Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Projections of self-affine sets onto lines

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that under strong pinching and strong irreducibility of the linear parts, every line-projection of a self-affine set has the expected Hausdorff dimension, without any separation condition; in the plane, strong irreducibili

desk verdict Genuinely new all-directions projection theorems for self-affine sets, with a rare combination of technical care and sharp examples; referee it, but verify the Rapaport input. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14740 v1 pith:VXKQBEJB submitted 2026-07-16 math.CA math.DS

Balázs Bárány , Antti Käenmäki , István Kolossváry This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.DS MSC 28A8028A7537C4537A0515A75
keywords self-affinesetsorthogonalprojectionsHausdorffdimensionMinkowskilocalentropyaveragesZariskidensitydominationFurstenbergmeasure
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 shows that the random-direction conclusions of the classical projection theorem can be promoted to all-directions conclusions for self-affine measures and sets, provided the linear parts are sufficiently non-degenerate. For measures, exponential separation plus proximality and strong irreducibility in every exterior power force every one-dimensional projection to have the exact expected dimension. For sets, strong pinching in place of proximality does the same with no separation assumption, and in the plane strong irreducibility alone suffices. A corollary partially answers a long-standing folklore question by showing that self-affine sets of upper Minkowski dimension at most one have a Minkowski dimension. The interest lies in turning a generic direction statement into a universal one for a widely studied family of fractals.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the local entropy averages method for the fixed-direction lower bound: a suspension flow over the symbolic space times projective space has a roof function recording the log contraction rate in the current direction, and a family of stopping-time cutsets converts typical-direction entropy identities (from an entropy-dimension formula and an exact-dimensionality theorem for the relevant self-affine measure) into a lower bound for every fixed direction. For the set theorem, the argument extracts a dominated and strongly separated subsystem, through a sandwiching construction with bounded prefix and suffix words and a packing argument, whose affinity dimension essentia

What would settle it

Compute the projection dimension of a concrete strongly pinching, strongly k-irreducible self-affine set in dimension three, for instance with algebraic matrix entries and generic translations; if any line projection falls strictly below min{1, dim_H X}, the set theorem fails. Alternatively, exhibit a Bernoulli self-affine measure meeting the stated hypotheses for which the all-directions entropy identity fails in some fixed direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an all-directions projection theorem: if the linear parts of an affine iterated function system are strongly pinching and strongly irreducible in every exterior power, then for every line through the origin the orthogonal projection of the self-affine set has Hausdorff dimension exactly min{1, dim_H X} and also equals min{1, dim_M X}; in particular, no exceptional directions exist. For self-affine measures, the same conclusion holds under the weaker proximality assumption together with exponential separation, giving exact-dimensionality of the projected measure in every direction. In the plane, the set theorem holds assuming only strong irreducibility, and an explici

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the validity of an entropy-dimension formula and an exact-dimensionality theorem for the Bernoulli self-affine measure; if either theorem has hidden restrictions in this setting, the fixed-direction lower bound that starts the proof loses its starting point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every self-affine set satisfying the strong pinching and strong irreducibility hypotheses, the exceptional set of directions in the classical almost-everywhere projection theorem is empty.
  • If such a set has upper Minkowski dimension at most one, its Minkowski dimension exists and equals its Hausdorff dimension, a partial affirmative answer to the folklore question of whether Minkowski dimension always exists for self-affine sets.
  • In the plane, the exponential separation assumption used in earlier projection results can be removed entirely; strong irreducibility alone yields the all-directions conclusion.
  • The measure version gives that every one-dimensional projection of the self-affine measure is exact-dimensional with dimension min{1, dim_L(nu)}, where dim_L(nu) is the Lyapunov dimension.
  • The hypotheses hold for an open dense set of matrix tuples, so the result covers typical linear data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the entropy-dimension formula underlying the measure theorem is later established under weaker separation hypotheses, the same proof would immediately extend both the measure and set theorems.
  • The subsystem extraction technique (dominated plus strongly separated with nearly preserved affinity dimension) is likely reusable for other questions about self-affine sets, such as the full Minkowski dimension existence conjecture beyond the dim <= 1 case.
  • A natural testable extension would be to k-dimensional subspaces instead of lines; the methods appear adaptable once the local entropy averages machinery is developed on Grassmannians.
  • The sharp planar example suggests that in higher dimensions, irreducibility that is not strong will generally create exceptional directions, so the strong irreducibility assumption is probably essential rather than merely technical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves all-directions Marstrand–Mattila projection theorems for self-affine measures and sets in R^d under proximality/strong irreducibility hypotheses on the linear parts. Theorem 1.1 gives the expected dimension for projections of Bernoulli self-affine measures under exponential separation; Theorem 1.2 gives the set version under strong pinching, with no separation assumption; Theorem 1.4 is a sharp planar strengthening; Corollary 1.6 gives existence of the Minkowski dimension when the upper Minkowski dimension is at most one. The proof combines Rapaport's entropy-dimension formula and Feng's exact-dimensionality theorem with a local entropy averages argument, then passes from measures to sets via dominated and strongly separated subsystems. The paper also identifies and repairs a gap in the prior planar proof of [6, Lemma 7.3] by replacing an ergodicity claim with an ergodic decomposition argument.

