Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

$L^2$-Flattening of Self-similar Measures on Non-degenerate Curves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any non-atomic self-similar measure on the line, its pushforward to a non-degenerate curve in $\mathbb{R}^d$ has Fourier transform whose $L^p$ mass on every large ball grows at most like $R^\varepsilon$, for any $\varepsilon>0$…

desk verdict A genuinely new and important flattening theorem, but the proof currently leans on an unproved adaptation of a cited preprint result that is load-bearing and needs to be sorted out before the paper is relied upon. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07321 v1 pith:VMGJGSG5 submitted 2025-07-09 math.CA math.DS

Amir Algom , Osama Khalil This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.DS MSC 28A8042B10
keywords L^2-flatteningself-similarmeasuresFouriertransformmomentcurvesnon-degenerateFrostmanexponentsself-affine
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 when a non-atomic self-similar measure on the real line is pushed forward along a sufficiently curved curve into $\mathbb{R}^d$ ($d \geq 2$), its Fourier transform becomes flat at all large scales: for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is an exponent $p > 1$ such that $\|\hat{\nu}\|^p_{L^p(B(R))} = O_\varepsilon(R^\varepsilon)$ for every $R > 0$. Equivalently, the moment sums of repeated self-convolutions of the pushed measure decay almost as fast as those of Lebesgue measure in dimension $d$, and convolution with the measure quantitatively improves $L^2$-dimension. The result is asserted for every non-atomic self-similar measure, with no assumption on overlaps, Hausdorff dimension, or the fine structure of the fractal support, and for arbitrary non-trapped analytic or $C^{d+1}$ non-degenerate curves. The only obstruction is the geometry of the curve: if the measure lives on a proper affine subspace, the flattening bound cannot hold.

What carries the argument

The proof is carried by two structural facts. First, pushforward of a self-similar measure to the moment curve $V_d(x) = (x, x^2, \ldots, x^d)$ is itself a self-affine measure (Lemma 2.10); this lets the Fourier coefficient $\hat{\nu}(\xi)$ be written as an average of Fourier coefficients $\hat{\mu}(\lambda \zeta \cdot y)$ of the original one-dimensional measure, with the averaging measures $\gamma_\lambda$ determined by the discrete cut-set approximations. Second, a large-deviations estimate for self-similar measures (Theorem 2.8) controls the bad frequencies of $\hat{\mu}$, while the inductive flattening hypothesis for $V_{d-1}\mu$ yields uniform Frostman bounds for projections of the $\gamma_\lambda$ onto affine subspaces (Proposition 2.3), ensuring the averaged frequencies are well separated. The general curve case is reduced to the moment curve by Taylor expansion and a determinant non-vanishing argument for non-degenerate or non-trapped curves, and the full theorem follows by induction on the ambient dimension after decomposing frequency space into a region with dominant first coordinate and its complement.

