Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

On the dimension drop for harmonic measure on uniformly non-flat Ahlfors-David regular boundaries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Theorem 1 claims harmonic measure drops dimension on uniformly non-flat AD-regular boundaries with codimension at least one, for an explicit range of boundary dimensions.

desk verdict Plausible endpoint result for dimension drop at codimension-one, but the headline κs bound is never derived and the kernel is inconsistent; worth a referee but not citable yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.16167 v3 pith:EGWC47VU submitted 2026-01-22 math.AP math.CA

Aritro Pathak This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.CA MSC 31B1528A7835J25
keywords harmonicmeasuredimensiondropAhlfors-Davidregularuniformnon-flatnesspotentialtheoryGreenfunctioncorkscrewconditiondyadiccubes
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 proves that harmonic measure in R^n (n≥3) loses dimension whenever the domain's boundary is Ahlfors-David regular of dimension s in the interval n−1−δ0 ≤ s ≤ n−1 and is uniformly non-flat at every location and scale. The theorem gives a concrete, quantitative δ0 that depends only on the non-flatness parameter β and the regularity constant C1, and it avoids Riesz-transform and compactness machinery, relying instead on elementary potential theory: a corner construction, multipole expansions of the fundamental solution, and a double-integral averaging argument. If correct, this is the first quantitative dimension-drop result for boundaries of codimension at least one in the uniformly non-flat setting.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a corner construction: for a corkscrew point p1 and a nearest boundary point q1, the boundary is decomposed into dyadic annular regions A_m(q1) with radii κ^m t1, where κ is chosen from the Ahlfors-David regularity constant. The uniform non-flatness condition forces a point of the boundary in each annulus at controlled distance from the plane through q1 perpendicular to p1q1, giving a lower bound on the gradient of the fundamental-solution potential at q1. Taylor/multipole expansions of the fundamental solution up to second order split potential differences into a gradient term and a second-order term; the annulus geometry plus Ahlfors regularity bounds the second-order

What would settle it

One concrete way to test the claim: construct a connected domain Ω⊂R^3 with a 2-dimensional AD-regular boundary satisfying the uniform non-flatness condition (1) but for which some boundary point x has no interior ball B(y,c r)⊂Ω∩B(x,r) with a universal c>0 (e.g., a boundary with arbitrarily thin gaps between components). If such a domain fails the conclusion dim ω<κs, the theorem is false. A direct numerical check would compute the Poisson-kernel density ratio Θ on nested dyadic cubes for such a pinched gap, and see whether the density jump of Theorem 9 actually occurs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: fix n≥3, C1>1, and 0<β<1, set β1=1/(4⌈1/β⌉+2) and δ0=β1^{3n log C1 / β1^n}. For every connected domain Ω⊂R^n whose boundary is (s,C1)-Ahlfors-David regular with n−1−δ0 ≤ s ≤ n−1 and satisfies the uniform non-flatness condition b^β_{ωΩ}(x,r) ≥ β, there exists κ∈(0,1) such that dim ω_Ω < κs. That is, there is a Borel set K with dim K < κs and ω_Ω(K^c)=0: the harmonic measure, although supported on the full boundary, lives entirely on a strictly lower-dimensional subset. The proof works by showing that on every dyadic boundary cube there is a subcube—at a length scale controlled by the parameters—where the average Poisson kernel differs from the average over the

