pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21668 · v1 · pith:3N53LPREnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🧮 math.CA · math.MG

Fourier analytic variants of the Furstenberg and Kakeya problems

Jonathan M. Fraser , Lijian Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 07:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CA math.MG
keywords Fourier dimensionKakeya setsFurstenberg setsgeometric measure theoryharmonic analysisdimension estimatesplane sets
0
0 comments X

The pith

For 0 < s, t < 1, any (s,t)-Kakeya set in R² has Fourier dimension at least 2st/(s+2t) and at most min{s,2t}.

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

The paper introduces Fourier-dimension versions of the Kakeya and Furstenberg problems in the plane. It defines an (s,t)-Kakeya set as one that contains line segments in directions from a t-dimensional set of directions, where each segment has Fourier dimension at least s. The main result bounds the Fourier dimension of such sets between 2st/(s+2t) and min(s,2t). These bounds are asymptotically the same when s or t approaches zero. Similar bounds are obtained when replacing Hausdorff dimension with Fourier dimension in the direction set or for Furstenberg-type configurations.

Core claim

Δ(s,t) satisfies 2st/(s+2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) ≤ min{s,2t}, where Δ(s,t) is the infimum of the Fourier dimension over all (s,t)-Kakeya sets in R². The paper also provides upper and lower bounds for the Furstenberg set version and when the collection of lines has Fourier dimension instead of Hausdorff dimension.

What carries the argument

The (s,t)-Kakeya set, which assembles subsets of line segments each with Fourier dimension s in directions from a set of dimension t, and the quantity Δ(s,t) as the infimal Fourier dimension of such assemblies.

If this is right

  • The bounds become equivalent as s or t tends to zero.
  • Similar dimension bounds hold for Furstenberg-type problems with Fourier dimensions.
  • Replacing Hausdorff dimension with Fourier dimension in the direction set yields comparable results.
  • These estimates extend standard Kakeya dimension inequalities to Fourier dimension settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such bounds might suggest new ways to attack classical Kakeya problems using Fourier methods in higher dimensions.
  • Connections could exist to other problems in geometric measure theory where Fourier dimension controls regularity.
  • The asymptotic equivalence hints at a possible exact value for Δ(s,t) in limiting regimes.

Load-bearing premise

Fourier dimension of subsets on individual line segments can be bounded independently of how those segments are embedded and oriented in the plane, and that dimension inequalities for unions continue to apply in this assembled setting.

What would settle it

A construction of an (s,t)-Kakeya set whose Fourier dimension falls below 2st/(s+2t) for some specific s and t, or a proof that some (s,t)-Kakeya set achieves Fourier dimension strictly less than the upper bound min(s,2t).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21668 by Jonathan M. Fraser, Lijian Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the lower bound 2st s+2t and the upper bound min{s, 2t}. The figures illustrate the asymptotic sharpness of the lower bound as one parameter tends to zero while the other is fixed. 1.3. Main results: Furstenberg variants. We first define two variants of the (s, t)- Furstenberg problem by imposing different dimensional conditions on the collection of lines. Definition 1.5. Let s ∈ (0, 1] and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the lower and upper bounds for ∆F,F F (s, t) and ∆ F,H F (s, t). We also examine the asymptotic behavior of the lower and upper bounds in Theorem B. In the FF case, the bounds are st s + t and min{s, 2t} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An illustration of L ⊥ e which is the line tangent to S 1 and perpen￾dicular to e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The red line segments are contained in P −1 (B(xn, rn)), while the red line segments together with parts of the black line segments are contained in the brown tube π −1 xn (B(xn, rn)) for all z ∈ R. Recall that are viewing the measures νℓ as being supported on R. Here we can assume that all the cℓ ⩾ 1. Since Λ has Fourier dimension at least t, there exists a measure η supported on Λ such that (2.5) |ηb(ξ)|… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study several distinct but related Fourier analytic variants of the well-known Kakeya and Furstenberg set problems in the plane. For example, given $0<s,t<1$, we call a set $K \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ an $(s,t)$-Kakeya set if there exists a set of directions $E \subseteq S^1$ with Hausdorff dimension at least $t$ such that, for each $e \in E$, the set $K$ contains a subset of a unit line segment in direction $e$ whose Fourier dimension, viewed as a subset of $\mathbb{R}$, is at least $s$. For $\Delta(s,t)$ defined to be the infimum of the Fourier dimension among all $(s,t)$-Kakeya sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$, we prove that \[ \frac{2st}{s+2t} \leq \Delta(s,t) \leq \min\{s,2t\}. \] These bounds, though distinct, are asymptotically equivalent as either $s$ or $t$ tends to zero. We also obtain upper and lower bounds in the Furstenberg set version of the problem and in the case where the Hausdorff dimension of the collection of lines is replaced by the Fourier dimension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Fourier-analytic variants of the Kakeya and Furstenberg problems in the plane. For 0 < s, t < 1 it defines an (s,t)-Kakeya set K ⊆ R² to be a set that contains, for each direction e in a subset E ⊆ S¹ of Hausdorff dimension at least t, a subset of a unit line segment in direction e whose Fourier dimension (viewed as a subset of R) is at least s. Δ(s,t) is defined as the infimum of the Fourier dimension (in R²) over all such (s,t)-Kakeya sets. The paper claims to prove the bounds 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) ≤ min{s, 2t}. Analogous upper and lower bounds are obtained for the Furstenberg-set variant and when the direction collection E is required only to have Fourier dimension t.