What would settle it

Read the proof of the cited Theorem 6.23 and check whether it holds verbatim for every compactly supported probability measure satisfying (1.2); if it requires an extra hypothesis not stated in Theorem 2.4, such as self-similarity or an additional non-concentration condition, then Lemma 3.3 and Proposition 3.1 are unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central assertion is Theorem 1.1: for a non-atomic self-similar measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}$ and its pushforward $\nu = Q\mu$ to a non-trapped analytic or $C^{d+1}$ non-degenerate curve $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, one has $\|\hat{\nu}\|^p_{L^p(B(R))} = O_\varepsilon(R^\varepsilon)$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$ with a suitable $p > 1$. A sympathetic reading is that the Fourier mass of such measures is uniformly sub-polynomial at every large scale, and that this is a flattening phenomenon: in the equivalent moment-sum form, for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $p \in \mathbb{N}$ with $s_m(\nu^{*p}, 2) = O(2^{m(\varepsilon - d)})$, meaning the $p$-fold self-convolution of the pushed measure behaves, down to the arbitrary small error $\varepsilon$, like Lebesgue measure in dimension $d$. The paper claims this for all non-atomic self-similar measures on the line regardless of overlaps or Hausdorff dimension, and identifies the non-degeneracy of the curve as the only obstruction: measures supported on a proper affine subspace cannot satisfy the bound.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on an unproved transfer: Remark 2.5 states that a Frostman bound from the cited reference applies to every measure satisfying (1.2), even though the published statement differs; if that transfer is incorrect, the moment-curve case collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\varepsilon > 0$, the $L^p$ mass of the Fourier transform of such a curved self-similar measure over the ball $B(R)$ grows at most like $R^\varepsilon$, a super-polynomial flattening valid in every dimension $d \geq 2$.
  • The moment sums of the $p$-fold self-convolution $\nu^{*p}$ satisfy $s_m(\nu^{*p}, 2) = O(2^{m(\varepsilon - d)})$, so repeated convolution brings the measure arbitrarily close to Lebesgue-like uniformity in $d$ dimensions.
  • Convolution with $\nu$ is quantitatively $L^2$-dimension improving: if a probability measure $\theta$ has dyadic energy above a certain threshold, then $s_m(\theta * \nu) \leq 2^{-\eta m} s_m(\theta, 2)$ with $\eta > 0$ independent of $\theta$.
  • For every $q \in [2, \infty]$, the $L^q$-dimension of the iterated self-convolutions $\nu^{*n}$ converges to $d$ as $n \to \infty$.
  • The non-degeneracy and non-trapped hypotheses are necessary: any measure supported on a proper affine subspace has $|\hat{\nu}(\xi)| \approx 1$ for frequencies nearly orthogonal to that subspace, so the flattening bound cannot hold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The stationarity of self-similar measures, rather than their Frostman dimension, is what defeats the general threshold of the parabola example discussed in the paper; a natural test is whether Ahlfors-David regular measures on the same curves also flatten, a question the paper leaves open.
  • The argument sidesteps the non-concentration condition that fails near tangent lines of the curve, so the same three-step structure—self-affine representation, projection Frostman bounds, large deviations—might yield flattening for pushforwards of other stationary measures such as self-conformal measures, where analogous large-deviations estimates are available.
  • A likely extension is to higher-dimensional bases: the same induction should give $L^2$-flattening for pushforwards of self-similar measures on $\mathbb{R}^k$ to non-degenerate curves in $\mathbb{R}^{k+d}$, with the moment curve $V_{k+d}$ playing the role of $V_d$.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves a strong L^2-flattening estimate for the pushforwards of non-atomic self-similar measures on R to non-degenerate curves in R^d. Specifically, for every epsilon>0 there is p>1 such that the L^p norm of the Fourier transform of the pushed measure over the ball B(R) grows like O_epsilon(R^epsilon). The proof decomposes frequency space into two regions, proves a pointwise decay estimate away from the first coordinate via self-affineness of the moment curve and an inductive Fourier-flattening hypothesis, and proves an average decay estimate near the first coordinate via Tsujii's large-deviations theorem. A corollary gives a quantitative L^2-dimension improvement under convolution. The strategy is novel and largely self-contained except for a few external ingredients.

