Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 33 references

Frobenius theorem and fine structure of tangency sets to non-involutive distributions

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frobenius rigidity for tangency sets extends below $C^{1,1}$ up to a sharp exponent curve, and fails exactly past it.

desk verdict Sharp tradeoff between surface regularity and tangency-set fractional perimeter is a real step forward, but a load-bearing estimate in Case I of Proposition 3.2.3 is wrong as written and leaves the advertised threshold unproved in that regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03715 v1 pith:ZBOE6ZPJ submitted 2025-06-04 math.DG math.APmath.CA

Giovanni Alberti , Annalisa Massaccesi , Andrea Merlo This is my paper
classification math.DGmath.APmath.CA MSC 58A3053C1758A2535R03
keywords non-involutivedistributionsFrobeniustheoremtangencysetsfractionalSobolevspacesLusinforgradientsStokesroughformsCantor-type
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

Frobenius' theorem states that a $C^1$ distribution of $k$-planes is integrable exactly when it is involutive, but below $C^{1,1}$ this rigidity fails and surfaces can be tangent to non-involutive distributions on large sets. This paper proves a sharp tradeoff: the fractional regularity of a surface and that of its tangency set cannot both be high. If the tangency set $E$ has indicator $\mathbb{1}_E \in W^{s,1}(S)$ with $s > 1/2$, then $E$ is $\mathcal{H}^k$-null; for $s \in (0,1/2]$ the same nullity holds whenever the surface gradient lies in $W^{\alpha,q}$ with $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$, and every smaller $\alpha$ admits counterexamples with $\mathcal{H}^k(E) > 0$. The result settles the question of whether a Frobenius-type theorem survives below the $C^{1,1}$ threshold, and it matters for geometric measure theory in Carnot-Carathéodory spaces, where tangency sets control which rectifiable sets occur.

What carries the argument

The engine is a locality principle for the exterior derivative: a continuous $1$-form $g$ in $W^{\alpha,q}$ that vanishes on a set $E$ whose characteristic function lies in $W^{s,1}$ must satisfy $dg = 0$ almost everywhere on $E$, provided $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$ (Proposition 3.2.3). This principle is built from a Stokes-type theorem for rough forms on finite-perimeter sets, which requires only continuity of the form and an $L^1$ distributional derivative, combined with a super-density property of fractional-Sobolev sets coming from a Lipschitz-Besov differentiability theorem and a Poincaré/Morrey estimate. On the constructive side, a Lusin-type theorem for gradients produces $C^1$ surfaces whose graphs are tangent to a given distribution exactly on a prescribed Cantor-type set with controlled fractional boundary, which yields the matching counterexamples.