Significance. If correct, the paper substantially advances the projection theory of self-affine sets: it removes the separation condition for sets, gives an all-directions result under hypotheses that are generic for tuples of matrices, proves a sharp planar statement, and gives a partial answer to the folklore Minkowski-dimension question. The paper is unusually careful: the repair of [6, Lemma 7.3] is explicit, the subsystem arguments are detailed, and Example 6.3 provides a concrete sharp counterexample showing that strong irreducibility cannot be weakened. The main theorems rely on heavy external results (Rapaport, Feng, Bougerol-Lacroix); the dependence is clearly identified and the checks given are plausible, though the exact hypotheses are not quoted.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Proposition 3.3] The set X_F as defined is empty: every c A_i^T with c≠0 is invertible and hence has full rank, not rank one. The set C = {c A_i^T : c∈R, i∈I*} is also not closed in general, so the compactness argument for K is invalid and the proof of spt(μ_F)=X_F collapses. This support identification is not used later in the paper, so the main theorems are unaffected, but the definition/proof should be corrected (e.g., define X_F via limits of normalized products, or delete the support claim).
  2. [§3.1, Theorem 3.5] Please state the precise hypotheses of Rapaport [78, Thm 1.12] and Feng [33, Thm 1.6(ii)] and verify them explicitly. The fixed-direction lower bound in Proposition 3.1 starts from Rapaport's all-directions identity; if that theorem has any unquoted hypothesis, the argument loses its starting point. The checks given in the paper (exponential separation, proximality, strong irreducibility, simple leading Lyapunov exponent) are plausible, but the current text does not allow the reader to verify them from the stated sources.
  3. [§5.2, Lemma 5.3 proof] In the proof of ZF = ∪_i A_i ZF, the sentence beginning 'Writing i = ip ...' is garbled. Since V1 ∈ ZF and A_i V1 = V1 for every generator i, the inclusion is immediate; please rewrite this passage.
  4. [§4.3, Example 4.10(2)] The sentence 'As B1 likewise permutes the subspaces V1,...,Vm and preserves their dimensions, it fixes each Vj' is too strong: B1 could in principle permute the Vj in cycles. The intended contradiction only needs that B1 sends either admissible subspace (span{e3} or span{e1,e2}) to a subspace that is not admissible, which is true. Please adjust the wording.
  5. [§1.2, Corollary 1.6] The notation dimM is used for both the upper Minkowski dimension (1.3) and the limit when it exists. Corollary 1.6 assumes 'dimM(X)≤1' using the upper dimension, then concludes that the Minkowski dimension exists. Please make this distinction explicit to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified; the central derivation rests on external theorems, not on self-referential inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. Theorem 1.1 is proved from Proposition 3.1 (fixed-direction lower bound) and Theorem 3.2 (upper bound). Proposition 3.1's lower bound is obtained by verifying the local entropy averages hypothesis of Theorem 2.2; the entropy input is Lemma 3.6, which is a consequence of Rapaport's entropy-dimension identity [78, Thm 1.12]. Feng's exact-dimensionality theorem [33, Thm 1.6(ii)] is used only inside Theorem 3.5 to get the measure theorem in Furstenberg-typical directions; the all-directions lower bound does not invoke it, and Theorem 3.5 is not used subsequently. Neither Rapaport nor