REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references
On the intersection of Cantor set with the unit circle and some sequences
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper proves a sharp dichotomy: for every $0<\lambda\le 2-\sqrt{3}$, the unit circle meets $K_\lambda\times K_\lambda$ only at $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$, and the bound cannot be improved.
desk verdict Clean triviality result with sharp threshold, but the continuum claim has a real gap; needs a patch before publication. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The workhorse is the interval-image calculus for $g(x,y)=x^2+y^2$ on the basic intervals of $K_\lambda$. Lemma 2.4 shows that when two basic intervals satisfy the ratio condition $\frac{1-2\lambda}{\lambda}(a+\lambda^n)\le b\le \frac{a}{1-2\lambda}$, the image $g(I\times J)$ is exactly the interval image of the union of the next-level subrectangles, so the circle condition can be checked by finite interval overlap. Lemmas 2.6–2.8 locate the set $G(I,J)$ of points covered twice by images of finer subintervals; Proposition 2.9 turns this double-covering set into a full binary tree, yielding continuum many solutions. For the sequence theorem, the load-bearing object is the period of the base-$m$ expansion of $1/n^2$: reducing the period equation modulo $m$ gives $(x_q n)^2\equiv -x_q\pmod m$, so a Legendre-symbol condition on the digit set forces the final period digit outside $D$ and hence forces $n$ to be a power of $m$.
What would settle it
Evaluate the four inequalities in (2.11) at $\lambda=0.407493$ with exact interval arithmetic: if any one fails, the theorem's threshold is not covered by the proof as written; if all four hold, the small gap closes and the stated constant is verified.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is a sharp phase transition for $\mathbb{S}\cap(K_\lambda\times K_\lambda)$: trivial, with only $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$, exactly up to $\lambda=2-\sqrt{3}$, and non-trivial for $\lambda\ge 0.330384$. The proof of triviality runs by induction on the cylinder level of the first coordinate, using the fact that $\lambda^2-4\lambda+1\ge 0$ on this range to rule out every nonzero solution. The richness result is stronger: for $\lambda\ge 0.407493$ the intersection has cardinality continuum, and the proof constructs $2^{\aleph_0}$ solutions by a binary branching argument on interval images. Sharpness is shown by the explicit roots of $\lambda^{2k+2}+\lambda^2-4\lambda+1=0$, which decrease to $2-\sqrt{3}$ and each give a non-trivial intersection. The arithmetic companion result is a dichotomy for $\{1/n^2:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\cap K_{m,D}$ in terms of the Legendre symbol $(-a/m)_L$ over the nonzero digit set, yielding an empty intersection or exactly $\{1/m^{2\ell}\}$.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the handful of polynomial inequalities in Propositions 2.5 and 2.10, which are asserted to be 'easily checked with the assistance of computers', really hold on the stated intervals; no code or interval certificates are supplied, and Proposition 2.10 only verifies its inequalities for $\lambda\ge 0.407494$ while the theorem claims the threshold $0.407493$, leaving the small interval $[0.407493,0.407494)$ without a stated verification.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Since $1/5<2-\sqrt{3}$, the unit circle meets $K_{1/5}\times K_{1/5}$ only at $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$, settling the 2023 missing-digits question in the negative for that parameter.
- The cutoff $2-\sqrt{3}$ is optimal: the explicit sequence of roots of $\lambda^{2k+2}+\lambda^2-4\lambda+1=0$ decreases to it and each root produces a non-trivial circle intersection.
- For every $\lambda\ge 0.407493$, the intersection $\mathbb{S}\cap(K_\lambda\times K_\lambda)$ has the cardinality of the continuum; the binary-branching proof actually yields continuum many points on every circle $x^2+y^2=r$ in a suitable interval.
- Under the Legendre-symbol condition, any element of $\{1/n^2:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ that lies in $K_{m,D}$ must have $n$ a pure power of $m$, so the sequence intersection is either empty or $\{1/m^{2\ell}:\ell\in\mathbb{N}\}$.
- For $0<\lambda\le 1/3$ and $2\le q\le 1/\lambda-1$, the polynomial curve $y=x^q$ meets $K_\lambda\times K_\lambda$ exactly at $(\lambda^k,\lambda^{qk})$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, together with $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$.
