Outer linear measure of connected sets via Steiner trees

Konrad J. Swanepoel

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 41 references

Outer linear measure of connected sets via Steiner trees

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For connected metric sets, outer linear measure equals the best finite Steiner-tree length.

desk verdict Worth refereeing on the strength of the first half and the significance of the result, but Section 4's proof of the connected equality has several repairable yet load-bearing errors. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02230 v1 pith:ER75ML4E submitted 2019-08-06 math.MG math.HO

Konrad J. Swanepoel This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.MGmath.HO MSC 28A7528A7805C0554E3549Q20

keywords outerlinearmeasureHausdorffSteinertreeMenger-ChoquetlengthconnectedmetricspacesGolabtheoremlowersemicontinuitycontinuum

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper revives a nearly forgotten way to measure a set in a metric space, proposed by Menger and Choquet: take all finite subsets, build the shortest Steiner tree through each, and take the supremum. It proves that for any connected set this supremum equals the usual outer linear measure, also known as one-dimensional Hausdorff measure. This unifies two classical definitions and yields short proofs that linear measure is lower semicontinuous under set convergence and stable under taking closures. The argument stays within elementary graph theory and metric geometry, avoiding measure theory beyond the definition of outer linear measure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the functionals L_MC and L_IM built from Steiner trees over finite point sets. A Steiner tree on P is a tree whose vertex set contains P, allowing extra Steiner vertices to shorten the total edge length. The proof of the inequality L* ≤ L_MC cuts a near-optimal Steiner tree into small-diameter pieces and uses those pieces as a δ-cover; the proof of the reverse inequality for connected sets assembles a Steiner tree with Steiner points in A from a sufficiently fine δ-cover of A. Two tree lemmas carry the argument: a Steiner tree on a finite set has few maximal chains, and there is always a cycle through the terminals whose length is at most twice the tree's length.

What would settle it

On A=[0,1] with P={0,1}, no refinement of an open δ-cover can satisfy |U_i\P|≤1 for every i, because every nonempty open interval contains infinitely many points outside {0,1}; a reader can test the remaining chain of inequalities on this example. A counterexample to the theorem would be a connected metric set with L_IM(A)>L*(A), and this is the natural place to look for one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The main result, Theorem 1, states that for every subset A of a metric space X, L*(A) ≤ L_MC(A) ≤ L_IM(A), where L_MC is the supremum over finite subsets P of A of the minimum length of a Steiner tree connecting P, and L_IM restricts the Steiner points to lie in A. For connected A, the paper argues that all three quantities coincide. This generalizes Choquet's announced theorem for Euclidean continua, and the equality is what powers the paper's corollaries: Gołąb's lower semicontinuity theorem for continua and Bognár's result that the outer linear measure of a connected set equals that of its closure.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the reverse inequality for connected A assumes that a δ-cover can be refined so that every cover piece contains at most one point of the finite set P being connected; in a connected metric space with more than one point, every nonempty open piece is infinite, so this premise is not true as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gołąb's theorem follows as a corollary: outer linear measure is lower semicontinuous on connected sets with respect to the lower Hausdorff and lower Vietoris topologies, without any compactness assumption.
Bognár's theorem follows: for any connected set A, L*(closure(A)) = L*(A).
Sets with finite Menger–Choquet length are totally bounded and can be embedded into a continuum with the same length, as stated in Theorems 5 and 6.
Since L* ≤ L_MC ≤ L_IM always and equality holds for connected sets, the three functionals become interchangeable for connected sets, allowing measure-theoretic estimates to be replaced by finite-tree computations.
The proof of lower semicontinuity avoids compactness, measure theory, and Zorn's lemma, making it usable in variational settings where the sets are merely connected subsets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: If the equality is correct, it gives an optimization formulation of linear measure, suggesting that continuum length for connected sets could be approximated by computing Steiner trees on increasingly dense finite samples.
Editorial inference: The proof of the connected-case reverse inequality relies on a cover-refinement assertion that appears false for connected metric spaces, since nonempty open sets there contain infinitely many points; this is the first place a reader should test the argument.
Editorial inference: A natural testable extension is whether the equality persists in geodesic metric spaces if the cover refinement is replaced by a different argument; if it fails, the boundary of validity would be informative in itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth taking seriously. It revives Menger's and Choquet's Steiner-tree definition of length, proves it agrees with outer linear measure for arbitrary connected metric spaces, and uses that to give an elementary proof of Gołąb's theorem plus Bognár's closure corollary. The first half of the proof, showing L* ≤ LMC, is clean and self-contained; the lemmas on Steiner trees and the semicontinuity of LMC are well handled. No circularity, no invented entities, and the historical attributions look right.