Feng is a self-citation, and Bougerol-Lacroix, Bochi-Gourmelon, and Farkas are external. The self-citations [6], [8], [10], [11] are background, corrected, or used for classification; the only load-bearing use of [6] is the standard implication strong separation ⇒ exponential separation, which is external and not the paper's target. Theorem 6.1 applies the measure theorem to strongly separated subsystems obtained in Proposition 5.1; the dimensional bound uses the definition of upper Minkowski dimension, not the target projection statement. Corollary 1.6 follows directly from Theorem 1.2 and standard dimension inequalities. No step was found where a prediction is identical by construction to an input, nor any load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz imported from the authors' own prior work. The residual risk is of the ordinary external-theorem kind: if [78, Thm 1.12] had unquoted hypotheses, the fixed-direction lower bound would lose its starting point; the manuscript does not indicate such a mismatch.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a small number of published theorems in random matrices, domination, and projection theory. All are external to this paper; the novel machinery (simultaneous escape property, Zariski-density genericity, subsystem extraction) is proved in §§4-5. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Rapaport's entropy-dimension formula [78, Thm 1.12]: dime((proj_V)_*µ) = min{1,dim_L(ν)} for every V under exponential separation and k-proximal/strongly k-irreducible linear parts.
    Used as the base entropy identity in Theorem 3.5 and Lemma 3.6; the whole fixed-direction lower bound starts from it.
  • domain assumption Feng's exact-dimensionality theorem [33, Thm 1.6(ii)] applies to the Bernoulli measure, giving exact-dimensionality of projections in Furstenberg-typical directions.
    The paper verifies the stated hypotheses (ergodic quasi-Bernoulli, simple leading Lyapunov exponent), but the theorem itself is imported.
  • standard math Bougerol-Lacroix theory of contracting random matrix products [20]: existence of the Furstenberg measure, hyperplane non-concentration, and the asymptotic (3.2)-(3.3).
    Used in Props 3.3-3.4 to establish the projective cocycle behaviour needed for local entropy averages.
  • standard math Bochi-Gourmelon characterization of 1-domination via strongly invariant multicones [17, Theorem B].
    Bridges multicone containment to domination in Propositions 5.2 and Lemma 5.5.
  • standard math Benoist's limit cone / Jordan projection description for Zariski dense semigroups [15].
    Yields a semigroup element pinching in every exterior power (Lemma 4.5), a key step to Theorem 1.3.
  • standard math Breuillard-Green-Guralnick-Tao [23, Thm 4.1]: Zariski-dense pairs in semisimple groups are generic.
    Backbone of Proposition 4.1, the genericity of Zariski dense tuples in GL(d,R).
  • domain assumption Farkas's projection theorem for self-similar sets without separation [32, Thm 1.6] and Falconer's dimension theorem for self-similar sets [28, Thm 4].
    Used in the non-proximal planar case of Theorem 6.2, where strong irreducibility forces a conjugate self-similar system.
  • domain assumption Xie-Yin-Sun [83, Cor 1.1]: non-singleton self-affine sets have dim_H > 0.
    Used in Proposition 5.1 to handle the ε cases in the subsystem construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Projections of self-affine sets onto lines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXKQBEJB

@misc{pith2026260714740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Projections of self-affine sets onto lines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXKQBEJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14740}
}
abstract

We prove an all-directions Marstrand-Mattila projection theorem for self-affine measures and sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Under exponential separation, together with proximality and strong irreducibility assumptions on the linear parts, the projection of a self-affine measure onto every line has the expected Hausdorff dimension. If the proximality assumption is strengthened to strong pinching, then the same conclusion holds for the self-affine set $X$ itself, without any separation assumption. In the plane, strong irreducibility of the linear parts alone suffices, and this is sharp. As a corollary, if $X$ additionally has upper Minkowski dimension at most one, then its Minkowski dimension exists and equals its Hausdorff dimension, giving a partial affirmative answer to the folklore question of whether the Minkowski dimension exists for every self-affine set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14740 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration for the proof of Proposition 5.2 in RP2 . Therefore, by (5.3), we have AijiQi ⊆ Ai(RPd−1 \ [W]δ) ⊆ AiQ1 ⊆ B o (V1, ρ) (5.4) for all i ∈ {2, . . . , m}, while for i = 1 we have Aij1Q1 = AiQ1 ⊆ AiQ1 ⊆ Bo (V1, ρ) directly. Define C0 = AiQ1. Then C0 is compact, C0 ⊂ Bo (V1, ρ), and V1 ∈ Co 0 . Moreover, AijiQi ⊂ Co 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , m}. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_1.png] view at source ↗

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

  1. Smooth projections of self-similar measures

    math.DS 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A spectral-gap criterion gives Sobolev regularity for prescribed projections of self-similar measures and yields explicit examples such as singular measures with all line projections smooth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [78]

    Rapaport

    A. Rapaport. On self-affine measures associated to strongly irreducible and proximal systems.Adv. Math., 449:Paper No. 109734, 116, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Allen, A

    D. Allen, A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, R. D. Prokaj, K. Simon, and S. Troscheit. Hausdorff dimension of planar box-like self-affine sets with rotations. In preparation, 2026

    2026

  3. [2]

    Anttila, B

    R. Anttila, B. B´ ar´ any, and A. K¨ aenm¨ aki. Slices of the Takagi function.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 44(9):2361–2398, 2024

    2024

  4. [3]

    Baker, A

    S. Baker, A. Banaji, D.-J. Feng, C.-K. Lai, and Y. Xiong. Distinct dimensions for attractors of bi-lipschitz iterated function systems. Preprint, available at arXiv:2509.22084, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Banaji and A

    A. Banaji and A. Rutar. Lower box dimension of infinitely generated self-conformal sets. Preprint, available at arXiv:2406.12821, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Bara´ nski

    K. Bara´ nski. Hausdorff dimension of the limit sets of some planar geometric constructions.Adv. Math., 210(1):215–245, 2007

    2007

  7. [6]

    B´ ar´ any, M

    B. B´ ar´ any, M. Hochman, and A. Rapaport. Hausdorff dimension of planar self-affine sets and measures.Invent. Math., 216(3):601–659, 2019

    2019

  8. [7]

    B´ ar´ any, T

    B. B´ ar´ any, T. Jordan, A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, and M. Rams. Birkhoff and Lyapunov spectra on planar self-affine sets.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (10):7966–8005, 2021

    2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    B´ ar´ any and A

    B. B´ ar´ any and A. K¨ aenm¨ aki. Ledrappier-Young formula and exact dimensionality of self-affine measures.Adv. Math., 318:88–129, 2017. 66 BAL ´AZS B ´AR ´ANY, ANTTI K ¨AENM ¨AKI, AND ISTV ´AN KOLOSSV ´ARY

    2017

  2. [9]

    B´ ar´ any, A

    B. B´ ar´ any, A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, A. Py¨ or¨ al¨ a, and M. Wu. Scaling limits of self-conformal measures. Preprint, available at arXiv:2308.11399, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    B´ ar´ any, A

    B. B´ ar´ any, A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, and E. Rossi. Assouad dimension of planar self-affine sets.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 374(2):1297–1326, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    B´ ar´ any, A

    B. B´ ar´ any, A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, and H. Yu. Finer geometry of planar self-affine sets.Adv. Math., 493:Paper No. 110914, 64, 2026

    2026

  5. [12]

    B´ ar´ any, K

    B. B´ ar´ any, K. Simon, and B. Solomyak.Self-similar and self-affine sets and measures, volume 276 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2023] ©2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    L. M. Barreira. A non-additive thermodynamic formalism and applications to dimension theory of hyperbolic dynamical systems.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 16(5):871–927, 1996

    1996

  7. [14]

    Bedford.Crinkly curves, Markov partitions and box dimensions in self-similar sets

