, , ,

Since the famous result of Jarnik [30] concerning Diophantine approximation and Hausdorff dimension, the following problem has been widely encountered and studied in various mathematical situations.

Let

{x_{n}}_{n \in N}

be a sequence in a compact metric space

E

and

{λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

a sequence of positive real numbers converging to 0. Let us define the limsup set

S = ⋂_{N \in N} ⋃_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}),

and let

D

be its Hausdorff dimension. Let

δ > 1

. What can be said about the Hausdorff dimension of the subset

S (δ)

S

defined by

S (δ) = ⋂_{N \in N} ⋃_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) ?

Intuitively one would expect the Hausdorff dimension of

S (δ)

to be lower bounded by

D / δ

. This has been proved to hold in many cases which can roughly be separated into two classes:

$∙$ when the sequence ${(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}$ forms a sort of “regular system” [3, 15] , which ensures a strong uniform repartition of the points ${x_{n}}_{n}$ .
$∙$ when the sequence ${(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}$ forms an ubiquitous system [18, 19, 29] with respect to a monofractal measure carried by the set $S$ .

Let us mention that similar results are obtained in [43] when

E

is a Julia set. When

dim S (δ) < D

, such subsets

S (δ)

are often referred to as exceptional sets [17] .

Another type of exceptional sets arises when considering the level sets of well-chosen functions:

$∙$ the function associating with each point $x \in [0, 1]$ the frequency of the digit $i \in {0, 1, \dots, b - 1}$ in the $b$ -adic expansion of $x$ ,
$∙$ more generally the function associating with each point $x$ the average of the Birkhoff sums related to some dynamical systems,
$∙$ the function $x \mapsto h_{f} (x)$ , when $f$ is either a function or a measure on $R^{d}$ and $h_{f} (x)$ is a measure of the local regularity (typically an Hölder exponent) of $f$ around $x$ .

It is a natural question to ask whether these two approaches can be combined to obtain finer exceptional sets. Let us take an example to illustrate our purpose.

On one side, it is known since Jarnik's results [30] that if the sequence

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

is made of the rational pairs

{(p / q, 1 / q^{2})}_{p, q \in N^{* 2}, p \leq q}

, then for every

δ > 1

the subset

S (δ)

[0, 1]

has a Hausdorff dimension equal to

1 / δ

. In the ubiquity's setting, this is a consequence of the fact that the family

{(p / q, 1 / q^{2})}_{p, q \in N^{* 2}}

forms an ubiquitous systems associated with the Lebesgue measure [18, 19] .

On the other side, given

(π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}) \in [0, 1]^{b}

such that

\sum_{i = 0}^{b - 1} π_{i} = 1

, Besicovitch and later Eggleston [20] studied the sets

E^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}}

of points

x

such that the frequency of the digit

i \in {0, 1, \dots, b - 1}

in the

b

-adic expansion of

x

is equal to

π_{i}

. More precisely, for any

x \in [0, 1]

, let us consider the

b

-adic expansion of

x = \sum_{m = 1}^{\infty} x_{m} b^{- m}

, where

\forall m

x_{m} \in {0, 1, \dots, b - 1}

. Let

φ_{i, n} (x)

be the mapping

\begin{matrix} x \mapsto φ_{i, n} (x) = \frac{# {m \leq n : x_{m} = i}}{n} . \end{matrix}

(1)

Then

E^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}} = {x : \forall i \in {0, 1, \dots, b - 1}, {lim}_{n \to + \infty} φ_{i, n} (x) = π_{i}}

. They found that

dim E^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}} = \sum_{i = 0}^{b - 1} - π_{i} {log}_{b} π_{i}

We address the problem of the computation of the Hausdorff dimension of the subsets

