On Fractal Continuity Properties of Certain One-Dimensional Schr\"odinger Operators

Netanel Levi

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

On Fractal Continuity Properties of Certain One-Dimensional Schr\"odinger Operators

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs one-dimensional Schrödinger operators whose spectral measures are zero-dimensional on the half line for every boundary condition, while a whole-line variant has a one-dimensional spectral measure whose every half-line…

desk verdict The whole-line construction in Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 is genuinely worth attention, but Theorem 1.1 is not proved: Corollary 3.2 rests on a false inequality and, more fundamentally, the product omega(L) that the argument needs is O(L), not L^L, for the potential actually constructed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07129 v1 pith:OO3H62GR submitted 2025-05-11 math.SP

Netanel Levi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.SP MSC 47B3634L4081Q10

keywords SchrödingeroperatorsspectralmeasurespackingdimensionHausdorffsingularcontinuousspectrumsubordinacytheoryrank-oneperturbationssparsepotentials

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

This paper constructs explicit one-dimensional discrete Schrödinger operators that show how the fractal dimension of spectral measures can change when an operator is restricted to a half line. The half-line construction uses potentials supported on very sparse square-indexed sites to force every boundary condition's spectral measure to have packing dimension zero on $[-2,2]$. The whole-line construction alternates sparse peaks on the positive and negative sides, producing a spectral measure of Hausdorff dimension one while every half-line restriction has Hausdorff dimension zero. The final theorem converts this dimensional gap into a measure-theoretic statement: a Borel set carries positive whole-line spectral measure yet is invisible to every positive half-line boundary-condition measure.

What carries the argument

The machinery is subordinacy theory for one-dimensional Schrödinger operators, mediated by the Borel transform $m_\theta$ of the spectral measures. The half-line argument uses transfer matrices to make solution norms large at sparse scales, together with a recent proposition (Proposition 2.10) that converts a lower bound on $\liminf_{\varepsilon\to0} \varepsilon^{1-\eta}\operatorname{Im} m_\theta(E+i\varepsilon)$ into an upper bound on the upper local dimension of $\mu_\theta$; this is the mechanism that would force packing dimension zero. The whole-line construction relies on Proposition 4.3, which bounds the whole-line Borel transform by the supremum of the two half-line Borel transforms, so alternating sparse peaks on the two sides keep the whole-line $m$-function controlled at every scale while each half-line $m$-function is large only on its own sparse scales. The invisible-set theorem uses Kac's theorem identifying the Radon–Nikodym derivative of the positive half-line measure inside the sum of the two half-line measures, letting the paper separate the energies according to which side carries the spectral mass.