    T. Bedford.Crinkly curves, Markov partitions and box dimensions in self-similar sets. 1984. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The University of Warwick

    1984

  8. [15]

    Y. Benoist. Propri´ et´ es asymptotiques des groupes lin´ eaires.Geom. Funct. Anal., 7(1):1–47, 1997

    1997

  9. [16]

    Benoist and J.-F

    Y. Benoist and J.-F. Quint.Random walks on reductive groups, volume 62 ofErgebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2016

    2016

  10. [17]

    Bochi and N

    J. Bochi and N. Gourmelon. Some characterizations of domination.Math. Z., 263(1):221–231, 2009

    2009

  11. [18]

    Bochi and I

    J. Bochi and I. D. Morris. Continuity properties of the lower spectral radius.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 110(2):477–509, 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    Bochnak, M

    J. Bochnak, M. Coste, and M.-F. Roy.Real Algebraic Geometry, volume 36 ofErgebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    Bougerol and J

    P. Bougerol and J. Lacroix.Products of random matrices with applications to Schr¨ odinger operators, volume 8 ofProgress in Probability and Statistics. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1985

    1985

  14. [21]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. On the Erd˝ os-Volkmann and Katz-Tao ring conjectures.Geom. Funct. Anal., 13(2):334– 365, 2003

    2003

  15. [22]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. The discretized sum-product and projection theorems.J. Anal. Math., 112:193–236, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Breuillard, B

    E. Breuillard, B. J. Green, R. Guralnick, and T. C. Tao. Strongly dense free subgroups of semisimple algebraic groups.Israel J. Math., 192(1):347–379, 2012

    2012

  17. [24]

    Douady and J

    A. Douady and J. Oesterl´ e. Dimension de Hausdorff des attracteurs.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. A-B, 290(24):A1135–A1138, 1980

    1980

  18. [25]

    Falconer and T

    K. Falconer and T. Kempton. The dimension of projections of self-affine sets and measures.Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math., 42(1):473–486, 2017

    2017

  19. [26]

    Falconer and T

    K. Falconer and T. Kempton. Planar self-affine sets with equal Hausdorff, box and affinity dimensions. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 38(4):1369–1388, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    K. J. Falconer. The Hausdorff dimension of self-affine fractals.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 103(2):339–350, 1988

    1988

  21. [28]

    K. J. Falconer. Dimensions and measures of quasi self-similar sets.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 106(2):543– 554, 1989

    1989

  22. [29]

    K. J. Falconer. The dimension of self-affine fractals. II.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 111(1):169– 179, 1992

    1992

  23. [30]

    K. J. Falconer.Techniques in fractal geometry. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1997

    1997

  24. [31]

    Fan, K.-S

    A.-H. Fan, K.-S. Lau, and H. Rao. Relationships between different dimensions of a measure.Monatsh. Math., 135(3):191–201, 2002

    2002

  25. [32]

    ´A. Farkas. Projections of self-similar sets with no separation condition.Israel J. Math., 214(1):67–107, 2016

    2016

  26. [33]

    D.-J. Feng. Dimension of invariant measures for affine iterated function systems.Duke Math. J., 172(4):701–774, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Feng and H

    D.-J. Feng and H. Hu. Dimension theory of iterated function systems.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 62(11):1435–1500, 2009. PROJECTIONS OF SELF-AFFINE SETS ONTO LINES 67

    2009

  28. [35]

    Feng and Y.-H

    D.-J. Feng and Y.-H. Xie. Dimensions of orthogonal projections of typical self-affine sets and measures. Preprint, available at arXiv:2502.04000, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    Gamburd, D

    A. Gamburd, D. Jakobson, and P. Sarnak. Spectra of elements in the group ring of SU(2).J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 1(1):51–85, 1999

    1999

  30. [37]

    Gatzouras and Y

    D. Gatzouras and Y. Peres. Invariant measures of full dimension for some expanding maps.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 17(1):147–167, 1997

    1997

  31. [38]

    R. M. Guralnick. Some applications of subgroup structure to probabilistic generation and covers of curves. InAlgebraic groups and their representations (Cambridge, 1997), volume 517 ofNATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C: Math. Phys. Sci., pages 301–320. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1998