Significance. If correct, this is a major advance: it shows that all non-atomic self-similar measures, regardless of their Frostman exponent, become optimally flat when pushed to non-degenerate curves, improving on earlier results for Frostman measures on parabolas and other curves. The proof technique, combining dimension induction with the self-affine structure of moment-curve pushforwards, is original and likely to influence future work. The paper also makes explicit the role of L^p-flattening as a sufficient condition for quantitative convolution improvement. However, the proof relies on an unproved and slightly mis-cited external theorem, which is load-bearing; the needed repair is local and does not invalidate the overall strategy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.4 and Remark 2.5] Theorem 2.4 is a load-bearing statement asserting that (1.2) implies uniform Frostman bounds on proper affine subspaces, yet it is not proved. Remark 2.5 concedes that the statement differs from [Kha23, Theorem 6.23] and only says that the proof there is 'written for measures satisfying (1.2)' without reproducing that proof or stating the reference theorem precisely. This theorem is used to prove Proposition 2.3, which in turn is the only bridge to the Fisherman bound in Lemma 3.3; if Theorem 2.4 fails, the bound on the bad-frequency set in Proposition 3.1 collapses. The authors must either prove Theorem 2.4 in the appendix or provide the exact statement of the cited theorem and a verifiable argument that its proof transfers to the hypothesis (1.2) as defined in this paper.
  2. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.3] Lemma 3.3 applies Proposition 2.3 to the measure \tilde{\nu}=\widetilde{eV}_{d-1}\mu, but Proposition 2.3 requires a measure of the form Q\mu with Q(x)=(x,g(x)). The measure \tilde{\nu} is not of this form: it is the pushforward of \mu by the curve (2x,3x^2,\dots,d x^{d-1}) without a distinguished first coordinate. The intended conclusion is likely obtainable by a direct application of Theorem 2.4 plus the same Lipschitz-approximation argument used in Proposition 2.3, since that proof does not otherwise use the graph structure. However, as written, the invocation is unjustified. The authors should either state and prove a generalized version of Proposition 2.3 for arbitrary measures satisfying (1.2) and their discretizations, or spell out the direct argument in Lemma 3.3.
  3. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.2] The displayed formula for ζ·C^1_{ω1,ω2} is incorrect. It reads ∑_{k=2}^d λ^k(t_{ω1}^{k-1}−t_{ω2}^{k-1})ζ_{k-1}, but by the structure of the first column of A_ω the correct expression is ∑_{k=2}^d k λ (t_{ω1}^{k-1}−t_{ω2}^{k-1})ζ_{k-1}, i.e., λ times the dot product of ζ with (2(t_{ω1}−t_{ω2}), 3(t_{ω1}^2−t_{ω2}^2), …). The subsequent integral expression with γλ∗γ̌λ evaluated at λζ·y appears to use the correct formula, but the erroneous identity as written is a technical error in a key derivation and must be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Proposition 2.3] The parameter ϱ in the conclusion is never defined in the statement; it appears to be a constant depending on the measure and the discretization, and its relation to γ and β should be made explicit.
  2. [Section 2.4, Lemma 2.10] The definition of F_i contains a typesetting ambiguity: the vector multiplied by A_i has a leading minus sign that is visually confusing. Please clarify the expression.
  3. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.4] The phrase 'For the Frostman exponents0 of µ' is garbled; it should read 'For the Frostman exponent s0 of µ', and the notation s0 should be introduced at that point.
  4. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.3] The parameter ε is used both as the argument of the Frostman bound and as the exponent in the covering estimate in the proof; this overloaded notation is confusing and should be separated.
  5. [Section 4, Lemma 4.4] The phrase 'for all p ≫ε,µ 1' is nonstandard; it should say 'for all p sufficiently large depending on ε and µ'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a genuine induction; the load-bearing dependence on an unproved adaptation of [Kha23, Thm 6.23] is a correctness gap, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The argument is not circular in the logical sense. Theorem 1.1 is proved by induction on the ambient dimension d: the base case d=2 uses Tsujii's large-deviations theorem (Theorem 2.8 / Corollary 2.9), and the inductive step splits B(R) into the regions C_{R,ε} and E_{R,ε}. The E-region is handled by Proposition 1.4, whose proof reduces to the Fourier transform of the original measure µ and again uses only Tsujii's estimate (Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4). The C-region is handled by Theorem 1.3 via Proposition 1.5, which proves pointwise decay |ν̂(ξ)| ≪ ∥ζ∥^{-γ} using the self-affine structure supplied by Feng and Käenmäki (Lemma 2.10), a Taylor expansion, and the inductive hypothesis (1.8) for V_{d-1}µ. The inductive hypothesis is an assumption for the previous dimension, not the target statement for the current curve, so there is no input-output equivalence. The Fourier-to-moment-sum equivalence (Lemma 2.13) is a standard Plancherel computation and does not smuggle in the conclusion. The only flagged concern is Theorem 2.4, imported from the second author's preprint [Kha23] and used in Proposition 2.3 to transfer uniform subspace Frostman bounds to discretizations, then in Lemma 3.3 to control the bad-frequency set in Proposition 3.1. Remark 2.5 concedes that the statement of Theorem 2.4 differs from [Kha23, Theorem 6.23] and that the proof there is only 'written for measures satisfying (1.2)'; the present paper supplies no proof of the adaptation. This is a potentially serious omitted proof and a correctness risk: if (1.2) does not imply the required subspace Frostman bounds, Lemma 3.3 and Proposition 3.1 collapse. It is also a self-citation by O. Khalil. However, it is not circularity: the cited result is parameter-free, and its hypothesis is the inductive flattening bound (1.8), not the curved-pushforward conclusion being derived. The target theorem never appears as an input to the cited result. The central claim has independent content through Tsujii's theorem, the self-affine structure, and the Taylor-expansion argument. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0 despite the correctness concern about Theorem 2.4.