The soft spots are all in the second half of Theorem 1, the proof that LIM(A) ≤ L*(A) for connected A. As written, that part does not go through. Two of the errors are notational but load-bearing. The claim "by the choice of δ, |Ui\P| ≤ 1" should be "|Ui ∩ P| ≤ 1": the diameter bound only limits how many points of P a Ui can contain, while in a connected space with more than one point every nonempty open set is infinite, so the complement statement is false. More seriously, the definition Vi = (P\Ui) ∪ {xe} puts points of P that are outside Ui into Vi, and then the estimate ℓ(G) ≤ Σ(|Vi|-1) diam(Ui) does not follow, because not all vertices of Vi lie in Ui. The intended definition is almost certainly Vi = (P ∩ Ui) ∪ {xe}, with xe chosen in the appropriate endpoint's Ui. The counting bound (3) and the final length estimate only work with the intersection version.

There is also a structural gap in the construction of the index tree. The graph G is built from joining chains for every pair x,y in A, so the terminal set {i(1,x,x) : x ∈ A} can be infinite, and there is no reason a minimal connected subgraph containing it is finite. Later the proof uses |I| - 1 and finite sums over I. The fix is standard: choose a finite connected subgraph of the cover-index graph that connects just the finitely many indices used by the finite terminal set P.

These are genuine flaws in the written proof, but they look repairable, and the intended argument is visible behind them. This is not a case where the central idea is wrong; it is a case where the execution needs a careful revision. The paper deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. My recommendation: send it to review with the expectation of a major revision focused on Section 4, then re-check the repaired proof. A reader working on metric geometry or geometric measure theory should know the theorem is probably true and the proof route is promising, but the current version does not establish it.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Menger–Choquet length L_MC(A) and the intrinsic Menger length L_IM(A), proves for every subset A of a metric space the chain L*(A) ≤ L_MC(A) ≤ L_IM(A), and claims that equality holds whenever A is connected, generalizing a theorem of Choquet. From this equality the paper derives a proof of Gołąb's lower semicontinuity theorem for linear measure of continua and a theorem of Bognár on the linear measure of closures. The proof is intended to be elementary, using only the definition of outer linear measure and basic graph theory, with no measure-theoretic machinery.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, the paper would supply a clean, self-contained proof of a classical result by Choquet that has been regarded as little-known, together with new proofs of Gołąb's and Bognár's theorems. The historical discussion is informative, and the first inequality L*(A) ≤ L_MC(A) is proved rigorously with a genuinely elementary argument. The semicontinuity of L_MC (Proposition 3) is also sound. However, the connected-equality part is not proved as written: a false cardinality assertion and an invalid length estimate undermine the construction of the Steiner tree, so the central claim of the paper remains unsupported. Because the paper's advertised contribution is precisely this equality theorem and its corollaries, the current version does not meet the standard for publication.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, proof of Theorem 1, second part] The assertion 'By the choice of δ, |Ui\P| ≤ 1 for all i∈N' is false. Each Ui is open in A, A is connected, and P is finite; since A has at least two points, every nonempty open subset of A is infinite, so |Ui\P| is either 0 or infinite, never 1. This statement precedes the choice of points xe and the definition of the sets Vi, so the subsequent construction is built on an incorrect premise.
[Section 4, Eq. (3)] Even if the preceding sentence were replaced by the correct fact that |Ui∩P| ≤ 1, the bound |Vi| ≤ deg_T(i)+1 does not follow. By definition Vi = (P\Ui) ∪ {xe : i∈e}; since P\Ui contains all but possibly one point of P, its cardinality is typically much larger than 1, so the displayed inequality (3) is not a consequence of any valid property of the cover. Consequently the later estimate ∑(|Vi|-2) ≤ |P| - 2 is unsupported.
[Section 4, bound on 𝓁(G)] The inequality 𝓁(T) ≤ 𝓁(G) ≤ Σ_{i∈I} (|Vi|-1) diam(Ui) is invalid because the vertices in P\Ui are not contained in Ui. Distances between points of P\Ui and points of Ui are not bounded by diam(Ui), so joining the vertices in each Vi by an arbitrary path cannot be estimated using diam(Ui). This step is essential for the claimed bound smt_A(P) ≤ L*(A) + ε, and without it the proof of L_IM(A) ≤ L*(A) collapses.
[Section 4, connectedness of the index graph] The definition of 'joined' uses the relation Ui(t)\Ui(t+1) ≠ ∅, and the proof that the complement A\S is open is not justified: appending Uj to a sequence that reaches y requires Ui(k)\Uj ≠ ∅, but if y lies in Ui(k)∩Uj this condition may fail. A standard argument would use nonempty intersections, not nonempty differences, so the construction of the connected index graph T is not supported as written.