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes without a supplied argument that every AD-regular boundary of dimension s ≥ n−1 automatically satisfies the interior corkscrew condition with a uniform constant, so the corkscrew point sits at distance comparable to the boundary cube's side length; if that uniformity fails, the corner lower bounds collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1 is correct, the dimension drop for harmonic measure holds for uniformly non-flat AD-regular boundaries with dimension in [n−1−δ0, n−1], a regime of codimension at least one previously treated only under extra geometric structure.
  • The explicit formula for δ0 gives a concrete range of s for which the drop is guaranteed, rather than an existential constant from compactness or Riesz-transform methods.
  • The theorem implies that on such domains harmonic measure is singular with respect to the s-dimensional Hausdorff measure on the boundary: there is a set K with ω(K)=1 and H^s(K)=0.
  • The density-oscillation property established in Theorem 9 is exactly the input to the standard dimension-drop criterion, so the proof yields a quantitative route to dimension estimates for harmonic measure.
  • Because the proof avoids Riesz transforms, the same corner-and-averaging mechanism may be adaptable to other elliptic operators and to the logarithmic (n=2) case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is the plane case n=2, where the logarithmic fundamental solution would require modified estimates; the author notes this but does not carry it out, and the same corner construction plausibly yields an analogous dimension drop there.
  • The explicit dependence of δ0 on β and C1 suggests an effective version of the theory: one can track how κ changes as β→0, which may be useful for numerical experiments on fractal boundaries.
  • The unproved 'automatic' corkscrew condition is a hidden geometric premise; if there exist AD-regular, uniformly non-flat boundaries of dimension n−1 without a uniform interior corkscrew constant, the theorem's scope would be narrower than stated and a two-sided capacity condition would be needed.
  • The change-of-pole argument could be extracted as a standalone lemma transferring density oscillations from boundary balls to arbitrary poles in AD-regular domains, which may have applications beyond the dimension-drop problem.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to prove a quantitative dimension drop for harmonic measure on uniformly non-flat Ahlfors-David regular boundaries of dimension s with n-1-delta0 <= s <= n-1, for n>=3. The method is potential-theoretic: using the Dirichlet Green function, the author isolates corner regions near a corkscrew point, uses uniform non-flatness and AD-regularity to force a non-uniform gradient of the Poisson kernel, and derives a density-increment contradiction resembling Azzam's argument. The proof then invokes a change-of-pole lemma and a density-increment dimension-drop lemma to conclude the theorem. The central advertised novelty is an explicit quantitative bound on the dimension-gap parameter delta0 and a dimension-drop factor kappa<1, obtained without Riesz-transform or compactness machinery.

Significance. If fully correct, the theorem would extend Azzam's dimension-drop result to boundaries at or below the codimension-one threshold, with explicit dependence of the admissible dimension gap on the non-flatness parameter, and would provide an elementary alternative to existing Riesz-transform techniques. The local double-integral argument in Lemma 10 is a genuine non-circular idea, and the explicit choices of w and delta0 in Section 5 show a serious quantitative intention. However, the manuscript as written does not deliver the stated theorem: the quantitative dimension-drop factor is not derived, the displayed delta0 is not the one produced by the proof, and the corkscrew condition is asserted without support. These are load-bearing gaps, not presentation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6, Lemma 13] Theorem 1 asserts the existence of kappa in (0,1) such that dim omega < kappa s. The proof ends with Lemma 13, whose statement and proof conclude only dim omega < s. The symbol kappa is introduced in Lemma 7 as a geometric scaling factor (Eq. (16)) and is never connected to the theorem's kappa. The final reduction to [Tol24, Lemma 2.8] is not shown to yield a dimension bound strictly below s, and no dependence of a quantitative bound on the constants M and eta in Eq. (117) is computed. The headline dimension-drop factor is therefore not derived; the theorem must either be proved with a quantitative estimate or weakened to dim omega < s.
  2. [§3, before Definition 1] The claim that boundaries of codimension >=1 automatically satisfy the interior corkscrew condition is made without proof or citation. This is load-bearing: the corner construction of Section 5 (Eq. (13)) and Lemma 8 require a pole p1 at distance r1 from the boundary with B(p1,r1) empty, and Theorem 9's proof uses the corkscrew condition to obtain a uniform lower bound on |A(U)-\hat A(U)| in terms of l(Q). For a connected domain whose AD-regular boundary has dimension s <= n-1, nearly touching boundary components can prevent uniform corkscrew balls; Eq. (1) alone does not obviously exclude this. The authors must either prove the corkscrew condition from the hypotheses or add it as an explicit assumption.
  3. [§5 (2), Eqs. (89)–(95)] The delta0 displayed in Theorem 1 and the delta0 derived in the proof are different. The proof concludes at Eqs. (89) and (95) that it is enough to take delta0 approximately beta_1^{3n log C / beta_1^n}, whereas Theorem 1 displays delta0 of the form beta^{4n log C1} beta_1^n (or beta/(4n log C1) beta_1^n as rendered). For small beta these are vastly different, with the displayed value far larger (less restrictive) than the value the proof supports. The quantitative claim of the theorem must be reconciled with the proof's sufficient bound.
  4. [§5 (1), Eq. (42) ff.] In the s=n-1 case the lower bound in Eq. (42) scales like beta_1^{w(1+s)} = beta_1^{wn}. Immediately afterward, the summed lower bound and theta0 in Eq. (47) use beta_1^{2w}. Since n>=3 and beta_1<1, beta_1^{wn} is much smaller than beta_1^{2w}; the larger exponent is not justified by the projection argument. The subsequent estimates (e.g., Eqs. (50) and (62)) rely on this exponent, so the contradiction in the core density-increment argument is not established as written.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, Lemma 7] The statement 'there exists a1<=kappa<=1/2' should read '0<kappa<=1/2'.
  2. [§5, Eq. (22)] The constant M is used before it is defined; it should be introduced before Eq. (22).
  3. [§6, Lemma 13] The constant C0 in 'M=M(n,s,C0)>1' is undefined.
  4. [§6, end] The sentence 'This completes the proof of Theorem 1' follows only a one-sentence reduction to [Tol24, Lemma 2.8]; given that the density-increment hypothesis in Lemma 13 is the exact input to the theorem, a more detailed proof of this reduction is needed.
  5. [§2, Eq. (3.4)] The equation numbering '(3.4)' appears in Section 2; renumber consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core density-increment argument is derived from the hypotheses and external lemmas; the quantitative κ gap is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation's core is the equipotential contradiction in Eq. (21) (δ1G + δ2G = 0), with the near/mid/far contributions estimated from the uniform non-flatness condition Eq. (1), AD-regularity Eq. (2'), Bourgain's Lemma 2, and a David-Semmes dyadic grid. Theorem 9's density-increment conclusion is not fitted: it is obtained by contradiction from the assumption that all subcube densities lie in [M^{-1}Θ(U), MΘ(U)] (Eq. (39)) together with the potential estimates. Lemma 11 is a consistency argument from the definition of density, not a renamed conclusion. Lemma 12 is explicitly adapted from 'Lemma 4.3 of [Az20]', an external, non-overlapping source, and Lemma 13 is credited to [Tol24]/[Bou87]/[Bat96]. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the author does not rely on prior work of Pathak. Two concerns flagged by the text are correctness/completeness issues, not circularity. First, Theorem 1 asserts 'dim ω_Ω < κs' with κ∈(0,1), whereas Lemma 13 concludes only 'dimω < s'; the quantitative κ is never derived from the proof, but this is a missing logical step, not a reduction of the output to an input. Second, Section 3 asserts 'we automatically have the corkscrew condition satisfied' with no proof; if false, the uniform lower bound on |A(U)−q1| in Theorem 9 would fail, but this is an unstated geometric hypothesis rather than a self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

