, but the absolute value of
is minimized. In other words, for every
, we want
where:
To solve r, we try the following code:
Note, the output is:
Figure 2.
Plot of loweralphj.
Figure 2.
Plot of loweralphj.
since the lower bound of
loweralphj is zero, we have shown:
Hence, using eq.
100 and
107, since
both:
- (1)
or are equal to zero, one or
- (2)
or are equal to zero, one or
then what I’m measuring from increases at a rate linear to that of .
5.4. Defining The Actual Rate of Expansion of Sequence of Bounded Sets
5.4.1. Definition of Actual Rate of Expansion of Sequence of Bounded Sets
Suppose,
is the sequence of the graph for each function
(§2.3.1). When
is the Euclidean distance between points
and a “chosen" center point is
, where
the
actual rate of expansion is:
Note, there are cases of when isn’t fixed and (i.e., the expected, fixed rate of expansion).
5.4.2. Example
Suppose, we have
, where
and
, such that
and for
:
Hence, when
is:
such that
, note the farthest point of
from
C is either
or
. Hence, to compute
, we can take
or
:
and the actual rate of expansion is:
5.5. Reminder
See if §3.1 is easier to understand.
6. My Attempt At Answering The Approach of §2.5.1
6.1. Choice Function
Suppose we define the following:
- (1)
If (§2.3.3) and (§2.3.3) are arbitrary sets, then and satisfy (3.1), (3.1), (3.1), (3.1) and (3.1) of the leading question in 3.1
- (2)
and
Further note, from §5.3.2 (0b), if we take:
and from §5.3.2 (0a), we take:
Then, §5.3.1 (5.3.1), eq.
121, and eq.
122 is:
6.2. Approach
We manipulate the definitions of §5.3.2 (0a) and §5.3.2 (0b) to solve (3.1), (3.1), (3.1), (3.1) and (3.1) of the leading question in 3.1
6.3. Potential Answer
6.3.1. Preliminaries (Definition of T)
Let (§2.3.1), where is the sequence of the graph regarding each function (§2.3.1). When:
We define an explicit injective , where , such that:
- (1)
If , then
- (2)
If , then
- (3)
If , then
6.3.2. Question
Does T exist? If so, how do we define it?
Hence, using
,
,
,
E,
(§5.4), and
, such that with the absolute value function
, ceiling function
, and nearest integer function
, we define:
where
,
E, and
T are “removed" when
, the choice function which answers the
leading question in
3.1 could be the following, s.t.we explain the reason behind choosing the choice function in §6.4:
Theorem 9.
If we define:
where for , we define to be the same as when swapping “" with “" (for eq. 121 & 122) and sets with (for eq. 121–128), then for constant and variable , if:
and:
where for all , there exists a and (6.1 crit. 6.1), such for all and (6.1 crit. 6.1), whenever:
such that is the ceiling function, E is the fixed rate of expansion, Γ is the gamma function, n is the dimension of , is the Hausdorff dimension of set , and is area of the smallest -dimensional box that contains , then:
& the choice function is:
where satisfies eq. 133 & eq. . (Note, we want and ) s.t.the expected value which answers the approach of , using the leading question is
6.4. Explaining The Choice Function and Evidence The Choice Function Is Credible
Notice, before reading the programming in code 12, without the “
c"-terms in eq.
133 and eq. 134:
- (1)
The choice function in eq.
133 and eq. 134 is zero, when
what I’m measuring from
(§5.3.2 criteria 5.3.2) increases at a rate superlinear to that of
, where
.
- (2)
The choice function in eq.
133 and eq. 134 is zero, when for a given
and
there doesn’t exist
c where eq. 131 is satisfied or
.
- (3)
-
When
c does exist, suppose:
- (a)
When
, then:
- (b)
When
, then:
Hence, for each sub-criteria under crit. (6.4), if we subtract one of their limits by their limit value, then eq.
133 and eq. 134 is zero. (We do this using the “
c"-term in eq.
133 and 134). However, when the exponents of the “
c"-terms aren’t equal to
, the limits of eq.
133 and 134 aren’t equal to zero. We want this, infact, whenever we swap
with
. Moreover, we define function
(i.e., eq.
132), where:
- (3)
- (i)
When
, then eq.
133 and 134 without the “c"-terms are zero. (The “c"-terms approach zero and still allow eq.
133 and 134 to equal zero.)
- (ii)
When
, then
is zero which makes eq.
133 and equal zero.
- (iii)
-
Here are some examples of the numerator of
(eq.
132):
- (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.,
Now, consider the code for eq.
133 and eq. 134. (Note, the set theoretic limit of
is the graph of function
.) In this example,
, and:
such that:
the ceiling function is
, and:
such for
,
and
Hence, when
is:
and
is:
Note, the following (we leave this to mathematicians to figure LengthS1, LengthS2, Entropy1 and for other A and f in code 12).
6.4.1. Evidence With Programming
7. Questions
- (1)
Does answer the in
- (2)
Using thm. 9, when f is defined in , does have a finite value?
- (3)
Using thm. 9, when f is defined in , does have a finite value?
- (4)
If there’s no time to check questions i, ii and iii, see .
8. Appendix of §5.3.1
8.1 Example of §5.3.1, step 5.3.1
Suppose
- (1)
- (2)
When defining
:
- (3)
Then one example of
, using §5.3.1 step 1, (where
) is:
Note, the length of each partition is
, where the borders could be approximated as:
which is illustrated using
alternating orange/black lines of equal length covering
(i.e., the black vertical lines are the smallest and largest
x-cooridinates of
).
(Note, the alternating covers in
Figure 3 satisfy step (1) of §5.3.1, because the Hausdorff measure
in its dimension of the covers is
and there are 9 covers over-covering
: i.e.,
Figure 3.