What would settle it

A concrete falsification would be a $C^1$ surface $S$, a $C^1$ non-involutive distribution $V$, and a Borel set $E$ contained in the tangency set with $\mathbb{1}_E \in W^{s,1}(S)$ for some $s > 1/2$ and $\mathcal{H}^k(E) > 0$; equivalently, a continuous $W^{\alpha,q}$ 1-form vanishing on a positive-measure set $E$ with $\mathbb{1}_E \in W^{s,1}$ and $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$ whose distributional curl is nonzero almost everywhere on $E$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an exact regularity tradeoff for tangency to non-involutive distributions. For a $C^1$ $k$-plane distribution $V$, a $k$-surface $S$ of class $Y^{1+\alpha,q}$, and a Borel set $E$ contained in the tangency set $\tau(S,V)$ at non-involutive points, the condition $\mathbb{1}_E \in W^{s,1}(S)$ together with $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$ forces $\mathcal{H}^k(E) = 0$; conversely, for every $\alpha$ below that curve one can construct $S$ and $E$ with $\mathbb{1}_E \in W^{s,1}(S)$ and $\mathcal{H}^k(E) > 0$. In the pure $C^1$ case, $s > 1/2$ is already enough to force nullity, and for $C^{1,1}$ surfaces the tangency set can be made to have any Hausdorff dimension below $k$ while staying $\mathcal{H}^k$-null.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on a Stokes-type identity for continuous forms with only $L^1$ distributional differentials applied to rectangles, so the locality step uses no trace regularity beyond continuity; if that identity failed for low-regularity boundaries, the threshold could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $C^1$ surface tangent to a non-involutive $C^1$ distribution has tangency sets of zero $\mathcal{H}^k$-measure as soon as their indicator belongs to $W^{s,1}$ with $s > 1/2$.
  • For surfaces with gradient in $W^{\alpha,q}$, tangency sets with indicator in $W^{s,1}$ are $\mathcal{H}^k$-null in the region $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$, and this curve is optimal.
  • Below the threshold, positive-measure tangency coexists with arbitrary fractional indicator regularity, so the tradeoff is exact and not an artifact of the proof.
  • The same methods give $C^{1,1}$ surfaces whose tangency set has any prescribed Hausdorff dimension $d < k$, removing the geometric invariance assumptions of earlier constructions.
  • Surfaces of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ for every $\alpha < 1$ can have positive-measure tangency, but such tangency sets contain no subset with non-trivial fractional perimeter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same exponent curve plausibly governs currents: a $k$-current tangent to a non-involutive distribution whose boundary has comparable fractional regularity should be absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure in the regime $\alpha > 1 - (2 - 1/q)s$; the paper leaves this as an open question.
  • In the Heisenberg group, the result implies that intrinsic surfaces of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha > 1/2$ cannot have tangency sets with finite $1/2$-perimeter, which sharpens known obstruction statements for the horizontal distribution.
  • A testable extension is to replace Cantor-type sets by Ahlfors-regular fractals and ask whether the same threshold curve survives when the tangency set is controlled by Assouad dimension instead of a fractional-Sobolev indicator.
  • The locality-of-divergence proposition can be read as a fractional unique-continuation statement: a $W^{\alpha,q}$ function constant on a sufficiently regular set of positive measure must be constant in a distributional sense across it, which may transfer to other PDE-geometric settings.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the fine structure of tangency sets τ(S,V) of k-dimensional C^1 surfaces S to non-involutive C^1 distributions V. It proves a Frobenius-type rigidity theorem: if a Borel set E⊂τ(S,V)∩N(V) satisfies 1_E∈W^{s,1}(S) with s>1/2, then H^k(E)=0. For surfaces that are locally graphs with gradients in W^{α,q}, it proves H^k(E)=0 under α>1-(2-1/q)s for s∈(0,1/2], and constructs examples showing sharpness for α<1-(2-1/q)s. The methods combine Dorronsoro's super-density estimates for fractional Sobolev sets, a Stokes theorem for rough forms, a locality result for the exterior differential, and a fractional Lusin-type theorem for gradients. The paper also constructs C^{1,1} surfaces whose tangency set has any prescribed Hausdorff dimension d<k.