What the proof pulls from outside: the full apparatus of harmonic measure theory (Bourgain bounds, Green function, dyadic cubes) plus two under-justified geometric premises (automatic corkscrew; CDC of killed domains). What the paper adds in variables: β1, w, δ0, γ, θ1 — none fitted to data, but δ0 and w are not fully explicit because they depend on an unspecified multiplier C. The claimed 'explicit quantitative bound' is therefore explicit only up to an unspecified constant.

free parameters (6)
  • β1 (threshold scale) = β1 = 1/(4⌈1/β⌉+2)
    Derived from the uniform non-flatness parameter β; controls all length ratios (Eq. (13)) and enters the final δ0.
  • w (iteration count) = w = log C/β1^n (Eq. (89)); also Eq. (33)
    Chosen large enough to force the Ahlfors-regularity contradiction (Eq. (30)); the constant C is unspecified, so w is not fully explicit.
  • δ0 (allowed dimension gap) = δ0 = β1^{3n log C/β1^n} (Eqs. (89)-(95)); Theorem 1 states a different-looking formula
    The headline quantitative bound; depends on an unspecified multiplier C, so it is not a fully explicit number as announced.
  • κ (theorem dimension-drop factor) = κ ∈ (0,1), asserted; different expressions in Eq. (16) and Eq. (102)
    The dimension-drop factor in Theorem 1 is never computed from the proof's constants; Eq. (16) gives κ = 1/(4⌈C1^{2/s}⌉+2) and Eq. (102) gives κ = C1^{−2/(n−1−δ)}.
  • γ (separation scale) = γ ≤ 1/2; Eq. (101): γ ≪ M^{−2} C4^{−1} κ^δ log(1/κ)
    Chosen small enough to make second-order contributions negligible relative to the gradient contribution in the s < n−1 case.
  • θ1 (q2 separation fraction) = θ1 ∈ (θ0, 1), θ0 = β1^{2w} (Eq. (47))
    Separation of q2 from q1 within C(q1, γκ^N t1); chosen after the fact to satisfy the contradiction bounds.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Uniform non-flatness Eq. (1'): b^β_ω(x,r) ≥ β at every cube C(x,r), at all scales
    Global hypothesis; drives Lemma 8's corner lower bounds and hence the density increment; if it fails at any scale the argument collapses.
  • domain assumption Ahlfors-David regularity Eq. (2'): C1^{−1} r^s ≤ σ(C(x,r)) ≤ C1 r^s
    Used throughout for measure comparisons; also extended to cubes centered off the boundary (footnote in Lemma 8 proof).
  • standard math Bourgain lower bound (Lemma 2/3): ω^y(B(ξ,r)) ≥ c0 for y near B(ξ,r)
    From [Bou87]; used to anchor Θ(U) from below and in Lemma 12's change of pole.
  • standard math Capacity density estimate (Lemma 4): ω^y(B(x,r)^c) ≲ (|x−y|/r)^α
    Cited; applied in Lemma 12 also to the killed domain Ω\B0 whose CDC is not verified.
  • ad hoc to paper Automatic corkscrew condition for AD-regular boundaries of codimension ≥ 1
    Asserted as 'well known' before Definition 1, with no proof or citation; needed to place p1 = A(U) at controlled distance from the nearest boundary point q1.
  • standard math David-Semmes dyadic cube system (Theorem 5)
    From [DS2]; the partition lattice on ∂Ω used for all cubes Q, U, A_m.
  • standard math Green function representation and equipotential identity G ≡ 0 on ∂Ω (Eqs. (3.4), (21))
    Standard construction following [HMM+17]; the identity δ1G + δ2G = 0 on ∂Ω is the load-bearing constraint of the whole contradiction argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the dimension drop for harmonic measure on uniformly non-flat Ahlfors-David regular boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGWC47VU