What would settle it

Take the constructed half-line potential at scale $L=4$ (so $k=2$): the claimed inequality reads $3^3=27\ge4^4=256$, which is false. Computing the actual maximum and minimum of $\|u_\eta\|_L$ over boundary conditions at such scales will show whether $\omega(L)\ge L^L$ holds; if the product is smaller, the estimate (3.1.6) in the proof of Theorem 1.1 does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a pair of constructions. On the half line, a potential that vanishes except at sites $k^2$ with sufficiently tall values is claimed to have essential spectrum $[-2,2]$, with the proof organized around showing that the Borel transforms of all rank-one perturbations grow faster than any power of $1/\varepsilon$ on the essential spectrum; if that growth holds, every spectral measure has packing dimension zero. On the whole line, the construction alternates between adding a large peak on the right and on the left, with the sites chosen so that the half-line $m$-functions recover after each change. The resulting operator is claimed to have a spectral measure with Hausdorff dimension one, while each of its half-line restrictions has Hausdorff dimension zero for every boundary condition. The paper also proves a general structural consequence: any line operator with this dimensional gap admits a Borel set with positive whole-line spectral measure that is null for all positive half-line boundary conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The half-line packing-dimension-zero theorem rests on the assumption that the product of the largest and smallest normalized solution norms at scale $L$ is at least $L^L$, justified by the inequality $(k+1)^{k+1}\ge L^L$, which fails for $L\ge4$ and gives no lower bound on the smaller norm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the constructed half-line family, every rank-one perturbation has a spectral measure of packing dimension zero on $[-2,2]$; since packing dimension dominates Hausdorff dimension, these measures are also zero-dimensional there.
The whole-line example shows that a line operator can have a one-dimensional spectral measure while all half-line restrictions are zero-dimensional, so local fractal dimension is not inherited under restriction to half lines.
Theorem 1.4 yields a Borel set of positive whole-line spectral measure that is annihilated by every positive half-line boundary-condition spectral measure.
All constructions keep the essential spectrum equal to $[-2,2]$, so the phenomena occur on a full spectral interval rather than on a thin exceptional set.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural testable extension is to run the same alternating sparse-peak construction for continuum Schrödinger operators, where the same subordinacy and Borel-transform tools are available; if the phenomenon persists, the dimension discontinuity under restriction is not an artefact of the discrete lattice.
The invisible-set theorem concerns positive half-line restrictions; the same partition argument should also produce a set invisible to negative half-line restrictions, and the paper leaves open whether a single set can be invisible to both sides simultaneously.
Varying the growth of the sparse peaks could presumably tune the spectral dimension of the whole-line measure to any value in $(0,1)$ while keeping half-line restrictions zero-dimensional, producing a full family of dimension-gap examples.

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

You should know two things about this paper. First, the headline splitting result (Theorem 1.3: a whole-line operator with Hausdorff dimension 1 while every half-line restriction has dimension 0) is new, plausibly correct, and confirms a claim that was announced but apparently never written out. Theorem 1.4 is a nice consequence and the half-line construction in Section 3.2 is clean. Second, Theorem 1.1, one of the three abstract promises, is not proved. The reader's rejection is justified.

What is good: the line construction is transparent — alternating long free stretches with finite-rank perturbations, using Corollary 3.5 to control half-line m-functions on nested scales. The proof of Theorem 4.4 is inventive, and the use of the author's own preprint [23] for measurability of theta(E) is an independent general result, not a circular dependency. Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 appear to be supported by separate arguments that do not touch the broken part of Theorem 1.1. Credit where it is due: this is a real step forward on the Jitomirskaya–Last line/half-line question.

Where it falls apart: the proof of Theorem 1.1 needs Im m(E+i epsilon) >= epsilon^{-t} for arbitrarily small t > 0. Via Proposition 2.18 this requires omega(L(ε)) = (max_η ||u_η||_L)(min_η ||u_η||_L) to be at least L(ε)^{L(ε)}. Corollary 3.2 purports to give this, but its last inequality, (k+1)^{k+1} >= L^L, is false already at L=8. And even a correct lower bound on the maximum would not do: the proof needs the product, and Corollary 3.2 says nothing about the minimum. The stress-test note goes further and says that for the constructed potential the product is actually only O(L). That stronger claim checks out: after each large spike both solutions are amplified by the same factor and become nearly parallel, so the Gram determinant of the two solution vectors over [1,L] stays O(L^2); hence omega(L)=O(L), not super-polynomial. Estimate (3.1.6) therefore fails for the operator that was built. This is not a minor typo; it is a load-bearing gap in one of the three headline results.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee and a major revision, not a desk rejection. Theorem 1.3/1.4 are important enough that the correct part should not be lost. But Theorem 1.1 as written is unsound, and the current version should not be accepted.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operators with unusual fractal continuity properties of their spectral measures. It claims three main results: (1) a half-line operator with essential spectrum [-2,2] whose spectral measure has packing dimension zero for every boundary condition (Theorem 1.1); (2) a whole-line operator whose spectral measure has Hausdorff dimension one while every half-line restriction has Hausdorff dimension zero for every boundary condition (Theorem 1.3); and (3) for the same operator, a Borel set carrying positive whole-line spectral measure but zero measure with respect to every positive half-line restriction (Theorem 1.4). The proofs use transfer matrices, subordinacy theory, Borel-transform estimates from [17], and a construction with sparse large potential spikes. The paper is written in a conventional spectral-theory style, but several load-bearing estimates in the proofs of the main theorems are not justified as written.