Significance. If the claimed inequalities hold, the work supplies the first explicit Fourier-dimension bounds for Kakeya-type and Furstenberg-type sets that are asymptotically equivalent as s or t tends to zero. The approach replaces Hausdorff dimension by Fourier dimension in both the direction set and the line segments, yielding concrete dimension inequalities rather than existence statements alone. The manuscript also treats the mixed case in which one dimension is Hausdorff and the other Fourier.

major comments (2)
  1. [Definition of (s,t)-Kakeya set and the subsequent dimension estimates] Definition of (s,t)-Kakeya set (immediately following the abstract): the lower bound 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) is obtained by combining the 1D Fourier-dimension lower bound s along each line segment with the t-dimensional set of directions. However, the Fourier transform in R² of any measure supported on a line segment decays only in the direction of the line; it remains essentially constant in the perpendicular direction. Standard Fourier-dimension inequalities for unions therefore cannot be applied verbatim without an explicit argument controlling the angular integration over E. This transfer step is load-bearing for the claimed lower bound.
  2. [Proof of the lower bound for Δ(s,t)] Proof of the lower bound (the paragraph containing the inequality 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t)): the manuscript states that the bound follows from dimension inequalities, yet the auxiliary lemmas that would justify passing from the 1D Fourier dimension (viewed inside R) to the 2D Fourier dimension of the assembled set K are not supplied in the available text. Without these steps the inequality remains plausible but unverified at the level of explicit estimates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts that the inequalities are proved, but the body should contain an explicit cross-reference (e.g., Theorem 1.1 or §3) to the precise location of the full argument.
  2. [Introduction / notation section] Notation for the Fourier dimension is introduced without a displayed definition; a short displayed equation or reference to the standard definition (e.g., via the decay rate of the Fourier transform) would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough reading and for identifying points where the exposition of the lower bound can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Definition of (s,t)-Kakeya set and the subsequent dimension estimates] Definition of (s,t)-Kakeya set (immediately following the abstract): the lower bound 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) is obtained by combining the 1D Fourier-dimension lower bound s along each line segment with the t-dimensional set of directions. However, the Fourier transform in R² of any measure supported on a line segment decays only in the direction of the line; it remains essentially constant in the perpendicular direction. Standard Fourier-dimension inequalities for unions therefore cannot be applied verbatim without an explicit argument controlling the angular integration over E. This transfer step is load-bearing for the claimed lower bound.

    Authors: We agree that the anisotropic decay of the Fourier transform for measures supported on line segments requires explicit control when assembling the set over a t-dimensional collection of directions. The manuscript combines the one-dimensional Fourier dimension s with the directional set E via an angular integration that exploits the Hausdorff dimension t of E to bound the contribution from directions where perpendicular decay is limited. This is carried out through a covering argument and Fubini-type decomposition in polar coordinates. To address the referee's concern, we will add a dedicated auxiliary lemma in the revised version that states and proves the precise transfer from the 1D Fourier dimension (along each segment) to the 2D Fourier dimension of K, including the required estimate on the angular integral over E. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Proof of the lower bound for Δ(s,t)] Proof of the lower bound (the paragraph containing the inequality 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t)): the manuscript states that the bound follows from dimension inequalities, yet the auxiliary lemmas that would justify passing from the 1D Fourier dimension (viewed inside R) to the 2D Fourier dimension of the assembled set K are not supplied in the available text. Without these steps the inequality remains plausible but unverified at the level of explicit estimates.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current paragraph presents the lower bound as a consequence of standard dimension inequalities without spelling out the intermediate lemmas in full detail. While the overall strategy (combining the 1D bound with the t-dimensional direction set) is indicated, the explicit bridging arguments are only sketched. In the revision we will insert two short auxiliary lemmas: one controlling the Fourier transform under angular integration over a set of Hausdorff dimension t, and one verifying the resulting lower bound on the 2D Fourier dimension. These will be proved from first principles using the definitions of Fourier dimension and a standard covering lemma, making the derivation of 2st/(s + 2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) fully explicit and self-contained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of Δ(s,t) bounds