E_{δ}^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}}

[0, 1]

defined by

E_{δ}^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}} = {x : {\begin{matrix} \exists (p_{n}, q_{n})_{n} \in (N^{* 2})^{N} such that q_{n} \to + \infty, \\ | x - p_{n} / q_{n} | \leq 1 / q_{n}^{2 δ} and \forall i \in {0, \dots, b - 1}, \\ {lim}_{n \to + \infty} φ_{i, [{log}_{b} (q_{n}^{2})]} (p_{n} / q_{n}) = π_{i} \end{matrix}}

(

[x]

denotes the integer part of

x

). In other words, we seek in this example for the Hausdorff dimension of the set of points of

[0, 1]

which are well-approximated by rational numbers fulfilling a given Besicovitch condition (i.e. having given digit frequencies in their

b

-adic expansion). This problem is not covered by the works mentioned above. The main reason is the heterogeneity of the repartition of the rational numbers satisfying the Besicovitch conditions. As a consequence of Theorems 2.2 and 2.7 of this paper, one obtains

\begin{matrix} dim E_{δ}^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}} = \frac{\sum_{i = 0}^{b - 1} - π_{i} {log}_{b} π_{i}}{δ} . \end{matrix}

(2)

The key point to achieve this work is to see the Besicovitch condition as a scaling property derived from a multinomial measure. More precisely, the computation of the Hausdorff dimensions of the sets

E_{δ}^{π_{0}, π_{1}, \dots, π_{b - 1}}

proves to be a particular case of the following problem: Let

μ

be a positive Borel measure on the compact metric space

E

considered above. Given

α > 0

and

δ \geq 1

, what is the Hausdorff dimension of the set of points

x

E

that are well-approximated by points of

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

at rate

δ

, i.e. such that for an infinite number of integers

n

| x - x_{n} | \leq λ_{n}^{δ}

, conditionally to the fact that the corresponding sequence of couples

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

satisfies

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} \frac{log μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}))}{log (λ_{n})} = α ? \end{matrix}

(3)

In other words, if

ɛ = (ɛ_{n})_{n \geq 1}

is a sequence of positive numbers converging to 0, what is the Hausdorff dimension of

\begin{matrix} S_{μ} (δ, α, ɛ) = ⋂_{N \geq 0} ⋃_{n \geq N : λ_{n}^{α + ɛ_{n}} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n})) \leq λ_{n}^{α - ɛ_{n}}} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) ? \end{matrix}

(4)

We study the problem in

R^{d}

(

d \geq 1

). An upper bound for the Hausdorff dimension of

S_{μ} (δ, α, ɛ)

is given by Theorem 2.2 for weakly redundant systems

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

(see Definition 2.1 ). Its proof uses ideas coming from multifractal formalism for measures [14, 39] .

Theorem 2.7 (case

ρ = 1

) gives a precise lower bound of the Hausdorff dimension of

S_{μ} (δ, α, ɛ)

when the family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

forms a

1

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to the measure

μ

(see Definition 2.3 for this notion, which generalizes the notion of ubiquitous system mentioned above). It can specifically be applied to measures

μ

that possess some statistical self-similarity property, and to any family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

as soon as the support of

μ

is covered by

{limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

To fix ideas, let us state a corollary of Theorems 2.2 and 2.7 . This result uses the Legendre transform

τ_{μ}^{*}

of the “dimension” function

τ_{μ}

considered in the multifractal formalism studied in [14] (see Section 2.2 and Definition 8 ).

Theorem 1.1. Let

μ

be a multinomial measure on

[0, 1]^{d}

. Suppose that the family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

forms a weakly redundant 1-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

(μ, α, τ_{μ}^{*} (α))

There is a positive sequence

ɛ = (ɛ_{n})_{n \geq 1}

converging to 0 at

\infty

such that

\forall δ \geq 1, dim S_{μ} (δ, α, ɛ) = τ_{μ}^{*} (α) / δ .