Significance. If Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 held, they would provide striking illustrations of the possible discontinuity between whole-line and half-line spectral fractal dimensions, and they would confirm a claim attributed to [16]. The constructions are not obtained by curve fitting or parameter search; they are explicit inductive potential constructions built on subordinacy theory, which is a genuine strength. However, the first headline result, Theorem 1.1, is central to the paper's advertised contribution, and its proof contains a plainly false inequality and an unjustified product estimate. The proof of Theorem 1.3 also appears to use Proposition 4.3 in a way that does not follow from the stated dichotomy. These are not presentation issues; they affect the validity of the paper's main claims.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Corollary 3.2] The final step of Corollary 3.2 states that 'clearly (k+1)^{k+1} ≥ L^L', where k is chosen with k^2 ≤ L < (k+1)^2. This inequality is false for L ≥ 4; for instance L=8, k=2 gives 3^3=27 < 8^8. Therefore the corollary does not establish max_{u∈Sol(E)} ∥u∥_L ≥ L^L, and the subsequent use of this bound in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is invalid.
[§3.1, proof of Theorem 1.1, Eq. (3.1.6)–(3.1.7)] The proof needs ω(L(ε)) ≥ L(ε)^{L(ε)}, where ω(L) = max_η ∥u_η∥_L · min_η ∥u_η∥_L. Corollary 3.2, even if corrected, would only lower-bound the maximum factor; the proof provides no lower bound on the minimum factor. Without a bound on the product, the chain leading to Im m_θ(E+iε) ≥ ε^{-t} collapses. Moreover, for the potential actually constructed (zero background with sparse spikes), a Gram-matrix determinant estimate indicates that ω(L) grows only polynomially in L, so the required super-exponential bound cannot hold for this example. Thus Theorem 1.1 is not proved.
[§4.2, proof of Theorem 1.3] The construction ensures that for every γ and every E, either the positive half-line m-functions are bounded by γ^{-(1-α)} or the negative half-line m-functions are bounded by γ^{-(1-α)}. Proposition 4.3, as stated, bounds the whole-line Borel transform M by the supremum of the positive half-line m-functions only. The proof does not explain how a bound on the negative half-line m-functions can be used to bound M. Without such an argument, the conclusion lim sup_{ε→0} ε^{1-α}|M(E+iε)| < ∞ does not follow from the stated dichotomy.
[§4.3, Theorem 4.4 and proof of Theorem 1.4] The proof of Theorem 4.4 relies on the identity ψ(j) = lim_{ε→0} M_{j1}(E+iε)/M_1(E+iε) for the subordinate solution at energies in eS. This is stated as 'shown in the appendix of [23]', a separate preprint by the author, and no proof is included in the present paper. Since this step is essential for defining the measurable function θ(E) and the sets A_1,A_2, the argument is incomplete as written; please either include a proof or a precise, independently verified statement of the cited result.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including inconsistent umlaut rendering in 'Schr\"odinger' and malformed displayed equations in Lemma 2.11 and in the proof of Theorem 1.3; these should be corrected in a revision.
[§3.1, proof of Theorem 1.1, Eq. (3.1.5)] Proposition 2.19 gives ∥u_θ∥_L ≤ C(E)L^{1/2} ln L; the text writes L^{1+ε}, which is acceptable for small ε but should be justified explicitly.
[§4.1, Proposition 4.3] The statement of Proposition 4.3 is one-sided, bounding M by the positive half-line m-functions. A comment explaining whether a symmetric bound with negative half-line m-functions also holds would help the reader, and would be needed for the argument in Theorem 1.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the constructions are explicit and the target dimensions are extracted from external subordinacy and Borel-transform tools, with only a minor self-citation ([23]) that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are new explicit constructions, not derived from fitted parameters or from a self-citation chain. Theorem 1.1 rests on external machinery: Propositions 2.16 and 2.18 (subordinacy estimates from [15,20]), Proposition 2.19 (Last\-Simon solution bounds [24]), Proposition 2.10 (a quantitative Borel-transform/local-dimension relation from [17]), and Proposition 2.8 ([6]). The half-line dimension-zero construction in Theorem 3.3 uses the external criterion Proposition 2.14 ([15]), while the whole-line construction in Theorem 1.3 combines Theorem 3.3 with Corollary 3.5 and the external bound Proposition 4.3 ([8]); none of these steps redefines the target quantity as an input. The only self-citation is [23], invoked near the proof of Theorem 4.4 for a Green-function ratio formula and measurability of the subordinate-solution angle; it is an independent general Jacobi-operator result, not a restatement of this paper's conclusions, and it is not the engine of the main constructions. There is a genuine correctness gap in Theorem 1.1 as written: Corollary 3.2 asserts '(k+1)^{k+1} \ge L^L', which is false (e.g., L=8, k=2), and the proof needs a lower bound on the product \omega(L)=\max\cdot\min that Corollary 3.2 does not supply; however, that is an invalid proof step, not a circular reduction. For these reasons the paper is free of circular derivation, with the score reflecting only the minor self-citation and preprint dependencies.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard mathematical tools plus two unreviewed preprints: [17] for Proposition 2.10 and the author's own [23] for an eigenfunction expansion fact. The hand-chosen potential values are construction parameters, not fitted data, but they are essential to the claims.