Significance. If the proofs are correct, the paper establishes a sharp quantitative trade-off between surface regularity and the fractional-perimeter regularity of tangency sets, resolving a question left open by Delladio and by Alberti-Balogh. The positive theorem and the sharpness construction are genuinely independent: the latter uses a Cantor-type set with controlled fractional boundary and does not adapt the parameters of the former. The proof strategy is coherent and detailed, with explicit estimates in the constructive part. The central claim, however, depends on the exact exponent in Proposition 3.2.3, and that estimate is currently not justified; the significance of the paper therefore rests on whether the local gap identified below can be repaired.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.2.3, Case I] In the proof of Case I (αq≤1), the passage from the boundary L^{q*}-norm over ∂P_i to the maximum over the four sides contains an unjustified factor r_i^{1/q*}. From property (v), the unnormalized L^{q*}-norm on each side L_i^κ is bounded by ε r_i^{(1-i^{-1})α}, so (Σ_κ ∫_{L_i^κ}|g|^{q*} dH^1)^{1/q*} ≤ 4^{1/q*} max_κ (∫_{L_i^κ}|g|^{q*} dH^1)^{1/q*}, with no power of r_i. Consequently the exponent in the displayed estimate following (3.14) should not contain the +1/q* term. Removing that term changes condition (3.15): instead of α>1-2s+s/q, one obtains α>(1-2s+1/q)/(2-s), which is strictly stronger than the announced threshold in the range where Case I is compatible with it. Since Proposition 3.2.3 is the engine behind Theorem 5.2.2 and hence Theorem 1.1.4, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors need to justify the r_i^{1/q*} factor or replace the estimate, for example by using property (iv) together with a fractional Poincaré inequality on the boundary intervals, and verify that the announced exponent is recovered.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.2.1] The vanishing limit for the quantity ℶ̃_b is attributed to Proposition 2.1.5, but that proposition concerns the super-density of E; the relevant statement for the W^{α,q} function g is Theorem 2.1.3 (Dorronsoro) applied to the slice g|_{tJv+Rv}. Please correct the reference and spell out the application.
  2. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.2.3, Case II] The decomposition 'int L_i^κ(r_i) ∖ supp(g) = ∪_j I_{j,κ}(r_i)' seems to define intervals where g vanishes, yet the subsequent estimate bounds Σ L^1(I_{j,κ}) by the measure of ∂P_i \ E. Please clarify the intended decomposition (presumably of supp(g), not its complement) and adjust the notation.
  3. [Section 1.1] The abstract and introduction describe the results as a 'complete answer', but the text also acknowledges that the boundary line α = 1 - (2 - 1/q)s is left undecided. Please soften the wording to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem and its sharpness construction are derived in-paper; self-citations are context or independent tools, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is internally constructed rather than reducing to its own inputs. Theorem 1.1.4 is proved in Section 5.2 by converting tangency into the PDE constraint Dφ = M(φ), obtaining a nonzero curl from Proposition 5.1.1, and then applying the locality result Proposition 3.2.3. That locality result is proved in Section 3 using the in-paper Stokes theorem for rough forms (Proposition 3.1.2) and the super-density estimate (Proposition 2.1.5), which rests on the external Dorronsoro theorem [19] and standard fractional Sobolev extension [18]. The sharpness direction, Theorem 1.1.5, is built in Section 4 via an explicit Cantor construction (Proposition 2.3.5) and a self-contained Lusin-type theorem for gradients (Theorem 4.1.1), with the complementary parameter range imposed by the convergence of explicit series. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the positive theorem and the counterexample use distinct arguments and complementary inequalities. Self-citations to [1], [3], [4], and [2] appear as background, motivation, or independent prior results; none is used as the proof of the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the main choice. The possible scaling concern in Case I of Proposition 3.2.3, if valid, would be a technical correctness issue in an estimate, not a circularity: the exponent condition (3.15) is algebraically derived from the displayed bounds, not assumed as the desired conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

No empirical parameters are fitted. The construction parameters delta, B, rho_j, lambda are chosen to satisfy explicit inequalities and are not data-derived. The new definitions Y^{1+alpha,q} and W^{s,1} on rectifiable sets are formal mathematical objects, not postulated physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Dorronsoro's approximate differentiability theorem for Besov functions (Theorem 2.1.3).
    Used to derive the superdensity property of sets with W^{s,1} indicator (Proposition 2.1.5).
  • standard math Morrey's inequality and fractional Sobolev embeddings (Di Nezza-Palatucci-Valdinoci).
    Used to justify traces and Poincaré estimates in Propositions 2.1.7 and 3.2.3.
  • standard math Stokes/Gauss-Green theorem for sets of finite perimeter with continuous integrands.
    The paper proves Proposition 3.1.2, but its limiting argument assumes the validity of the distributional boundary representation for BV sets.
  • standard math Whitney extension theorem (Federer 3.1.15).
    Used in Proposition 5.1.2 to approximate C^{1,1} graphs by C^2 functions.
  • standard math Hutchinson's theory of self-similar fractals (Theorem 3 of [25]).
    Used to compute the Hausdorff dimension of the Cantor sets in Propositions 2.3.7 and 4.1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frobenius theorem and fine structure of tangency sets to non-involutive distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBOE6ZPJ