@misc{pith2026260116167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the dimension drop for harmonic measure on uniformly non-flat Ahlfors-David regular boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGWC47VU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.16167}
}
abstract

We extend earlier results of Azzam on the dimension drop of the harmonic measure for a domain $\Omega\subset \R^{n}$ with $n\geq 3$, with dimensional Ahlfors regular boundary $\partial\Omega$ of dimension $s$ with $n-1-\delta_0 \leq s\leq n-1$, that is uniformly non flat. Here $\delta_0$ is a small positive constant dependent on the parameters of the problem. Our novel construction relies on elementary geometric and potential theoretic considerations. We avoid the use of Riesz transforms and compactness arguments, and also give quantitative bounds on the $\delta_0$ parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16167 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The corkscrew point p1 and a point q1 ∈ ∂Ω nearest to p1 is shown in the figure. The hyperplane Σ1 passes through q1 and is perpendicular to the line joining p1, q1, and the cube C(q1, t1) is also shown. The left and right half planes in the figure are respectively H + 1 , H− 1 . The arc shows a portion of the sphere S(p1, r1). The dashed lines depict the boundary ∂Ω, which lies in the complement of the ball B(p1, r… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. Aikawa. Equivalence between the boundary H arnack principle and the C arleson estimate. Math. Scand. , 103(1):61--76, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    Aikawa and K

    H. Aikawa and K. Hirata. Doubling conditions for harmonic measure in J ohn domains. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 58(2):429--445, 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    Akman, J

    M. Akman, J. Azzam, and M. Mourgoglou. Absolute continuity of harmonic measure for domains with lower regular boundaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07291 , 2016

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    D. H. Armitage and S. J. Gardiner. Classical potential theory . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Azzam, S

    J. Azzam, S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, S. Mayboroda, M. Mourgoglou, X. Tolsa, and A. Volberg. Rectifiability of harmonic measure. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 26(3):703--728, 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Azzam and M

    J. Azzam and M. Mourgoglou. Tangent measures and absolute continuity of harmonic measure. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. , 34(1):305--330, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Azzam and M

    J. Azzam and M. Mourgoglou. Tangent measures and densities of harmonic measure. to appear in Rev. Math. , 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Azzam, M

    J. Azzam, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. A two-phase free boundary problem for harmonic measure and uniform rectifiability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10111 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A. Ancona. On strong barriers and an inequality of H ardy for domains in R ^n . J. London Math. Soc. (2) , 34(2):274--290, 1986

    1986

  2. [10]

    Dimension drop for harmonic measure on Ahlfors regular boundaries

    Azzam, Jonas. "Dimension drop for harmonic measure on Ahlfors regular boundaries." Potential Analysis 53, no. 3 (2020): 1025-1041

    2020

  3. [11]

    A. Batakis. Harmonic measure of some C antor type sets. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. , 21(2):255--270, 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    A. Batakis. A continuity property of the dimension of the harmonic measure of C antor sets under perturbations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Probab. Statist. , 36(1):87--107, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    A. Batakis. Dimension of the harmonic measure of non-homogeneous C antor sets. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 56(6):1617--1631, 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    Bortz and M

    S. Bortz and M. Engelstein. Reifenberg flatness and oscillation of the unit normal vector. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05331 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. On the H ausdorff dimension of harmonic measure in higher dimension. Invent. Math. , 87(3):477--483, 1987