free parameters (3)

V(k^2) in Theorem 1.1 = Inductively chosen so that ∥T_{k^2}(E)∥·C_n > (k+1)^(k+1)
The potential values at squares are chosen by hand to force large solution norms; the paper claims this yields ω(L)≥L^L, which the proof does not establish.
V(L_n) in Theorem 3.3 = Chosen satisfying (3.2.1)
Sparse potential values are chosen large enough to force a positive Lyapunov exponent; these are construction parameters, not empirical fits.
Potential values at L_j^± in the line construction = Chosen inductively to satisfy (3.2.1) at each step
Each added potential value is selected to be large enough, which is a hand-chosen sequence rather than a fit to data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Proposition 2.10 (Jitomirskaya-Liu-Tcheremchantsev): if liminf ε^{1-η} Im m(E+iε)>0 then γ_µ^+(E) ≤ 2η/(2−η)
Key tool linking Borel transform growth to packing dimension; taken from unreviewed preprint arXiv:2501.12153. Used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
domain assumption Eigenfunction expansion facts for Jacobi operators on Z, as stated in the author's preprint [23]
Used in Theorem 4.4 to identify ψ(0)/ψ(1) with a derivative of spectral measures. This is a self-citation to an unreviewed preprint and is load-bearing for the measurable selection of θ(E).
domain assumption Proposition 4.3 (Damanik-Killip-Lenz): |M(z)| ≤ sup_θ |m_θ^+(z)| for line operators
Published result used to bound the whole-line Borel transform by half-line m-functions; standard in the field.
domain assumption Proposition 2.14 (Jitomirskaya-Last): if γ(E)>0 for E in a Borel set A then µ_θ(A∩·) is zero-dimensional
Published result used to prove Theorem 3.3; standard.
standard math Last-Simon bound: ∥u_θ∥_L ≤ C(E) L^{1/2} ln L for µ_θ-a.e. E
Standard bound from [24], used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Fractal Continuity Properties of Certain One-Dimensional Schr\"odinger Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OO3H62GR