Examples of remarkable families

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

are discussed in Section 6 , as well as examples of suitable statistically self-similar measures

μ

. There, the measures

μ

are chosen so that the property ( 3 ) has a relevant interpretation (for instance in terms of the

b

-adic expansion of the points

x_{n}

The formula ( 4 ) defining the set

S_{μ} (δ, α, ɛ)

naturally leads to the question of conditioned ubiquity into the following more general form: Let

ρ \in (0, 1]

. What is the Hausdorff dimension of

\begin{matrix} S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ) = ⋂_{N \geq 0} ⋃_{n \geq N : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + ɛ_{n})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) \leq λ_{n}^{ρ (α - ɛ_{n})}} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) ? \end{matrix}

(5)

Remark that, in ( 4 ) and ( 5 ), if

μ

equals the Lebesgue measure and if

α = d

, the conditions on

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})

are empty, since they are independent of

x_{n}

λ_{n}

and

ρ

(this remains true for a strictly monofractal measure

μ

of index

α

, that is such that

\exists C > 0

\exists r_{0}

such that

\forall x \in

supp(

μ

\forall 0 < r \leq r_{0}

C^{- 1} r^{α} \leq μ (B (x, r)) \leq C r^{α}

Again, an upper bound for the Hausdorff dimension of

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ)

is found in Theorem 2.2 for weakly redundant systems.

Theorem 2.7 (case

ρ < 1

) yields a lower bound of the Hausdorff dimension of

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ)

when

ρ < 1

, as soon as the family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

forms a

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

μ

in the sense of Definition 2.5 . The introduction of this dilation parameter

ρ

substantially modifies Definition 2.3 and the proofs of the results in the initial case

ρ = 1

As a consequence of Theorem 2.7 , a new saturation phenomenon occurs for systems that are both weakly redundant and

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous systems when

ρ < 1

. This points out the heterogeneity introduced when considering ubiquity conditioned by measures that are not monofractal. The following result is also a corollary of Theorems 2.2 and 2.7 .

Theorem 1.2. Let

μ

be a multinomial measure on

[0, 1]^{d}

. Let

ρ \in (0, 1)

. Suppose that

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

forms a weakly redundant

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

(μ, α, τ_{μ}^{*} (α))

There is a positive sequence

ɛ = (ɛ_{n})_{n \geq 1}

converging to 0 at

\infty

such that

\forall δ \geq 1, dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ) = min (\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{δ}, τ_{μ}^{*} (α)) .

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.2 , if

τ_{μ}^{*} (α) < d

, although

δ

starts to increase from

1

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ)

remains constant until

δ

reaches the critical value

\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{τ_{μ}^{*} (α)} > 1

. When

δ

becomes larger than

\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}

, the dimension decreases. This is what we call a saturation phenomenon.

It turns out that conditioned ubiquity as defined in this paper is closely related to the local regularity properties of some new classes of functions and measures having dense sets of discontinuities. In particular, Theorem 2.7 is a determinant tool to analyze measures constructed as the measures

ν_{ρ, γ, σ}

ν_{ρ, γ, σ} = \sum_{n \geq 0} λ_{n}^{γ} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{σ} δ_{x_{n}},

where

δ_{x_{n}}

is the probability Dirac mass at

x_{n}

ρ \in (0, 1]

, and

γ, σ

are real numbers which make the series converge. Conditioned ubiquity is also essential to perform the multifractal analysis of Lévy processes in multifractal time. These objects have multifractal properties that were unknown until now. Their study is achieved in other works [9, 10] .

The definitions of weakly redundant and

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous systems are given in Section 2 . The statements of the main results (Theorems 2.2 and 2.7 ) then follow. The proofs of Theorem 2.2 , Theorem 2.7 (case

ρ = 1

) and Theorem 2.7 (case

ρ < 1

) are respectively achieved in Sections 3 , 4 and 5 . Finally, our results apply to suitable examples of systems

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

and measures

μ

that are discussed in Section 6 .