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

The central claim rests on standard Fourier analysis plus four external results (Tsujii, Feng-Lau, Feng-Käenmäki, Khalil). The only non-routine dependency is the adapted Khalil theorem (Theorem 2.4), which is load-bearing and asserted, not proved. No free parameters or invented entities appear.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Tsujii's large deviations estimate for non-atomic self-similar measures on R (Theorem 2.8).
    Used in Corollary 2.9 and in Lemma 4.4 to control the average of |µ̂| over the interior frequency region; this is a prior theorem from [Tsu15].
  • domain assumption Khalil's criterion that measures satisfying (1.2) have uniform projection Frostman bounds (Theorem 2.4, adapted from [Kha23, Theorem 6.23]).
    Used to prove Proposition 2.3 and to control the bad-frequency set in Lemma 3.3. The adaptation is asserted in Remark 2.5, not proved here.
  • standard math Feng-Lau Frostman regularity of non-atomic self-similar measures (Prop 2.6).
    Used in Lemma 2.12, Proposition 2.3, and Lemma 3.4 to control discretized measures and bad words.
  • standard math Feng-Käenmäki lemma: pushforward of a self-similar set to a moment curve is the attractor of a self-affine IFS (Lemma 2.10).
    The key structural observation; used in Corollary 2.11 and Lemma 3.2 to express the Fourier coefficient of V_dµ in terms of µ.
  • domain assumption Non-degeneracy of the curve: det[Q^{(1)} ... Q^{(d)}] ≠ 0, or the non-trapped condition for analytic curves.
    Defines the class of curves; used in Lemma 2.12 to obtain a lower bound on a Wronskian determinant away from a small exceptional set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $L^2$-Flattening of Self-similar Measures on Non-degenerate Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMGJGSG5

@misc{pith2026250707321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $L^2$-Flattening of Self-similar Measures on Non-degenerate Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMGJGSG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07321}
}
abstract

Let $\mu$ be a non-atomic self-similar measure on $\mathbb{R}$, and let $\nu$ be its pushforward to a non-degenerate curve in $\mathbb{R}^d, d\geq 1$. We show that for every $\epsilon>0$, there is $p>1$, so that $\left \lVert \hat{\nu} \right \rVert_{L^p(B(R))}^p = O_\epsilon(R^\epsilon)$ for all $R>1$, where $B(R)$ is the $R$-ball about the origin. As a corollary, we show that convolution with $\nu$ quantitatively improves $L^2$-dimension.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fourier decay and non-decay for pseudo-affine self-conformal measures

    math.DS 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Constructs non-self-similar C∞ fractal systems with non-Rajchman stationary measures and flat-derivative diffeomorphisms that produce polynomial Fourier decay, with a sharp C∞ obstruction for Pisot parameters.