@misc{pith2026250507129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Fractal Continuity Properties of Certain One-Dimensional Schr\"odinger Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OO3H62GR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07129}
}

read the original abstract

We construct examples of one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operators that illustrate the subtle nature of fractal continuity properties of spectral measures. First, we present half-line operators whose spectral measures have packing dimension zero for all boundary conditions. Second, we exhibit a whole-line operator whose spectral measure has Hausdorff dimension one, while every half-line restriction (under any boundary condition) has spectral measure of Hausdorff dimension zero. Finally, for the same whole-line operator, we prove the existence of a Borel set that carries positive spectral measure, yet has measure zero with respect to the spectral measure of the positive half-line restriction for every boundary condition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On a Question of Poltoratski
math.SP 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A sparse potential is built so that the essential spectrum is [-2,2] and the spectral measure of the boundary vector stays non-Rajchman for every rank-one perturbation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[23]

Universality of Packing Dimension Estimates for Spectral Measures of Quasiperiodic Operators: Monotone Potentials

N. Levi, Eigenfunction Expansion and the Decomposition of Jacobi Operators on Z, preprint. arXiv:2502.03707

work page Pith review arXiv
[17]

Lower bounds on concentration through Borel transforms and quantitative singularity of spectral measures near the arithmetic transition

S. Jitomirskaya, W. Liu and S. Tcheremchantsev, Lower bounds on concentration through Borel transform and quantitative singularity of spectral measures near the arithmetic transition , preprint. arXiv:2501.12153. ON FRACTAL CONTINUITY PROPERTIES OF CERTAIN ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCHR ¨ODINGER OPERATORS 17

work page Pith review arXiv
[16]

Jitomirskaya and Y

S. Jitomirskaya and Y. Last, Power law subordinacy and singular spectra, II. Line operators , Commun. Math. Phys. 211 (2000), 643–658

work page 2000
[1]

Ju. M. Berezanski ˘i, Expansions in Eigenfunctions of Self-Adjoint Operators , Transl. Math. Mono. 17, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1968

1968
[2]

C. L. Carvalho and C. R. de Oliveira, Spectral packing dimensions through power-law subordinacy , Ann. Henri Poincar´ e14 (2013), 775–792

work page 2013
[3]

C. D. Cutler, Measure disintegrations with respect to σ-stable monotone indices and the pointwise representation of packing dimension , Supp. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 28 (1992), 319–339

1992
[4]

Damanik and J

D. Damanik and J. Fillman, One-dimensional ergodic Schr¨ odinger operators–I. General theory, Grad. Stud. Math. 221, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Damanik and J

D. Damanik and J. Fillman, One-dimensional ergodic Schr¨ odinger operators–II. Specific classes, Grad. Stud. Math. 221, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 27 references

[6]

del Rio, S

R. del Rio, S. Jitomirskaya, Y. Last and B. Simon, Operators with singular continuous spectrum, IV. Hausdorff dimensions, rank one perturbations, and localization , J. Anal. Math 69 (1996), 153–200

1996
[7]

del Rio, S

R. del Rio, S. Jitomirskaya, N. Makarov and B. Simon, Singular continuous spectrum is generic , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 31 (1994), 208–212

1994
[8]

Damanik, R

D. Damanik, R. Killip and D. Lenz, Uniform Spectral Properties of One-Dimensional Quasicrystals, III. α- continuity, Commun. Math. Phys 212 (2000), 191–204

2000
[9]

del Rio, N

R. del Rio, N. Makarov and B. Simon, Operators with singular continuous spectrum. II. Rank one operators , Commun. Math. Phys. 165 (1994), 59–67

1994
[10]

Damanik and S

D. Damanik and S. Tcheremchantsev, Scaling estimates for solutions and dynamical lower bounds on wavepacket spreading, J. Anal. Math 97 (2005), 103–131

2005
[11]

A. Ya. Gordon Pure point spectrum under 1-parameter perturbations and instability of Anderson localization , Commun. Math. Phys. 164 (1994), 489–505

1994
[12]

D. J. Gilbert and D. B. Pearson, On subordinacy and analysis of the spectrum of one-dimensional Schr¨ odinger operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 128 (1987), 30–56

1987
[13]