2 Definitions and statement of results

It is convenient to endow

R^{d}

with the supremum norm

∥ \cdot ∥_{\infty}

and with the associated distance

(x, y) \in R^{d} \times R^{d} \mapsto ∥ x - y ∥_{\infty} = {max}_{1 \leq i \leq d} (| x_{i} - y_{i} |)

. All along the paper, for a set

S

| S |

denotes then the diameter of

S

We briefly recall the definition of the generalized Hausdorff measures and Hausdorff dimension in

R^{d}

. Let

ξ

be a gauge function, i.e. a non-negative non-decreasing function on

R_{+}

such that

{lim}_{x \to 0^{+}} ξ (x) = 0

. Let

S

be a subset of

R^{d}

. For

η > 0

, let us define

ℋ_{η}^{ξ} (S) = {inf}_{{C_{i}}_{i \in ℐ} : S \subset \cup_{i \in ℐ} C_{i}} \sum_{i \in ℐ} ξ (| C_{i} |), (the family {C_{i}}_{i \in ℐ} covers S)

where the infimum is taken over all countable families

{C_{i}}_{i \in ℐ}

such that

\forall i \in ℐ

| C_{i} | \leq η

. As

η

decreases to 0,

ℋ_{η}^{ξ} (S)

is non-decreasing, and

ℋ^{ξ} (S) = {lim}_{η \to 0} ℋ_{η}^{ξ} (S)

defines a Borel measure on

R^{d}

, called Hausdorff

ξ

-measure.

Defining the family

ξ_{α} (x) = | x |^{α}

(

α \geq 0

), there exists a unique real number

0 \leq D \leq d

, called the Hausdorff dimension of

S

and denoted

dim S

, such that

D = sup {α \geq 0 : ℋ^{ξ_{α}} (S) = + \infty} = inf {α : ℋ^{ξ_{α}} (S) = 0}

(with the convention

sup \emptyset = 0

). We refer the reader to [36, 22] for instance for more details on Hausdorff dimensions.

Let

μ

be a positive Borel measure with a support contained in

[0, 1]^{d}

. The analysis of the local structure of the measure

μ

[0, 1]^{d}

may be naturally done using a

c

-adic grid (

c \geq 2

). This is the case for instance for the examples of measures of Section 6 . We shall thus need the following definitions.

Let

c

be an integer

\geq 2

. For every

j \geq 0

\forall k = (k_{1}, \dots, k_{d}) \in {0, 1, \dots, c^{j} - 1}^{d}

I c j, k

denotes the

c

-adic box

[k_{1} c^{- j}, (k_{1} + 1) c^{- j}) \times \dots \times [k_{d} c^{- j}, (k_{d} + 1) c^{- j})

\forall x \in [0, 1)^{d}

I c j (x)

stands for the unique

c

-adic box of generation

j

that contains

x

, and

k c j, x

is the unique (multi-)integer such that

I c j (x) = I_{j, k_{j, x}^{c}}^{c}

. If

k = (k_{1}, \dots, k_{d})

and

k^{'} = (k_{1}^{'}, \dots, k_{d}^{'})

both belong to

N^{d}

∥ k - k^{'} ∥_{\infty} = {max}_{i} | k_{i} - k_{i}^{'} |

. The set of

c

-adic boxes included in

[0, 1)^{d}

is denoted by

I

Finally, the lower Hausdorff dimension of

μ

\underset{̲}{dim} (μ)

, is classically defined as

inf {dim E : E \in ℬ ([0, 1]^{d}), μ (E) > 0}

2.1 Weakly redundant systems

Let

{x_{n}}_{n \in N}

be a family of points of

[0, 1]^{d}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

a non-increasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to 0. For every

j \geq 0

, let

\begin{matrix} T_{j} = {n : 2^{- (j + 1)} < λ_{n} \leq 2^{- j}} . \end{matrix}

(6)

The following definition introduces a natural property from which an upper bound for the Hausdorff dimension of limsup-sets ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) can be derived. Weak redundancy is slightly more general than sparsity of [23] .