  2. Furstenberg set theorem for transversal families of functions

    math.CA 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A sharp dimension bound for Furstenberg sets built from transversal families of graphs, with an application to Fourier decay of fractal measures on convex curves.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Amir Algom , Yuanyang Chang , Meng Wu , and Yu-Liang Wu , Van der Corput and metric theorems for geometric progressions for self-similar measures , Mathematische Annalen (2025), to appear

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Amir Algom, Federico Rodriguez Hertz, and Zhiren Wang, Logarithmic F ourier decay for self conformal measures , J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 106 (2022), no. 2, 1628--1661. 4477227

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Amir Algom , Federico Rodriguez Hertz , and Zhiren Wang , Polynomial Fourier decay and a cocycle version of Dolgopyat's method for self conformal measures , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2306.01275

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    , Spectral gaps and Fourier decay for self-conformal measures in the plane , arXiv e-prints (to appear in Transactions of the AMS) (2024), arXiv:2407.11688

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Simon Baker and Amlan Banaji, Polynomial F ourier decay for fractal measures and their pushforwards , Math. Ann. 392 (2025), no. 1, 209--261. 4887758

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Alin Bostan and Philippe Dumas, Wronskians and linear independence, Amer. Math. Monthly 117 (2010), no. 8, 722--727. 2732247

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Simon Baker , Osama Khalil , and Tuomas Sahlsten , Fourier Decay from L^2 -Flattening , arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2407.16699

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Bishop and Yuval Peres, Fractals in probability and analysis, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol

    Christopher J. Bishop and Yuval Peres, Fractals in probability and analysis, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 162, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017. 3616046

    work page 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Julien Br \' e mont, Self-similar measures and the R ajchman property , Ann. H. Lebesgue 4 (2021), 973--1004. 4315775

    2021

  2. [10]

    Simon Baker and Tuomas Sahlsten , Spectral gaps and Fourier dimension for self-conformal sets with overlaps , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2306.01389

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Amlan Banaji and Han Yu , Fourier transform of nonlinear images of self-similar measures: quantitative aspects , arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.07508

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shival Dasu and Ciprian Demeter, Fourier decay for curved F rostman measures , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 152 (2024), no. 1, 267--280. 4661079

    2024

  5. [13]

    Xin-Rong Dai, De-Jun Feng, and Yang Wang, Refinable functions with non-integer dilations, J. Funct. Anal. 250 (2007), no. 1, 1--20. 2345903

    2007

  6. [14]

    Ciprian Demeter and Hong Wang, Szemer\'edi- T rotter bounds for tubes and applications , Ars Inven. Anal. (2025), Paper No. 1, 46. 4869897

    2025

  7. [15]

    1, 109--119

    De-Jun Feng and Antti K \"a enm \"a ki, Self-affine sets in analytic curves and algebraic surfaces, Annales Fennici Mathematici 43 (2018), no. 1, 109--119

    2018

  8. [16]

    De-Jun Feng and Ka-Sing Lau, Multifractal formalism for self-similar measures with weak separation condition, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 92 (2009), no. 4, 407--428. 2569186

    2009

  9. [17]

    Nguyen, and Tonghui Wang, Convolutions of equicontractive self-similar measures on the line, Illinois J

    De-Jun Feng, Nhu T. Nguyen, and Tonghui Wang, Convolutions of equicontractive self-similar measures on the line, Illinois J. Math. 46 (2002), no. 4, 1339--1351. 1988267

    2002

  10. [18]

    2, 353--381

    Katrin F \"a ssler and Tuomas Orponen, On restricted families of projections in R ^3 , Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 109 (2014), no. 2, 353--381

    2014

  11. [19]

    Shengwen Gan, Shaoming Guo, and Hong Wang, A restricted projection problem for fractal sets in R ^n , Camb. J. Math. 12 (2024), no. 3, 535--561. 4806061

    2024

  12. [20]

    Anton Gorodetski , Victor Kleptsyn , and Grigorii Monakov , H \"o lder regularity of stationary measures , arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2209.12342