    1997

  32. [39]

    Hochman and A

    M. Hochman and A. Rapaport. Hausdorff dimension of planar self-affine sets and measures with overlaps.J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 24(7):2361–2441, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Hochman and P

    M. Hochman and P. Shmerkin. Local entropy averages and projections of fractal measures.Ann. of Math. (2), 175(3):1001–1059, 2012

    2012

  34. [41]

    Hochman and P

    M. Hochman and P. Shmerkin. Equidistribution from fractal measures.Invent. Math., 202(1):427–479, 2015

    2015

  35. [42]

    Hu and S

    X. Hu and S. J. Taylor. Fractal properties of products and projections of measures inR d.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 115(3):527–544, 1994

    1994

  36. [43]

    Hueter and S

    I. Hueter and S. P. Lalley. Falconer’s formula for the Hausdorff dimension of a self-affine set inR 2. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 15(1):77–97, 1995

    1995

  37. [44]

    J. E. Humphreys.Linear algebraic groups. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1975. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 21

    1975

  38. [45]

    B. R. Hunt and V. Y. Kaloshin. How projections affect the dimension spectrum of fractal measures. Nonlinearity, 10(5):1031–1046, 1997

    1997

  39. [46]

    J. E. Hutchinson. Fractals and self-similarity.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 30(5):713–747, 1981

    1981

  40. [47]

    N. Jurga. Nonexistence of the box dimension for dynamically invariant sets.Anal. PDE, 16(10):2385– 2399, 2023

    2023

  41. [48]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki. On natural invariant measures on generalised iterated function systems.Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math., 29(2):419–458, 2004

    2004

  42. [49]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki and I

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki and I. D. Morris. Thermodynamic formalism of countably generated self-affine sets. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 379(5):3161–3210, 2026

    2026

  43. [50]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki, T

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, T. Orponen, and L. Venieri. A Marstrand-type restricted projection theorem inR3. Amer. J. Math., 147(1):81–123, 2025

    2025

  44. [51]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki, T

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki, T. Rajala, and V. Suomala. Local homogeneity and dimensions of measures.Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), 16(4):1315–1351, 2016

    2016

  45. [52]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki and P

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki and P. Shmerkin. Overlapping self-affine sets of Kakeya type.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 29(3):941–965, 2009

    2009

  46. [53]

    K¨ aenm¨ aki and M

    A. K¨ aenm¨ aki and M. Vilppolainen. Dimension and measures on sub-self-affine sets.Monatsh. Math., 161(3):271–293, 2010

    2010

  47. [54]

    J. L. Kaplan and J. A. Yorke. Chaotic behavior of multidimensional difference equations. InFunctional differential equations and approximation of fixed points (Proc. Summer School and Conf., Univ. Bonn, Bonn, 1978), volume 730 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 204–227. Springer,...

    1978

  48. [55]

    R. Kaufman. On Hausdorff dimension of projections.Mathematika, 15:153–155, 1968

    1968

  49. [56]

    Kenyon and Y

    R. Kenyon and Y. Peres. Hausdorff dimensions of sofic affine-invariant sets.Israel J. Math., 94:157– 178, 1996

    1996

  50. [57]

    I. Kirat. The dimension of integral self-affine sets via fractal perturbations: the box and the Hausdorff dimensions, ergodic measures. Preprint, available at arXiv:2603.14653, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Kirillov, Jr.An introduction to Lie groups and Lie algebras, volume 113 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    A. Kirillov, Jr.An introduction to Lie groups and Lie algebras, volume 113 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  52. [59]

    S. P. Lalley and D. Gatzouras. Hausdorff and box dimensions of certain self-affine fractals.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 41(2):533–568, 1992

    1992

  53. [60]

    Lothaire.Combinatorics on Words

    M. Lothaire.Combinatorics on Words. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. Reprint of the 1983 original. 68 BAL ´AZS B ´AR ´ANY, ANTTI K ¨AENM ¨AKI, AND ISTV ´AN KOLOSSV ´ARY