Definition 2.1. The family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

is said to form a weakly redundant system if there exists a sequence of integers

(N_{j})_{j \geq 0}

such that (i)

{lim}_{j \to \infty} log N_{j} / j = 0

(ii) for every

j \geq 1

T_{j}

can be decomposed into

N_{j}

pairwise disjoint subsets (denoted

T_{j, 1}, . . .,

T_{j, N_{j}}

) such that for each

1 \leq i \leq N_{j}

, the family

{B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) : n \in T_{j, i}}

is composed of disjoint balls.

One has

\cup_{i = 1}^{N_{j}} T_{j, i} = T_{j}

. Since the

T_{j, i}

are pairwise disjoint, any point

x \in [0, 1]^{d}

is covered by at most

N_{j}

balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

n \in T_{j}

. Moreover, for every

i

and

j

, the number of balls of

T_{j, i}

is bounded by

C_{d} 2^{d j}

, where

C_{d}

is a positive constant depending only on

d

. Indeed, if two integers

n \neq n^{'}

are such that

λ_{n}

and

λ_{n^{'}}

belong to

T_{j, i}

, then

∥ x_{n} - x_{n^{'}} ∥_{\infty} \geq 2^{- j}

2.2 Upper bounds for Hausdorff dimensions of conditioned limsup sets

Let

μ

be a finite positive Borel measure on

[0, 1]^{d}

We let the reader verify that if

supp μ = [0, 1]^{d}

, then the concave function

\begin{matrix} τ_{μ, c} : q \mapsto lim {inf}_{j \to \infty} - j^{- 1} {log}_{c} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, c^{j} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k}^{c})^{q} \end{matrix}

(7)

does not depend on the integer

c \geq 2

, and is consequently simply denoted

τ_{μ}

This function is considered in the multifractal formalism for measures of [14] . Then, the Legendre transform of

τ_{μ}

α \in R_{+}

, denoted by

τ_{μ}^{*}

, is defined by

\begin{matrix} τ_{μ}^{*} : α \mapsto {inf}_{q \in R} (α q - τ_{μ} (q)) \in R \cup {- \infty} . \end{matrix}

(8)

Theorem 2.2. Let

{x_{n}}_{n \in N}

be a family of points of

[0, 1]^{d}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

a non-increasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to 0. Let

μ

be a positive finite Borel measure with a support equal to

[0, 1]^{d}

. Let

{ɛ_{n}}_{n \in N}

be a positive sequence converging to 0,

ρ \in (0, 1]

δ \geq 1

and

α \geq 0

Let us define

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ) = ⋂_{N \geq 1} ⋃_{n \geq N : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + ɛ_{n})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) \leq λ_{n}^{ρ (α - ɛ_{n})}} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) .

Suppose that

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

forms a weakly redundant system. Then

\begin{matrix} dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ) \leq min (\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{δ}, τ_{μ}^{*} (α)) . \end{matrix}

(9)

Moreover,

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ) = \emptyset

τ_{μ}^{*} (α) < 0

The result does not depend on the precise value of the sequence

{ɛ_{n}}_{n}

, as soon as

{lim}_{n \to + \infty} ɛ_{n} = 0

. The proof of Theorem 2.2 is given in Section 3 .

2.3 Heterogeneous ubiquitous systems

Let

α > 0

and

β \in (0, d]

be two real numbers. They play the role respectively of the Hölder exponent of

μ

and of the lower Hausdorff dimension of an auxiliary measure

m

The upper bound obtained by Theorem 2.2 is rather natural. Here we seek for conditions that make the inequality ( 9 ) become an equality. The following Definitions 2.3 and 2.5 provide properties guarantying this equality.

The notion of heterogeneous ubiquitous system generalizes the notion of ubiquitous system in

R^{d}

considered in [18] .

Definition 2.3. The system

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

is said to form a

1

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

(μ, α, β)

if conditions (1-4) are fulfilled.