    1987

  8. [16]

    Carleson

    L. Carleson. On the support of harmonic measure for sets of C antor type. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. , 10:113--123, 1985

    1985

  9. [17]

    M. Christ. A T(b) theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the C auchy integral. Colloq. Math. , 60/61(2):601--628, 1990

    1990

  10. [18]

    G. David. Morceaux de graphes lipschitziens et int\'egrales singuli\`eres sur une surface. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana , 4(1):73--114, 1988

    1988

  11. [19]

    David and S

    G. David and S. Semmes. Singular integrals and rectifiable sets in R ^n : Beyond Lipschitz graphs. Ast\'erisque , 193, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    David and S

    G. David and S. Semmes. Analysis of and on uniformly rectifiable sets. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs , Vol. 38. American Mathematical Society, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    David, C

    G. David, C. Jeznach, and A. Julia. Cantor sets with absolutely continuous harmonic measure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02055 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. B. Garnett and D. E. Marshall. Harmonic measure , volume 2 of New Mathematical Monographs . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. Reprint of the 2005 original

    2008

  15. [23]

    Heinonen, T

    J. Heinonen, T. Kilpel \"a inen, and O. Martio. Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations . Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2006. Unabridged republication of the 1993 original

    2006

  16. [24]

    The weak-A property of harmonic and p-harmonic measures implies uniform rectifiability

    Hofmann, Steve, Long Le, José María Martell, and Kaj Nyström. "The weak-A property of harmonic and p-harmonic measures implies uniform rectifiability." Analysis & PDE 10, no. 3 (2017): 513-558

    2017

  17. [25]

    Hyt \"o nen and H

    T. Hyt \"o nen and H. Martikainen. Non-homogeneous Tb theorem and random dyadic cubes on metric measure spaces. J. Geom. Anal. , 22(4):1071--1107, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Hofmann, J-M

    S. Hofmann, J-M. Martell, S. Mayboroda, T. Toro, and Z. Zhao. Uniform rectifiability and elliptic operators with small carleson norm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06157 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hofmann, J

    S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, and I. Uriarte-Tuero. Uniform rectifiability and harmonic measure, II : P oisson kernels in L^p imply uniform rectifiability. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society , 221(1039):1--160, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    P. W. Jones and T.H. Wolff. Hausdorff dimension of harmonic measures in the plane. Acta Math. , 161(1-2):131--144, 1988

    1988

  21. [29]

    C. E. Kenig and T. Toro. Free boundary regularity for harmonic measures and P oisson kernels. Ann. of Math. (2) , 150(2):369--454, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    J. L. Lewis, G. C. Verchota, and A. L. Vogel. Wolff snowflakes. Pacific J. Math. , 218(1):139--166, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    N. G. Makarov. On the distortion of boundary sets under conformal mappings. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) , 51(2):369--384, 1985

    1985

  24. [32]

    P. Mattila. Geometry of sets and measures in E uclidean spaces , volume 44 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. Fractals and rectifiability

    1995

  25. [33]

    D. Meyer. Dimension of elliptic harmonic measure of snowspheres. Illinois J. Math. , 53(2):691--721, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Makarov and A

    N. Makarov and A. Volberg. On the harmonic measure of discontinuous fractals. 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    Popovici

    I. Popovici. Rigidity and dimension of the harmonic measure on J ulia sets . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University

    1998

  28. [36]

    F. Riesz. \"U ber die Randwerte einer analytischen Funktion. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 18(1):87--95, 1923

    1923

  29. [37]

    X. Tolsa. Uniform measures and uniform rectifiability. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 92(1):1--18, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    X. Tolsa. The dimension of harmonic measure on some AD-regular flat sets of fractional dimension. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2024(8):6579--6605, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Urba\' n ski and A

    M. Urba\' n ski and A. Zdunik. Hausdorff dimension of harmonic measure for self-conformal sets. Adv. Math. , 171(1):1--58, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    A.L. Volberg. On the harmonic measure of self-similar sets on the plane. In Harmonic Analysis and Discrete Potential theory , pages 267--280. Springer, 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    A. L. Volberg. On the dimension of harmonic measure of C antor repellers. Michigan Math. J. , 40(2):239--258, 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    A. Volberg. One phase problem for two positive harmonic functions: below the codimension 1 threshold. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03687 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. H. Wolff. Counterexamples with harmonic gradients in R ^3 . In Essays on F ourier analysis in honor of E lias M . S tein ( P rinceton, NJ , 1991) , volume 42 of Princeton Math. Ser. , pages 321--384. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.