full rationale

The paper defines (s,t)-Kakeya sets via a direction set E of Hausdorff dimension t and line segments with 1D Fourier dimension s, then establishes the inequality 2st/(s+2t) ≤ Δ(s,t) ≤ min{s,2t} using standard Fourier dimension inequalities for unions and products. No step reduces the target quantity to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The lower bound combines 1D decay along lines with the t-dimensional direction set via angular integration arguments that are external to the definition of Δ(s,t) itself. The upper bound follows from embedding constructions that are independent of the claimed infimum. The derivation is self-contained against external Fourier-analytic benchmarks and does not rely on renaming known results or smuggling ansatzes via prior self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work rests on standard properties of Hausdorff and Fourier dimension together with the newly introduced definition of (s,t)-Kakeya sets; no numerical free parameters or invented physical entities are present.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard inequalities relating Hausdorff dimension, Fourier dimension, and projections in R and R²
    Invoked throughout the dimension estimates for the constructed sets and the lower-bound argument.
  • domain assumption Existence of sets realizing given Hausdorff or Fourier dimensions in the plane and on lines
    Used to obtain the upper bound by explicit construction.
invented entities (1)
  • (s,t)-Kakeya set no independent evidence
    purpose: To encode the mixed Hausdorff-Fourier requirement on directions and segments
    New definition introduced to formulate the variant problem; no independent evidence outside the paper is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5760 in / 1416 out tokens · 49950 ms · 2026-05-22T07:59:41.727863+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baker and A

    S. Baker and A. Banaji. Self-similar and self-conformal measures with slow Fourier decay, preprint, available at: arXiv:2602.05593 https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05593

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Ekstr\"om

    F. Ekstr\"om. The Fourier dimension is not finitely stable, Real Anal. Exchange 40 (2015), 397--402

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    K. J. Falconer. Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications , John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd. ed., (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Fraser and K

    R. Fraser and K. Hambrook. Explicit Salem sets in R ^n , Adv. Math. 416 (2023), Paper No. 108901

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J. M. Fraser. Fourier decay of product measures, Illinois J. Math. (to appear), arXiv:2405.05878 https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05878

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    J. M. Fraser. On variants of the Furstenberg set problem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 154 (2026), 1093--1103

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    J.-P. Kahane. Some Random Series of Functions, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Keleti and A

    T. Keleti and A. M\'ath\'e. Equivalences between different forms of the Kakeya conjecture and duality of Hausdorff and packing dimensions for additive complements, preprint, available at: arXiv:2203.15731 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15731

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    T. Mitsis. A Stein--Tomas restriction theorem for general measures, Publ. Mat. 46 (2002), no. 2, 397--410

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    P. Mattila. Fourier Analysis and Hausdorff Dimension, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 150, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    D. Oberlin. Restricted Radon transforms and unions of hyperplanes, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 22 (2006), no. 3, 977--992

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Orponen and P

    T. Orponen and P. Shmerkin. On the Hausdorff dimension of Furstenberg sets and orthogonal projections in the plane, Duke Math. J. 172 (2023), 3559--3632

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Orponen and P

    T. Orponen and P. Shmerkin. Projections, Furstenberg sets, and the ABC sum-product problem, preprint, available at: arXiv:2301.10199 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10199

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    Ren and H

    K. Ren and H. Wang. Furstenberg sets estimate in the plane, preprint, available at: arXiv:2308.08819 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08819

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Shmerkin and H

    P. Shmerkin and H. Wang. Dimensions of Furstenberg sets and an extension of Bourgain's projection theorem, Anal. PDE 18 (2025), 265--278

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Wang and J

    H. Wang and J. Zahl. Volume estimates for unions of convex sets, and the Kakeya set conjecture in three dimensions, preprint, available at: arXiv:2502.17655 https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17655

    work page arXiv