(1) There exist two non-decreasing continuous functions

φ

and

ψ

defined on

R_{+}

with the following properties:

φ (0) = ψ (0) = 0

r \mapsto r^{- φ (r)}

and

r \mapsto r^{- ψ (r)}

are non-increasing near

0^{+}

{lim}_{r \to 0^{+}} r^{- φ (r)} = + \infty

, and

\forall ɛ > 0

r \mapsto r^{ɛ - φ (r)}

is non-decreasing near 0, -

φ

and

ψ

verify (2), (3) and (4).

(2) There exist a measure

m

with a support equal to

[0, 1]^{d}

with the following properties:

∙

m

-almost every

y \in [0, 1]^{d}

belongs to

\cap_{N \geq 1} \cup_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

, i.e.

\begin{matrix} m (⋂_{N \geq 1} ⋃_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)) = ∥ m ∥ . \end{matrix}

(10)

∙

One has:

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} For m -almost every y \in [0, 1]^{d}, \exists j (y), \forall j \geq j (y), \\ \forall k such that ∥ k - k c j, y ∥_{\infty} \leq 1, P_{1}^{1} (I c j, k) holds, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(11)

where

P_{M}^{1} (I)

is said to hold for the set

I

and for the real number

M \geq 1

when

\begin{matrix} M^{- 1} | I |^{α + ψ (| I |)} \leq μ (I) \leq M | I |^{α - ψ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

(12)

∙

One has:

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} For m -almost every y \in [0, 1]^{d}, \exists j (y), \forall j \geq j (y), \\ \forall k such that ∥ k - k c j, y ∥_{\infty} \leq 1, D_{1}^{m} (I c j, k) holds, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(13)

where

D_{M}^{m} (I)

is said to hold for the set

I

and for the real number

M > 0

when

\begin{matrix} m (I) \leq M | I |^{β - φ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

(14)

(3) (Self-similarity of

m

) For every

c

-adic box

L

[0, 1)^{d}

, let

f_{L}

denote the canonical affine mapping from

L

onto

[0, 1)^{d}

. There exists a measure

m^{L}

L

, equivalent to the restriction

m_{| L}

m

L

(in the sense that

m_{| L}

and

m^{L}

are absolutely continuous with respect to one another), such that property ( 13 ) holds for the measure

m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}

instead of the measure

m

For every

n \geq 1

, let us then introduce the sets

E_{n}^{L} = {x \in L : \begin{matrix} \forall j \geq n + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1}), \forall k such that ∥ k - k c j, x ∥_{\infty} \leq 1, \\ m^{L} (I c j, k) \leq {(\frac{| I c j, k |}{| L |})}^{β - φ (\frac{| I c j, k |}{| L |})} \end{matrix}} .

The sets

E_{n}^{L}

form a non-decreasing sequence in

L

, and by ( 13 ) and property (3),

\cup_{n \geq 1} E_{n}^{L}

is of full

m^{L}

-measure. One can thus consider the integer

n_{L} = inf {n \geq 1 : m^{L} (E_{n}^{L}) \geq ∥ m^{L} ∥ / 2} .

x \in (0, 1)^{d}

and

j \geq 1

, let us define the set of balls

ℬ_{j} (x) = {B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) : x \in B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2) and λ_{n} \in (c^{- (j + 1)}, c^{- j}]} .

Notice that this set may be empty. Then, if

δ > 1

and

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) \in ℬ_{j} (x)

, consider

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

. This ball contains an infinite number of

c

-adic boxes.

Among them, let

B_{n}^{δ}

be the set of

c

-adic boxes of maximal diameter.

Then define

B_{j}^{δ} (x) = ⋃_{B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) \in ℬ_{j} (x)} B_{n}^{δ} .