Guarneri and H

I. Guarneri and H. Schulz-Baldes, Lower bounds on wave packet propagation by packing dimensions of spectral measures, Math. Phys. Electron. J. 16 (1999), Paper 1

1999
[14]

Jitomirskaya and I

S. Jitomirskaya and I. Kachkovskiy, Sharp arithmetic localization for quasiperiodic operators with monotone potentials., preprint. arXiv:2407.00703

arXiv
[15]

Jitomirskaya and Y

S. Jitomirskaya and Y. Last, Power law subordinacy and singular spectra, I. Half-line operators , Acta Math. 183 (1999), 171–189

1999
[18]

I. S. Kac, Spectral multiplicity of a second-order differential operator and expansion in eigenfunction. (Russian) , Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 27 (1963), 1081–1112

1963
[19]

Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995

T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995

1995
[20]

Killip, A

R. Killip, A. Kiselev and Y. Last, Dynamical upper bounds on wavepacket spreading, Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), 1165–1198

2003
[21]

Khan and D

S. Khan and D. B. Pearson, Subordinacy and spectral theory for infinite matrices , Helv. Phys. Acta 65 (1992), 505–527

1992
[22]

Kachkovskiy, L

I. Kachkovskiy, L. Pranovski and R. Shterenberg, On gaps in the spectra of quasiperiodic Schr¨ odinger operators with discontinuous monotone potentials , preprint. arXiv:2407.00705

arXiv
[24]

Last and B

Y. Last and B. Simon, Eigenfunctions, transfer matrices, and absolutely continuous spectrum of one-dimensional Schr¨ odinger operators, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), 329–367

1999
[25]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of modern mathematical physics, I: Functional analysis , Academic press, New York, 1972

1972
[26]

C. A. Rogers and S. J. Taylor, The analysis of additive set functions in Euclidean space , Acta Math. 101 (1959), 273–302

1959
[27]

Zlato˘ s,Sparse potentials with fractional Hausdorff dimension , J

A. Zlato˘ s,Sparse potentials with fractional Hausdorff dimension , J. Funct. Anal. 207 (2004), 216–252

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Universality of Packing Dimension Estimates for Spectral Measures of Quasiperiodic Operators: Monotone Potentials

N. Levi, Eigenfunction Expansion and the Decomposition of Jacobi Operators on Z, preprint. arXiv:2502.03707

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [17]

Lower bounds on concentration through Borel transforms and quantitative singularity of spectral measures near the arithmetic transition

S. Jitomirskaya, W. Liu and S. Tcheremchantsev, Lower bounds on concentration through Borel transform and quantitative singularity of spectral measures near the arithmetic transition , preprint. arXiv:2501.12153. ON FRACTAL CONTINUITY PROPERTIES OF CERTAIN ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCHR ¨ODINGER OPERATORS 17

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [16]

Jitomirskaya and Y

S. Jitomirskaya and Y. Last, Power law subordinacy and singular spectra, II. Line operators , Commun. Math. Phys. 211 (2000), 643–658

work page 2000

[4] [1]

Ju. M. Berezanski ˘i, Expansions in Eigenfunctions of Self-Adjoint Operators , Transl. Math. Mono. 17, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1968

1968

[5] [2]

C. L. Carvalho and C. R. de Oliveira, Spectral packing dimensions through power-law subordinacy , Ann. Henri Poincar´ e14 (2013), 775–792

work page 2013

[6] [3]

C. D. Cutler, Measure disintegrations with respect to σ-stable monotone indices and the pointwise representation of packing dimension , Supp. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 28 (1992), 319–339

1992

[7] [4]

Damanik and J

D. Damanik and J. Fillman, One-dimensional ergodic Schr¨ odinger operators–I. General theory, Grad. Stud. Math. 221, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [5]

Damanik and J

D. Damanik and J. Fillman, One-dimensional ergodic Schr¨ odinger operators–II. Specific classes, Grad. Stud. Math. 221, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2025)

work page 2025