The alternating orange & black lines are the “covers" and the vertical lines are the boundaries of .
Figure 3.
The alternating orange & black lines are the “covers" and the vertical lines are the boundaries of .
Definition (Minimum Covers of Measure
covering
).
We can compute the minimum covers of , using the formula:
where ).
Note there are other examples of for different . Here is another case:
which can be defined (see eq.
146 for comparison):
In the case of
, there are uncountable
different covers which can be used. For instance, when
(i.e.,
) consider:
When
and
, we get
Figure 4 and when
and
, we get
Figure 3
Figure 4.
This is similar to
Figure 3, except the start-points of the covers are shifted all the way to the left.
Figure 4.
This is similar to
Figure 3, except the start-points of the covers are shifted all the way to the left.
8.2. Example of §5.3.1, Step 5.3.1. Suppose:
- (1)
- (2)
When defining
: i.e.,
- (3)
- (4)
- (5)
, using eq.
147 and
Figure 3, which is
approximately
Then, an example of
is:
Below, we illustrate the sample: i.e., the set of all blue points in each orange and black line of covering :
Figure 5.
The blue points are the “sample points", the alternative black and orange lines are the “covers", and the red lines are the smallest & largest x-coordinates .
Figure 5.
The blue points are the “sample points", the alternative black and orange lines are the “covers", and the red lines are the smallest & largest x-coordinates .
Note, there are multiple samples that can be taken, as long as one sample point is taken from each cover in .
8.3. Example of §5.3.1, Step 5.3.1
Suppose
- (1)
- (2)
When defining
:
- (3)
- (4)
- (5)
, using eq.
147 and
Figure 3, is approx.
- (6)
, using eq.
152, is:
Therefore, consider the following process:
8.3.1. Step 5.3.10a
If
is:
suppose
. Note, the following:
- (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:
Note 10.
If more than one point has the minimum 2-d Euclidean distance from , , , etc. take all potential pathways: e.g., using the sample in eq. 156, if , then since and have the smallest Euclidean distance to , taketwopathways:
8.3.2. Step 5.3.10b
Next, take the length of all line segments in each pathway. In other words, suppose
is the
n-th dim.Euclidean distance between points
. Using the pathway in eq.
157, we want:
Whose distances can be approximated as:
Also, we see the outliers [6] are
and
(i.e., notice that the outliers are more prominent for
). Therefore, remove
and
from our set of lengths:
This is illustrated using:
Figure 6.
The black arrows are the “pathways" whose lengths aren’t outliers. The length of the red arrows in the pathway are outliers.
Figure 6.
The black arrows are the “pathways" whose lengths aren’t outliers. The length of the red arrows in the pathway are outliers.
Hence, when
, using §5.3.1 step 33b & eq.
156, we note:
8.3.3. Step 5.3.10c
To convert the set of distances in eq.
159 into a probability distribution, we take:
Then divide each element in
by 1.35
which gives us the probability distribution:
8.3.4. Step 5.3.10d
Take the shannon entropy of eq.
161:
We shorten
to
, giving us:
8.3.5. Step 5.3.10e
Take the entropy, w.r.t all pathways, of the sample:
In other words, we’ll compute:
We do this by repeating §8.3.1-§8.3.4 for different
(i.e., in the equation with multiple values, see note 10)
Hence, since the largest value out of eq.
164-172 is
:
References
- Claudio Bernardi and Claudio Rainaldi. Everywhere surjections and related topics: Examples and counterexamples. Le Matematiche, 73(1):71–88, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325625887_Everywhere_surjections_and_related_topics_Examples_and_counterexamples.
- Pablo Shmerkin (https://mathoverflow.net/users/11009/pablo shmerkin). Hausdorff dimension of r x x. MathOverflow. https://mathoverflow.net/q/189274.
- Arbuja (https://mathoverflow.net/users/87856/arbuja). Is there an explicit, everywhere surjective f:R→R whose graph has zero hausdorff measure in its dimension? MathOverflow. https://mathoverflow.net/q/476471.
- JDH (https://math.stackexchange.com/users/413/jdh). Uncountable sets of hausdorff dimension zero. Mathematics Stack Exchange. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/73551.
- SBF (https://math.stackexchange.com/users/5887/sbf). Convergence of functions with different domain. Mathematics Stack Exchange. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1063261.
- Renze John. Outlier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier.
- Bharath Krishnan. Bharath krishnan’s researchgate profile. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bharath-Krishnan-4.
- Gray M. Entropy and Information Theory. Springer New York, New York [America];, 2 edition, 2011. https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/it.pdf.
- MFH. Prove the following limits of a sequence of sets? Mathchmaticians, 2023. https://matchmaticians.com/questions/hinaeh.
- OEIS Foundation Inc. A002088. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, 1991. https://oeis.org/A002088.
- OEIS Foundation Inc. A011371. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, 1999. https://oeis.org/A011371.
- OEIS Foundation Inc. A099957. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, 2005. https://oeis.org/A099957.
- William Ott and James A. Yorke. Prevelance. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 42(3):263–290, 2005. https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2005-42-03/S0273-0979-05-01060-8/S0273-0979-05-01060-8.pdf.
- T.F. Xie and S.P. Zhou. On a class of fractal functions with graph hausdorff dimension 2. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 32(5):1625–1630, 2007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077906000129.
- ydd. Finding the asymptotic rate of growth of a table of value? Mathematica Stack Exchange. https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/307050/34171.
- ydd. How to find a closed form for this pattern (if it exists)? Mathematica Stack Exchange. https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/306951/34171.
|
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. |
© 2025 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/).