@misc{pith2026250603715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frobenius theorem and fine structure of tangency sets to non-involutive distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBOE6ZPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03715}
}
abstract

In this paper we provide a complete answer to the question whether Frobenius' Theorem can be generalized to surfaces below the $C^{1,1}$ threshold. We study the fine structure of the tangency set in terms of involutivity of a given distribution and we highlight a tradeoff behavior between the regularity of a tangent surface and that of the tangency set. First of all, we prove a Frobenius-type result, that is, given a $k$-dimensional surface $S$ of class $C^1$ and a non-involutive $k$-distribution $V$, if $E$ is a Borel set contained in the tangency set $\tau(S,V)$ of $S$ to $V$ and $\mathbb1_E\in W^{s,1}(S)$ with $s>1/2$ then $E$ must be $\mathscr{H}^k$-null in $S$. In addition, if $S$ is locally a graph of a $C^1$ function with gradient in $W^{\alpha,q}$ and if a Borel set $E \subset \tau(S,V)$ satisfies $ \mathbb1_E\in W^{s,1}(S)$ with \[ s \in \bigl(0,\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr]\qquad\text{and}\qquad\alpha \;>\; 1 - \Bigl(2 - \tfrac{1}{q}\Bigr) \, s, \] then $\mathscr{H}^k(E) = 0$. We show this exponents' condition to be sharp by constructing, for any $\alpha < 1 - \bigl(2 - \tfrac{1}{q}\bigr) s$, a surface $S $ in the same class as above and a set $E \subset \tau(S,V)$ with $\mathbb1_E \in W^{s,1}(S)$ and $\mathscr{H}^k(E) > 0$. Our methods combine refined fractional Sobolev estimates on rectifiable sets, a Stokes-type theorem for rough forms on finite-perimeter sets, and a generalization of the Lusin's Theorem for gradients.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Lusin type theorem for gradients

    Giovanni Alberti. “A Lusin type theorem for gradients”. English. In:J. Funct. Anal. 100.1 (1991), pp. 110–118.issn: 0022-1236. Frobenius theorem and fine structure of tangency sets 39

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Work in Progrss

    Giovanni Alberti, Annalisa Massaccesi, and Andrea Merlo.Regularity of currents with fractional boundary tangent to non-involutive distributions. Work in Progrss

    work page

  3. [3]

    Giovanni Alberti, Annalisa Massaccesi, and Andrea Merlo.Tangency sets of non- involutive distributions and unrectifiability in Carnot-Carathéodory spaces. 2025. arXiv:2503.01373 [math.DG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01373

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    On the geometric structure of currents tangent to smooth distributions

    Giovanni Alberti, Annalisa Massaccesi, and Eugene Stepanov. “On the geometric structure of currents tangent to smooth distributions”. English. In:J. Differ. Geom. 122.1 (2022), pp. 1–33.issn: 0022-040X.url:projecteuclid . org / journals / journal-of-differential-geometry/volume-122/issue-1/On-the-geometric- structure - of - currents - tangent - to - smoot...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Rectifiability of sets of finite perimeter in Carnot groups: existence of a tangent hyperplane

    Luigi Ambrosio, Bruce Kleiner, and Enrico Le Donne. “Rectifiability of sets of finite perimeter in Carnot groups: existence of a tangent hyperplane”. In:J. Geom. Anal. 19.3 (2009), pp. 509–540.issn: 1050-6926.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220- 009-9068-9

    doi:10.1007/s12220- 2009

  6. [6]

    Carnot rectifiability and Alberti represen- tations

    G. Antonelli, E. Le Donne, and A. Merlo. “Carnot rectifiability and Alberti represen- tations”. English. In:Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3)130.1 (2025). Id/No e70021, p. 78. issn: 0024-6115

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Pauls rectifiable and purely Pauls un- rectifiable smooth hypersurfaces