minor comments (3)

[Lemma 8, proof] In the induction step, 'remove the points p1, p1' should read 'remove the points p1, p2'.
[Lemma 11, proof] The claim that 'the sum of the lengths of any two adjacent chains is > t' requires a short justification for boundary cases, for example when an edge has length exactly t or when the chain-cutting stops with a final piece of length exactly t.
[Section 4, paragraph on maximal chains] The statement that 'any two maximal chains are edge-disjoint' is used without proof; it follows from the maximality of the chains but could be stated explicitly for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation is self-contained and reduces only to the definitions of outer linear measure and Steiner-tree length.

full rationale

The paper's main theorem is derived from the definitions of L*, L_MC, L_IM and elementary graph/metric lemmas. The inequality L* ≤ L_MC is obtained by cutting a Steiner tree into a δ-cover (Lemmas 7, 10, 11); L_MC ≤ L_IM is the definitional inequality smt(P) ≤ smt_A(P); and the reverse inequality for connected A constructs a Steiner tree from a δ-cover by a graph whose vertices are cover indices. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work, and the historical references to Menger and Choquet are contextual rather than load-bearing. The only notable issue visible in Section 4 is the assertion 'By the choice of δ, |Ui\P| ≤ 1 for all i∈N,' which is false in a connected space with more than one point, and the subsequent bound on Σ(|Vi|-2) depends on it; however, a false intermediate claim is a correctness defect, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to the hypotheses. The deferred proof of Theorem 5 is explicitly flagged as outside the paper's scope and is not used in the central derivation. Accordingly, there is no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard metric space and graph theory facts, plus the definition of outer linear measure. The proof uses Zorn's lemma implicitly for the minimal subgraph on an infinite graph. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

standard math Basic properties of outer linear measure, including the definition of δ-covers and monotonicity.
Used throughout; the paper uses only the definition of 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure, as stated in the abstract.
standard math Elementary graph theory: trees, spanning trees, degree counting, and maximal chains in trees.
Used in Lemmas 7, 8, 9, and in the proof of Theorem 1; standard background.
standard math In a connected metric space with at least two points, every nonempty open set is infinite.
Invoked implicitly when asserting U_i \ U_j is infinite in the proof of L_IM(A) ≤ L*(A).
domain assumption Existence of a minimal connected subgraph containing a given set of vertices in a graph; when the set is infinite, this relies on Zorn's lemma or dependent choice.
The proof says 'contains a minimal subgraph' on a possibly infinite graph G; as written, the terminal set {i(1,x,x) | x ∈ A} is infinite when A is infinite.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Outer linear measure of connected sets via Steiner trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ER75ML4E