Reading between the lines
- The double-covering interval technique should transfer to any smooth curve whose interval images obey similar overlap inequalities; ellipses and hyperbolas are a direct next test.
- The arithmetic dichotomy is probably one instance of a broader principle: for sequences such as $\{1/n^k\}$, the intersection with a self-similar set should be governed by a character condition on the digit set modulo the base, and the Legendre-symbol case is the quadratic instance.
- The small unverified interval around $\lambda=0.407493$ can be settled by a short exact interval-arithmetic computation; a reader with a computer algebra system can confirm or correct the stated threshold in minutes.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies the intersection of the unit circle S with the planar Cantor product K_λ × K_λ, where K_λ is the self-similar set generated by {λx, λx+1−λ}. Theorem 1.1 asserts: (i) for 0<λ≤2−√3 the intersection is exactly {(0,1),(1,0)}; (ii) for 0.330384≤λ<1/2 the intersection is non-trivial; (iii) for 0.407493≤λ<1/2 it has cardinality continuum. Remark 1.2(b) gives an explicit decreasing sequence λ_n↘2−√3 with non-trivial intersections, showing sharpness. The paper also contains a complete description of K_λ×K_λ intersected with monomial curves (Theorem 1.3) and, via quadratic reciprocity, a dichotomy for {1/n²}∩K_{m,D} (Theorem 1.5). The proofs are constructive and use interval-covering lemmas, a binary branching argument, and classical number theory.
Significance. If the results are correct, Theorem 1.1(i) with the explicit sharpness sequence resolves the negative direction of Yu's Question 1.2, and the interval-covering method leading to a continuum cardinality is a useful contribution. The proof of Theorem 1.1(i) is a clean induction with verifiable estimates, and the number-theoretic Theorem 1.5 is elegant and appears sound. However, the full strength of the paper depends on several polynomial inequalities that are only checked numerically without certificates, and one of those checks leaves a concrete gap in the proof of Theorem 1.1(iii) as stated. The central contribution is not compromised, but the manuscript needs revision before acceptance.
major comments (3)
- [Proposition 2.10, Theorem 1.1(iii), Eq. (2.11)] Proposition 2.10(ii) is proved only for 0.407494≤λ<0.415, while Theorem 1.1(iii) states the threshold 0.407493. The interval [0.407493,0.407494) is not covered by any argument. This is not merely a missing certificate: after multiplying by λ>0, the first inequality in (2.11) is equivalent to P(λ)=λ^5−λ^3−λ^2+3λ−1≥0. At the stated endpoint one has P(0.407493)<0 (approximately −2.6×10^{-7}), while P(0.407494)>0, so the root of P lies inside the claimed range. Consequently the chosen intervals do not satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition 2.9 on [0.407493,0.407494), and no alternative construction is supplied. The authors must either raise the threshold in Theorem 1.1(iii) to 0.407494 and adjust Proposition 2.10 accordingly, or provide a new argument covering the missing interval.
- [Propositions 2.5 and 2.10, Eqs. (2.3), (2.10), (2.11)] The polynomial inequalities that determine the numerical thresholds are asserted to be 'easily checked' or 'checked with the assistance of computers' without any reproducible verification. In Proposition 2.5, the reduction of (2.3) to a single evaluation at λ=0.330384 relies on an unproved monotonicity assertion, and the companion polynomial inequalities are not examined. In Proposition 2.10, the inequalities (2.10) and (2.11) are non-trivial on their intervals and are load-bearing for the continuum claim. The authors should supply explicit Sturm sequences, factorizations, or interval-arithmetic certificates, or reproducible code, so that the claimed thresholds are verifiable.
- [Lemma 2.8] The proof states that the sequence {β_k(a_k,b_k)} is increasing to (a+λ^n)^2+(b+λ^n)^2, but the displayed computation only proves β_k(a_k,b_k)>a_{k+1}^2+b_{k+1}^2, which by itself does not imply monotonicity in k. The monotonicity is true and can be shown directly from the formula, but it should be justified explicitly, or the argument should be rephrased so that only the overlap inequality is used.
minor comments (5)
- [Title page / author line] The author name 'W ANG' in the running title should read 'WANG'.