    1997

  54. [61]

    J. M. Marstrand. Some fundamental geometrical properties of plane sets of fractional dimensions. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 4:257–302, 1954

    1954

  55. [62]

    Martinez Ramos

    N. Martinez Ramos. Asymptotic behavior of the spectral radius of locally constant strongly irreducible cocycles.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (5):Paper No. rnag038, 26, 2026

    2026

  56. [63]

    P. Mattila. Hausdorff dimension, orthogonal projections and intersections with planes.Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math., 1(2):227–244, 1975

    1975

  57. [64]

    Mattila.Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces, volume 44 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

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

    1995

  58. [65]

    R. D. Mauldin and M. Urba´ nski. Dimensions and measures in infinite iterated function systems. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 73(1):105–154, 1996

    1996

  59. [66]

    R. D. Mauldin and M. Urba´ nski. Conformal iterated function systems with applications to the geometry of continued fractions.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351(12):4995–5025, 1999

    1999

  60. [67]

    McMullen

    C. McMullen. The Hausdorff dimension of general Sierpi´ nski carpets.Nagoya Math. J., 96:1–9, 1984

    1984

  61. [68]

    Morris and C

    I. Morris and C. Sert. Projections of self-affine fractals.Invent. Math.To appear, available at arXiv:2502.04001

    arXiv

  62. [69]

    T. Orponen. On the projections of Ahlfors regular sets in the plane. Preprint, available at arXiv:2410.06872, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [70]

    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(18):3559–3632, 2023

    2023

  64. [71]

    Orponen and P

    T. Orponen and P. Shmerkin. Projections, Furstenberg sets, and the ABC sum-product problem.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 39(3):857–913, 2026

    2026

  65. [72]

    Palis and M

    J. Palis and M. Viana. On the continuity of Hausdorff dimension and limit capacity for horseshoes. InDynamical systems, Valparaiso 1986, volume 1331 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 150–160. Springer, Berlin, 1988

    1986

  66. [73]

    Peres and W

    Y. Peres and W. Schlag. Smoothness of projections, Bernoulli convolutions, and the dimension of exceptions.Duke Math. J., 102(2):193–251, 2000

    2000

  67. [74]

    Y. B. Pesin.Dimension theory in dynamical systems. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1997. Contemporary views and applications

    1997

  68. [75]

    Pollicott and H

    M. Pollicott and H. Weiss. The dimensions of some self-affine limit sets in the plane and hyperbolic sets.J. Statist. Phys., 77(3-4):841–866, 1994

    1994

  69. [76]

    Py¨ or¨ al¨ a

    A. Py¨ or¨ al¨ a. The dimension of projections of planar diagonal self-affine measures.Ann. Fenn. Math., 50(1):59–78, 2025

    2025

  70. [77]

    Quas and T

    A. Quas and T. Soo. Weak mixing suspension flows over shifts of finite type are universal.J. Mod. Dyn., 6(4):427–449, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Ren and H

    K. Ren and H. Wang. Furstenberg sets estimate in the plane. Preprint, available at arXiv:2308.08819, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    E. Rossi. Local dimensions of measures on infinitely generated self-affine sets.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 413(2):1030–1039, 2014

    2014

  73. [81]

    F. Takens. Limit capacity and Hausdorff dimension of dynamically defined Cantor sets. InDynamical systems, Valparaiso 1986, volume 1331 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 196–212. Springer, Berlin, 1988

    1986

  74. [82]

    M. Wu. Projection theorems with countably many exceptions and applications to the exact overlaps conjecture. Preprint, available at arXiv:2503.21923, 2025

    2025

  75. [83]

    F. Xie, Y. Yin, and Y. Sun. Uniform perfectness of self-affine sets.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 131(10):3053–3057, 2003

    2003

  76. [84]

    L. S. Young. Dimension, entropy and Lyapunov exponents.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 2(1):109– 124, 1982. PROJECTIONS OF SELF-AFFINE SETS ONTO LINES 69 (Bal´ azs B´ ar´ any)Department of Stochastics, Institute of Mathematics, Budapest Univer- sity of Technology and Economics,...

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.