@misc{pith2026190802230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Outer linear measure of connected sets via Steiner trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ER75ML4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02230}
}

read the original abstract

We resurrect an old definition of the linear measure of a metric continuum in terms of Steiner trees, independently due to Menger (1930) and Choquet (1938). We generalise it to any metric space and provide a proof of a little-known theorem of Choquet that it coincides with the outer linear measure for any connected metric space. As corollaries we obtain simple proofs of Go{\l}\k{a}b's theorem (1928) on the lower semicontinuity of linear measure of continua and a theorem of Bogn\'ar (1989) on the linear measure of the closure of a set. We do not use any measure theory apart from the definition of outer linear measure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02230 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The Koch curve curve, including the original paper of Helge von Koch [25]. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Sequence of arcs of length > (16/15)n converging to a segment 2 Five formulations of lower semicontinuity Let (X, d) be a metric space. Denote the open ball with centre x ∈ X and radius r > 0 by B(x, r) = {y ∈ X | d(x, y) < r} and the power set of X by P(X) = {A | A ⊆ X}. For convenience we define sup ∅ = 0 and inf ∅ = ∞. Define the diameter of A ⊆ X as diam(A) = sup {d(a1, a2) | a1, a2 ∈ A} . This gives an extended… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Menger’s example [30, top of p. 476] demonstrating that P 7→ mst(P) and P 7→ smtP (P) are not monotone We may ask whether the use of Steiner points is necessary. In fact, before Menger introduced LMC and LIM for arcs in [31, 29], he defined [30, § 6] the length of a me…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A proper Steiner tree on a set of 4 points can be covered by 5 maximal chains. be proved in a standard way with the help of the Blaschke selection theorem for Hausdorff convergence. As mentioned before, a metric space X is convex if any two points a, b ∈ X are joined b…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Online chain cutting Lemma 10. Let A ⊆ X satisfy LMC(A) < ∞. Then for any ε > 0, any ε-separated subset of A has at most max n 2 ε LMC(A), 1 o points. In particular, A is totally bounded. Proof. Let P be a finite ε-separated subset of A, that is, d(x, y) ≥ ε for all di…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Decomposing the Steiner tree T 0 with P = {a, b, c} Then smt(P 0 ) is still very close to LMC(A). We take a proper Steiner tree T 0 on P 0 of length very close to smt(P 0 ), and use Lemmas 7 and 11 to cut the proper subtree T of T 0 joining P into small pieces to creat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Alberti and M

G. Alberti and M. Ottolini, On the structure of continua with ﬁnite length and Gołąb’s semicontinuity theorem, Nonlinear Anal.153 (2017), 35–55. 19

work page 2017
[2]

Ambrosio and P

L. Ambrosio and P. Tilli, Topics on analysis in metric spaces, Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 25, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004

work page 2004
[3]

A. S. Besicovitch,On the fundamental geometrical properties of linearly measurable plane sets of points (II), Math. Ann.115 (1938), no. 1, 296–329

work page 1938
[4]

L. M. Blumenthal,Theory and applications of distance geometry, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1953

work page 1953
[5]

Bognár,On the exterior linear measure, Acta Math

M. Bognár,On the exterior linear measure, Acta Math. Hungar.53 (1989), no. 1-2, 159–168

work page 1989
[6]

Brazil, R

M. Brazil, R. L. Graham, D. A. Thomas, and M. Zachariasen,On the history of the Euclidean Steiner tree problem, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.68 (2014), 327–354

work page 2014
[7]

C. Carathéodory,Über das lineare Maß von Punktmengen – eine Verallgemeinerung des Län- genbegriﬀs., Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch- Physikalische Klasse 1914 (1914), 404–426

work page 1914
[8]