    Gioacchino Antonelli and Enrico Le Donne. “Pauls rectifiable and purely Pauls un- rectifiable smooth hypersurfaces”. In:Nonlinear Anal.200 (2020), pp. 111983, 30. issn: 0362-546X.url:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2020.111983

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Lipschitz Carnot-Carathéodory structures and their limits

    Gioacchino Antonelli, Enrico Le Donne, and Sebastiano Nicolussi Golo. “Lipschitz Carnot-Carathéodory structures and their limits”. English. In:J. Dyn. Control Syst. 29.3 (2023), pp. 805–854.issn: 1079-2724

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: existence of density

    Gioacchino Antonelli and Andrea Merlo. “On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: existence of density”. In:J. Geom. Anal.32.9 (2022), Paper No. 239, 67.issn: 1050- 6926.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-022-00971-7

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: Marstrand-Mattilarectifiabilitycriterion

    Gioacchino Antonelli and Andrea Merlo. “On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: Marstrand-Mattilarectifiabilitycriterion”.In:J. Funct. Anal.283.1(2022),PaperNo. 109495, 62.issn: 0022-1236.url:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2022.109495

    2022

  3. [11]

    On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: representation

    Gioacchino Antonelli and Andrea Merlo. “On rectifiable measures in Carnot groups: representation”. In:Calc. Var.1 (2022), pp. 158–178.url:https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00526-021-02112-4

    2022

  4. [12]

    Size of characteristic sets and functions with prescribed gradient

    Zoltán M. Balogh. “Size of characteristic sets and functions with prescribed gradient”. In:J. Reine Angew. Math.564 (2003), pp. 63–83.issn: 0075-4102.url:https : //doi.org/10.1515/crll.2003.094

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Size of tangencies to non- involutve distributions

    Zoltán M. Balogh, Cornel Pintea, and Heiner Rohner. “Size of tangencies to non- involutve distributions”. In:Indiana University Mathematics Journal60 (2011), pp. 2061–2092.url:https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:122404673

    2011

  6. [14]

    On the converse of Pansu’s theorem

    Guido De Philippis, Andrea Marchese, Andrea Merlo, Andrea Pinamonti, and Filip Rindler. “On the converse of Pansu’s theorem”. English. In:Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.249.1 (2025). Id/No 3, p. 76.issn: 0003-9527

    2025

  7. [15]

    On the structure ofA-free measures and applications

    Guido De Philippis and Filip Rindler. “On the structure ofA-free measures and applications”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)184.3 (2016), pp. 1017–1039.issn: 0003-486X. url:https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2016.184.3.10. 40 G. Alberti, A. Massaccesi, A. Merlo

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    A note on some topological properties of sets with finite perimeter

    Silvano Delladio. “A note on some topological properties of sets with finite perimeter”. English. In:Glasg. Math. J.58.3 (2016), pp. 637–647.issn: 0017-0895

    2016

  9. [17]

    The tangency of aC1 smooth submanifold with respect to a non- involutiveC 1 distribution has no superdensity points

    Silvano Delladio. “The tangency of aC1 smooth submanifold with respect to a non- involutiveC 1 distribution has no superdensity points”. In:Indiana Univ. Math. J.68 (2 2019), pp. 393–412.issn: 0022-2518

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces

    Eleonora Di Nezza, Giampiero Palatucci, and Enrico Valdinoci. “Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces”. In:Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques136.5 (2012), pp. 521–573.issn: 0007-4497.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0007449711001254

    2012

  11. [19]

    On the Differentiability of Lipschitz-Besov Functions

    José R. Dorronsoro. “On the Differentiability of Lipschitz-Besov Functions”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society303.1 (1987), pp. 229–240.issn: 00029947.url:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2000790(visited on 02/26/2025)

    1987

  12. [20]

    Federer.Geometric measure theory

    Herbert. Federer.Geometric measure theory. Die Grundlehren der mathematis- chen Wissenschaften, Band 153. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York, 1969, pp. xiv+676

    1969

  13. [21]