(4) (Control of the growth speed

n_{L}

and of the mass

∥ m^{L} ∥

) There exists a subset

D

(1, \infty)

such that for every

δ \in D

, for

m

-almost every

x \in {limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

, there exists an infinite number of integers

j

for which there exists

L \in ℬ_{j}^{δ} (x)

such that

\begin{matrix} n_{L} \leq {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1}) φ (| L |) and | L |^{φ (| L |)} \leq ∥ m^{L} ∥ . \end{matrix}

(15)

Remark 2.4. 1. (1) is a technical assumption. In (2), ( 13 ) provides a lower bound for the lower Hausdorff dimension of the analyzing measure

m

. ( 11 ) yields a control of the local behavior of

μ

m

-almost everywhere. Then ( 10 ) is the natural condition on

m

to analyze ubiquitous properties of

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

conditioned by

μ

(3) is a kind of self-similarity needed for the measure

m

, and (4) imposes a control of the growth speed in the level sets for the “copies”

m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}

m

. The combination of assumptions (3) and (4) supplies the monofractality property used in classical ubiquity results.

2. If

μ

is a strictly monofractal measure of exponent

d

(typically the Lebesgue measure), then (1-4) are always fulfilled with

α = β = d

and

μ = m

as soon as ( 10 ) holds. In fact, in this case, (1-4) imply the conditions required to be an ubiquitous system in the sense of [18, 19] .

3. For some well-chosen measures

m

, property (4) automatically holds for any system

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

and

D = (1, \infty)

. This is due to the fact that a stronger property holds: (4') There exists

J_{m}

such that for every

j \geq J_{m}

, for every

c

-adic box

L = I c j, k

, ( 15 ) holds. The first two classes described in Section 6.2 verify (4') (see [12] ).

The use of the weakened property (4) is needed for the last two examples developed in Section 6.2 and for other measures constructed similarly (see [12] ). Indeed, for these kinds of random measures, it was impossible for us to prove the stronger uniform property (4'), and we are only able to derive (see [12] ) that, with probability 1, (4) holds with a dense countable set

D

4. Property (4) can be weakened without affecting the conclusions of Theorem 2.7 below as follows: weak (4) There exists a subset

D

(1, \infty)

such that for every

δ \in D

, for

m

-almost every

x \in {limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

, there exists an increasing sequence

j_{k} (x)

such that for every

k

, there exists

B (x_{n_{k}}, λ_{n_{k}}) \in ℬ_{j_{k} (x)} (x)

as well as a

c

-adic box

L_{k}

included in

B (x_{n_{k}}, λ_{n_{k}}^{δ})

such that ( 15 ) holds with

L = L_{k}

; moreover

{lim}_{k \to \infty} \frac{log | L_{k} |}{log λ_{n_{k}}} = δ

. This weakening, necessary in [10] , slightly complicates the proof and we decided to only discuss this point in this remark.

In order to treat the case of the limsup-sets ( 5 ) defined with a dilation parameter

ρ < 1

, conditions (2) and (4) are modified as follows.

Definition 2.5. Let

ρ < 1

. The system

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

is said to form a

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

(μ, α, β)

if the following conditions are fulfilled.

(1) and (3) are the same as in Definition 2.3 .

(2(

ρ

)) There exists a measure

m

with a support equal to

[0, 1]^{d}

such that:

∙

There exists a non-decreasing continuous function

χ

defined on

R_{+}

such that

χ (0) = 0

r \mapsto r^{- χ (r)}

is non-increasing near

0^{+}

{lim}_{r \to 0^{+}} r^{- χ (r)} = + \infty

, and

\forall ɛ, θ, γ > 0

r \mapsto r^{ɛ - θ φ (r) - γ χ (r)}

is non-decreasing near 0. Moreover, for

m

-almost every point

y

, there exists an infinite number of integers

{j_{i} (y)}_{i \in N}

with the following property: the ball

B (y, c^{- ρ j_{i} (y)})

contains at least

c^{j_{i} (y) (d (1 - ρ) - χ (c^{- j_{i} (y)}))}

points

x_{n}

such that the associated couples

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

all satisfy

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} λ_{n} \in [c^{- j_{i} (y) + 1}, c^{- j_{i} (y) (1 - χ (c^{- j_{i} (y)}))}], \\ for every n^{'} \neq n, B (x_{n}^{'}, λ_{n}^{'}) \cap B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) = \emptyset . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(16)

∙

( 11 ) and ( 13 ) in assumption (2) are also supposed here.