Choquet, Etude de certains réseaux de routes, Comptes Rendus Acad

G. Choquet, Etude de certains réseaux de routes, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci.206 (1938), 310–313

work page 1938

Show all 41 references

[9]

Dal Maso, J.-M

G. Dal Maso, J.-M. Morel, and S. Solimini,A variational method in image segmentation: existence and approximation results, Acta Math.168 (1992), no. 1-2, 89–151

1992
[10]

Dal Maso and R

G. Dal Maso and R. Toader,A model for the quasi-static growth of brittle fractures: existence and approximation results, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.162 (2002), no. 2, 101–135

2002
[11]

Ducret and M

S. Ducret and M. Troyanov,Steiner’s invariants and minimal connections, Port. Math.65 (2008), no. 2, 237–242

2008
[12]

Eilenberg and O

S. Eilenberg and O. G. Harrold, Jr.,Continua of ﬁnite linear measure. I, Amer. J. Math.65 (1943), 137–146

1943
[13]

W. A. Ettling,On arc length sharpenings, Paciﬁc J. Math.76 (1978), no. 2, 361–370

1978
[14]

Faber, J

V. Faber, J. Mycielski, and P. Pedersen,On the shortest curve which meets all the lines which meet a circle, Ann. Polon. Math.44 (1984), no. 3, 249–266

1984
[15]

K. J. Falconer, The geometry of fractal sets, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 85, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986

1986
[16]

D. H. Fremlin,Spaces of ﬁnite length, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)64 (1992), no. 3, 449–486

1992
[17]

Frink,Geodesic continua in abstract metric space, Amer

O. Frink,Geodesic continua in abstract metric space, Amer. J. Math.58 (1936), 514–520

1936
[18]

Giacomini,A generalization of Gołąb’s theorem and application to fracture mechanics, Math

A. Giacomini,A generalization of Gołąb’s theorem and application to fracture mechanics, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.12 (2002), 1245–1267

2002
[19]

E. N. Gilbert and H. O. Pollak,Steiner minimal trees, SIAM J. Appl. Math.16 (1968), 1–29

1968
[20]

Gołąb,Sur quelques points de la théorie de la longueur, Ann

S. Gołąb,Sur quelques points de la théorie de la longueur, Ann. Soc. Polon. Math.7 (1928), 227–241

1928
[21]

Hausdorﬀ,Dimension und äußeres Maß, Math

F. Hausdorﬀ,Dimension und äußeres Maß, Math. Ann.79 (1918), no. 1-2, 157–179

1918
[22]

A. O. Ivanov, I. M. Nikonov, and A. A. Tuzhilin,Sets admitting connection by graphs of ﬁnite length, Mat. Sb.196 (2005), no. 6, 71–110. 20

2005
[23]

P. W. Jones,Rectiﬁable sets and the traveling salesman problem, Invent. Math.102 (1990), no. 1, 1–15

1990
[24]

Klein and A

E. Klein and A. C. Thompson,Theory of correspondences, Canadian Mathematical Society Series of Monographs and Advanced Texts, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1984, Including applications to mathematical economics, A Wiley-Interscience Publication

1984
[25]

Helge von Koch, Sur une courbe continue sans tangente, obtenue par une construction géométrique élémentaire, Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys.1 (1904), 681–702

1904
[26]

Kolmogoroﬀ,Beiträge zur Maßtheorie, Math

A. Kolmogoroﬀ,Beiträge zur Maßtheorie, Math. Ann.107 (1933), 351–366

1933
[27]

S. Levi, R. Lucchetti, and J. Pelant,On the inﬁmum of the Hausdorﬀ and Vietoris topologies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.118 (1993), no. 3, 971–978

1993
[28]

F. A. Lops,A denoised version of some kinds of set convergence, Adv. Nonlinear Stud.5 (2005), no. 3, 303–335

2005
[29]

Menger,Eine neue Deﬁnition der Bogenlänge, Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums (K

K. Menger,Eine neue Deﬁnition der Bogenlänge, Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums (K. Menger, ed.), vol. 2, Teubner, Leipzig und Wien, 1932, pp. 11–12