- [Section 4, after Theorem 4.2] 'Guass's law of reciprocity' is a typo for 'Gauss's law of reciprocity'.
- [Lemma 2.6 and Figure 2] The conclusion that (α_n(a,b),β_n(a,b))⊂G(I,J) is justified mainly by reference to Figure 2; a short analytic explanation of why every point in the union of the two middle intervals lies in at least two of the four interval images would make the argument self-contained.
- [Question 5.2] The displayed containment is stated as 'easy to check', but the verification is not given; since the containment involves the ternary expansions of 1/121 and its shifts, a one-sentence explanation would be helpful.
- [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract says the methods 'extend beyond the unit circle and remain effective for many nonlinear curves'; Section 3 treats only monomial curves and the Pythagorean cone, so the wording is broader than the demonstrated scope.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the paper's results are derived from first principles, and the only self-citation is contextual, not load-bearing.
full rationale
Walking the derivation chain, every main claim is proved internally from standard self-similar-set facts and elementary estimates, without fitting a parameter to the target conclusion. Theorem 1.1(i) is obtained by an induction on the coding intervals of K_lambda, with all inequalities shown directly under lambda <= 2 - sqrt(3); no part of the conclusion is used as an input. Theorem 1.1(ii) and (iii) reduce to finding explicit basic intervals and verifying explicit polynomial inequalities in Propositions 2.5 and 2.10; these inequalities are stated to be checked by computer, and while no certificate is supplied, this is a verification-gap/correctness-risk issue, not circularity. Remark 1.2(b) constructs a decreasing sequence lambda_k via an explicit equation lambda^{2k+2}+lambda^2-4lambda+1=0 whose root lies in (0,1/2), and this independently demonstrates sharpness of the threshold. The self-citation to Du, Jiang and Yao [3] appears only as motivational context for the middle-third Cantor set example and is not used in any proof. Proposition 2.10 exhibits one localized concern: the proof of Theorem 1.1(iii) verifies inequalities only for lambda >= 0.407494 while the theorem states 0.407493, and the first inequality in (2.11) is tight in that gap. This is a possible unproved subinterval rather than a circular reduction; the claimed threshold simply may need a one-line patch or a slightly larger stated constant. The number-theoretic results in Section 4 are proved directly from the quadratic reciprocity law and elementary properties of the Legendre symbol, with no reliance on the paper's own prior results. There is no sense in which a 'prediction' equals its fitted input, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The paper is therefore not circular; any weaknesses are matters of rigor or numerical verification, not of circular reasoning.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- standard math Bernoulli inequality (1+x)^n > 1+nx for x>−1, x≠0, n∈N≥2
- standard math Quadratic reciprocity law and basic Legendre symbol properties
- standard math Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions
- standard math Base-m expansion facts: rationals with denominator coprime to m have a unique purely periodic expansion
- standard math Self-similar set Kλ is the attractor of the IFS and each point has a unique coding
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of On the intersection of Cantor set with the unit circle and some sequences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3WZ2FMZN
@misc{pith2026250716510,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: On the intersection of Cantor set with the unit circle and some sequences},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3WZ2FMZN}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16510}
}
abstract