    Intrinsic Lipschitz graphs within Carnot groups

    Bruno Franchi and Raul Serapioni. “Intrinsic Lipschitz graphs within Carnot groups”. In:J. Geom. Anal.26.3 (2016), pp. 1946–1994.issn: 1050-6926.url:https://doi. org/10.1007/s12220-015-9615-5

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Rectifiability and perimeter in the Heisenberg group

    Bruno Franchi, Raul Serapioni, and Francesco Serra Cassano. “Rectifiability and perimeter in the Heisenberg group”. In:Math. Ann.321.3 (2001), pp. 479–531.issn: 0025-5831.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/s002080100228

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    Carnot-Carathéodoryspacesseenfromwithin

    MikhaelGromov.“Carnot-Carathéodoryspacesseenfromwithin”.In:Sub-Riemannian geometry. Vol. 144. Progr. Math. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996, pp. 79–323

    1996

  16. [24]

    On conditions for unrectifiability of a metric space

    Piotr Hajłasz and Soheil Malekzadeh. “On conditions for unrectifiability of a metric space”. English. In:Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces3 (2015), pp. 1–14.issn: 2299-3274

    2015

  17. [25]

    Fractals and Self-Similarity

    John Hutchinson. “Fractals and Self-Similarity”. In:Indiana Univ. Math. J.30 (5 1981), pp. 713–747.issn: 0022-2518

    1981

  18. [26]

    Rectifiability and parameterization of intrinsic regular surfaces in the Heisenberg group

    Bernd Kirchheim and Francesco Serra Cassano. “Rectifiability and parameterization of intrinsic regular surfaces in the Heisenberg group”. en. In:Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa - Classe di ScienzeSer. 5, 3.4 (2004), pp. 871–896.url: http://www.numdam.org/item/ASN...

    2004

  19. [27]

    Ahlfors-regular distances on the Heisenberg group without biLipschitz pieces

    Enrico Le Donne, Sean Li, and Tapio Rajala. “Ahlfors-regular distances on the Heisenberg group without biLipschitz pieces”. In:Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3)115.2 (2017), pp. 348–380.issn: 0024-6115.url:https://doi.org/10.1112/plms.12044

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Characteristic points, rectifiability and perimeter measure on stratified groups

    Valentino Magnani. “Characteristic points, rectifiability and perimeter measure on stratified groups”. In:J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)8.4 (2006), pp. 585–609.issn: 1435-9855.url:https://doi.org/10.4171/JEMS/68

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    Unrectifiabilityandrigidityinstratifiedgroups

    ValentinoMagnani.“Unrectifiabilityandrigidityinstratifiedgroups”.In:Arch. Math. (Basel)83.6 (2004), pp. 568–576.issn: 0003-889X.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00013-004-1057-4

    2004

  22. [30]

    Pertti Mattila.Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces. Vol. 44. Cam- bridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Fractals and rectifiability. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. xii+343.isbn: 0-521-46576-1.url:https : / / doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623813....

    1995 doi

  23. [31]

    Geometry of 1-codimensional measures in Heisenberg groups

    Andrea Merlo. “Geometry of 1-codimensional measures in Heisenberg groups”. In:In- ventiones mathematicae227.1 (Aug. 2021), pp. 27–148.issn: 1432-1297.url:http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-021-01063-z

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Marstrand-Mattila rectifiability criterion for 1-codimensional mea- sures in Carnot groups

    Andrea Merlo. “Marstrand-Mattila rectifiability criterion for 1-codimensional mea- sures in Carnot groups”. English. In:Anal. PDE16.4 (2023), pp. 927–996.issn: 2157-5045

    2023

  25. [33]

    Lipschitz graphs and currents in Heisenberg groups

    Davide Vittone. “Lipschitz graphs and currents in Heisenberg groups”. In:Forum Math. Sigma10 (2022), Paper No. e6, 104.url:https://doi.org/10.1017/fms. 2021.84. G.A. Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa largo Pontecorvo 5, 56127 Pisa, Italy e-mail:giovanni.alberti@un...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.