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Michael Hochman, On self-similar sets with overlaps and inverse theorems for entropy in R ^d , arXiv e-prints (2015), arXiv:1503.09043

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hutchinson, Fractals and self-similarity, Indiana Univ

    John E. Hutchinson, Fractals and self-similarity, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30 (1981), no. 5, 713--747. 625600

    1981

  15. [23]

    Math., vol

    Robert Kaufman, On B ernoulli convolutions , Conference in modern analysis and probability ( N ew H aven, C onn., 1982), Contemp. Math., vol. 26, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1984, pp. 217--222. 737403

    1982

  16. [24]

    Osama Khalil, Exponential mixing via additive combinatorics, Preprint https://homepages.math.uic.edu/ khalil/publications/MixingCombinatorics.pdf (2023), arXiv:2305.00527

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    (N.S.) 10 (2004), no

    Dmitry Kleinbock, Elon Lindenstrauss, and Barak Weiss, On fractal measures and D iophantine approximation , Selecta Math. (N.S.) 10 (2004), no. 4, 479--523. 2134453

    2004

  18. [26]

    Jialun Li, Fourier decay, renewal theorem and spectral gaps for random walks on split semisimple L ie groups , Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) 55 (2022), no. 6, 1613--1686. 4517684

    2022

  19. [27]

    150, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    Pertti Mattila, Fourier analysis and H ausdorff dimension , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 150, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015. 3617376

    2015

  20. [28]

    Mosquera and Pablo S

    Carolina A. Mosquera and Pablo S. Shmerkin, Self-similar measures: asymptotic bounds for the dimension and F ourier decay of smooth images , Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 43 (2018), no. 2, 823--834. 3839838

    2018

  21. [29]

    o r \"a l \

    Tuomas Orponen , Carmelo Puliatti , and Aleksi Py \"o r \"a l \"a , On Fourier transforms of fractal measures on the parabola , arXiv e-prints (to appear in Transactions of the AMS) (2024), arXiv:2401.17867

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tuomas Orponen, Additive properties of fractal sets on the parabola, Ann. Fenn. Math. 48 (2023), no. 1, 113--139. 4528124

    2023

  23. [31]

    Ariel Rapaport, On the R ajchman property for self-similar measures on R ^d , Adv. Math. 403 (2022), Paper No. 108375, 53. 4405371

    2022

  24. [32]

    Pablo Shmerkin, On the exceptional set for absolute continuity of B ernoulli convolutions , Geom. Funct. Anal. 24 (2014), no. 3, 946--958. 3213835

    2014

  25. [33]

    , On F urstenberg's intersection conjecture, self-similar measures, and the L^q norms of convolutions , Ann. of Math. (2) 189 (2019), no. 2, 319--391. 3919361

    2019

  26. [34]

    1, 65--82

    , Inverse theorems for discretized sums and lq norms of convolutions in R ^d , Orbita Mathematicae 2 (2025), no. 1, 65--82

    2025

  27. [35]

    Boris Solomyak, Fourier decay for self-similar measures, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 149 (2021), no. 8, 3277--3291. 4273134

    2021

  28. [36]

    Lauritz Streck , On absolute continuity and maximal Garsia entropy for self-similar measures with algebraic contraction ratio , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2303.07785

    2023

  29. [37]

    Masato Tsujii, On the F ourier transforms of self-similar measures , Dyn. Syst. 30 (2015), no. 4, 468--484. 3430311

    2015

  30. [38]

    105, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    Terence Tao and Van Vu, Additive combinatorics, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 105, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. 2289012

    2006

  31. [39]

    Varj\' u and Han Yu, Fourier decay of self-similar measures and self-similar sets of uniqueness, Anal

    P\' e ter P. Varj\' u and Han Yu, Fourier decay of self-similar measures and self-similar sets of uniqueness, Anal. PDE 15 (2022), no. 3, 843--858. 4442842

    2022

  32. [40]

    Guangzeng Yi , On bounded energy of convolution of fractal measures , arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2410.23080

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.