1932
[30]

Menger, Untersuchungen über allgemeine Metrik

K. Menger, Untersuchungen über allgemeine Metrik. Vierte Untersuchung. Zur Metrik der Kurven, Math. Ann.103 (1930), no. 1, 466–501

1930
[31]

Menger,Some applications of point-set methods, Ann

K. Menger,Some applications of point-set methods, Ann. of Math. (2)32 (1931), no. 4, 739–760

1931
[32]

Michael,Topologies on spaces of subsets, Trans

E. Michael,Topologies on spaces of subsets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.71 (1951), 152–182

1951
[33]

A. N. Milgram, On shortest paths through a set, Reports of a mathematical colloquium (K. Menger, ed.), second series, University of Notre Dame, 1940. pp. 39–44

1940
[34]

Mimura,Über die Bogenlänge, Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums (K

Y. Mimura,Über die Bogenlänge, Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums (K. Menger, ed.), vol. 4, Teubner, Leipzig und Wien, 1933. pp. 20–22

1933
[35]

Morel and S

J.-M. Morel and S. Solimini,Variational methods in image segmentation, Progress in Nonlinear Diﬀerential Equations and their Applications, 14, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1995

1995
[36]

Paolini and L

E. Paolini and L. Ulivi,The Steiner problem for inﬁnitely many points, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova124 (2010), 43–56

2010
[37]

Paolini and E

E. Paolini and E. Stepanov,Existence and regularity results for the Steiner problem, Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations46 (2013), no. 3-4, 837–860

2013
[38]

Schrijver,On the history of combinatorial optimization (till 1960), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science (K

A. Schrijver,On the history of combinatorial optimization (till 1960), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science (K. Aardal, G. L. Nemhauser, and R. Weismantel, eds.), vol. 12, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 2005, pp. 1–68

1960
[39]

Schul,Analyst’s traveling salesman theorems

R. Schul,Analyst’s traveling salesman theorems. A survey, In the tradition of Ahlfors-Bers. IV, Contemp. Math., vol. 432, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007, pp. 209–220

2007
[40]

A. G. Vitushkin,Proof of the upper semicontinuity of the variation of a set, Soviet Math. Dokl. 7 (1966), 206–209

1966
[41]

T.Ważewski,Kontinua prostowalne w związku z funkcjami i odwzorowaniami absolutnie ciągłymi, Dodatek do Roczn. Pol. Tow. Mat. (1927), 9–49. 21

1927

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alberti and M

G. Alberti and M. Ottolini, On the structure of continua with ﬁnite length and Gołąb’s semicontinuity theorem, Nonlinear Anal.153 (2017), 35–55. 19

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Ambrosio and P

L. Ambrosio and P. Tilli, Topics on analysis in metric spaces, Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 25, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004

work page 2004

[3] [3]

A. S. Besicovitch,On the fundamental geometrical properties of linearly measurable plane sets of points (II), Math. Ann.115 (1938), no. 1, 296–329

work page 1938

[4] [4]

L. M. Blumenthal,Theory and applications of distance geometry, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1953

work page 1953

[5] [5]

Bognár,On the exterior linear measure, Acta Math

M. Bognár,On the exterior linear measure, Acta Math. Hungar.53 (1989), no. 1-2, 159–168

work page 1989

[6] [6]

Brazil, R

M. Brazil, R. L. Graham, D. A. Thomas, and M. Zachariasen,On the history of the Euclidean Steiner tree problem, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.68 (2014), 327–354

work page 2014

[7] [7]

C. Carathéodory,Über das lineare Maß von Punktmengen – eine Verallgemeinerung des Län- genbegriﬀs., Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch- Physikalische Klasse 1914 (1914), 404–426

work page 1914

[8] [8]

Choquet, Etude de certains réseaux de routes, Comptes Rendus Acad

G. Choquet, Etude de certains réseaux de routes, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci.206 (1938), 310–313

work page 1938