For $\lambda\in(0,1/2)$ let $K_\lambda$ be the self-similar set in $\mathbb{R}$ generated by the iterated function system $\{f_0(x)=\lambda x, f_1(x)=\lambda x+1-\lambda \}$. In this paper, we investigate the intersection of the unit circle $\mathbb{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with the Cartesian product $K_{\lambda} \times K_{\lambda}$. We prove that for $\lambda \in(0, 2 - \sqrt{3}]$, the intersection is trivial, i.e., \[ \mathbb{S} \cap (K_{\lambda} \times K_{\lambda}) = \{(0,1), (1,0)\}. \] If $\lambda\in [0.330384,1/2)$, then the intersection $\mathbb{S} \cap (K_{\lambda} \times K_{\lambda})$ is non-trivial. In particular, if $\lambda\in [0.407493 , 1/2)$ the intersection $\mathbb{S} \cap (K_{\lambda} \times K_{\lambda})$ is of cardinality continuum. Furthermore, the bound $2 - \sqrt{3}$ is sharp: there exists a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\lambda_n \searrow 2 - \sqrt{3}$ such that $\mathbb{S} \cap (K_{\lambda_n} \times K_{\lambda_n})$ is non-trivial for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. This result provides a negative answer to a problem posed by Yu (2023). Our methods extend beyond the unit circle and remain effective for many nonlinear curves. By employing tools from number theory, including the quadratic reciprocity law, we analyze the intersection of Cantor sets with some sequences. A dichotomy is established in terms of the Legendre symbol associated with the digit set, revealing a fundamental arithmetic constraint governing such intersections.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
V. Ya. Bloshchitsyn. Rational points in m-adic Cantor sets. J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) , 211(6):747–751, 2015
work page 2015
-
[2]
Karma Dajani and Cor Kraaikamp. Ergodic Theory of Numbers. Mathematical As- sociation of America, Washington, DC, 2002
work page 2002
-
[3]
Rational and non-trivial solutions to some algebraic equations in the Cantor sets
Caimin Du, Kan Jiang and Yiqi Yao. Rational and non-trivial solutions to some algebraic equations in the Cantor sets. To appear in Monatsh. Math., 2024
work page 2024
-
[4]
Kenneth Falconer. Fractal Geometry. Mathematical Foundations and Applications. Wiley, Chichester, 1990
work page 1990
-
[5]
An introduction to the theory of numbers
Godfrey Harold Hardy and Edward Maitland Wright. An introduction to the theory of numbers. Sixth edition. Revised by D. R. Heath-Brown and J. H. Silverman. With a foreword by Andrew Wiles. Oxford University Press, Oxford. xxii+621 pp. ISBN: 978-0-19-921986-5, 2008
work page 2008
-
[6]
John Hutchinson. Fractals and self-similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 30(5):713–747, 1981
work page 1981
-
[7]
Rational points in transla- tions of the Cantor set
Kan Jiang, Derong Kong, Wenxia Li and Zhiqiang Wang. Rational points in transla- tions of the Cantor set. Indag. Math. (N.S.) , 35(3):516–522, 2024
work page 2024
-
[8]
Emma Lehmer. Rational reciprocity laws. Amer. Math. Monthly, 85(6):467–472, 1978
work page 1978
Show all 17 references
-
[9]
Rational numbers in ×b-invariant sets
Bing Li, Ruofan Li and Yufeng Wu. Rational numbers in ×b-invariant sets. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 151(5): 1877–1887, 2023
2023
-
[10]
Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces
Pertti Mattila. Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces. Fractals and rectifiability, 1st paperback ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999
1999
-
[11]
Rational points in Cantor sets
Judit Nagy. Rational points in Cantor sets. Fibonacci Quart., 39(3):238–241, 2001
2001
-
[12]
On intrinsic and extrinsic rational approximation to Cantor sets
Johannes Schleischitz. On intrinsic and extrinsic rational approximation to Cantor sets. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 41(5):1560–1589, 2021
2021
-
[13]
On Furstenberg’s intersection conjecture, self-similar measures, and the Lq norms of convolutions
Pablo Shmerkin. On Furstenberg’s intersection conjecture, self-similar measures, and the Lq norms of convolutions. Ann. of Math. (2) , 189(2):319-391, 2019
2019
-
[14]
On the arithmetic structure of rational numbers in the Cantor set, Bull
Igor Shparlinski. On the arithmetic structure of rational numbers in the Cantor set, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. , 103(1): 22–27, 2021
2021
-
[15]
Terminating decimals in the Cantor ternary set
Charles Wall. Terminating decimals in the Cantor ternary set. Fibonacci Quart. , 28(2):98–101, 1990
1990
-
[16]
A proof of Furstenberg’s conjecture on the intersections of ×p- and ×q- invariant sets
Meng Wu. A proof of Furstenberg’s conjecture on the intersections of ×p- and ×q- invariant sets. Ann. of Math. (2) , 189(3):707-751, 2019
2019
-
[17]
Missing digits points near manifolds
Han Yu. Missing digits points near manifolds. arXiv:2309.00130, 2023. 22 KAN JIANG, DERONG KONG, WENXIA LI, AND ZHIQIANG W ANG (K. Jiang) Department of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, People’s Republic of China Email address : jiangkan@nbu.edu.cn (D. Kong) Colle...
2023 arXiv
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.