(4') There exists

J_{m}

such that for every

j \geq J_{m}

, for every

c

-adic box

L = I c j, k

, ( 15 ) holds. In particular, (4) holds with

D = (1, + \infty)

Remark 2.6. 1. Heuristically, condition ( 16 ) ensures that for

m

-almost every

y

, for infinite many numbers

j

, approximatively

c^{j d (1 - ρ)}

“disjoint” couples

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

such that

λ_{n} \sim c^{- j}

can be found in the neighborhood

B (y, c^{- ρ j})

y

. This property is much stronger than ( 10 ).

2. Again, the uniform property (4') (the same as in item 3. of Remark 2.4 ) could be weakened into: (4(

ρ

)) There exists a subset

D

(1, \infty)

such that for every

δ \in D

, for

m

-almost every

y

, the sequence

j_{i} (y)

of (2(

ρ

)) can be chosen so that for every

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

invoked in ( 16 ), among the

c

-adic boxes of maximal diameter

L

included in

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

, at least one satisfies ( 15 ).

Nevertheless, we kept (4') because we do not know any example of system

{x_{n}, λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

and of measure

m

such that (2(

ρ

)) and the weak form of (4') hold but such that (2(

ρ

)) and (4') do not.

Before stating the results, a last property has to be introduced. Let

ρ < 1

. For every set

I

, for every constant

M > 1

P_{M}^{ρ} (I)

is said to hold if

\begin{matrix} M^{- 1} | I |^{α + ψ (| I |)) + 2 α χ (| I |))} \leq μ (I) \leq M | I |^{α - ψ (| I |) - 2 α χ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

(17)

The dependence in

ρ

P_{M}^{ρ} (I)

is hidden in the function

χ

(see ( 16 )).

It is convenient for a

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}

(

ρ \in (0, 1]

) with respect to

(μ, α, β)

to introduce the sequences

ɛ_{M}^{ρ} = (ɛ_{M, n}^{ρ})_{n \geq 1}

defined for a constant

M \geq 1

ɛ_{M, n}^{ρ} = max (ɛ_{M, n}^{ρ, -}, ɛ_{M, n}^{ρ, +})

, where

\begin{matrix} λ_{n}^{α \pm ɛ_{M, n}^{ρ, \pm}} = M^{\mp} (2 λ_{n})^{α \pm ψ (2 λ_{n}) \pm 2 α χ (2 λ_{n})} (by convention χ \equiv 0 if ρ = 1) . \end{matrix}

(18)

2.4 Lower bounds for Hausdorff dimensions of conditioned limsup-sets

The triplets

(μ, α, β)

, together with the auxiliary measure

m

, have the properties required to study the exceptional sets we introduced before.

Let

\hat{δ} = (δ_{n})_{n \geq 1} \in [1, \infty)^{N^{*}}

\tilde{ɛ} = (ɛ_{n})_{n \geq 1} \in (0, \infty)^{N^{*}}

ρ \in (0, 1]

M \geq 1

, and

\begin{matrix} {\hat{S}}_{μ} (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, \tilde{ɛ}) = ⋂_{N \geq 1} ⋃_{n \geq N : Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, ρ, α, ɛ_{n}) holds} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ_{n}}), \end{matrix}

(19)

where

Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, ρ, α, ɛ_{n})

holds when

λ_{n}^{ρ (α + ɛ_{n})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) \leq λ_{n}^{ρ (α - ɛ_{n})}

. So, if

\hat{δ}

is a constant sequence equal to some

δ \geq 1

, the set

{\hat{S}}_{μ} (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, \tilde{ɛ})

coincides with the set

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ})

defined in ( 4 ) and considered in Theorem 2.2 .

Theorem 2.7. Let

μ

be a finite positive Borel measure whose support is

[0, 1]^{d}

ρ \in (0, 1]

and

α, β > 0

. Let

{x_{n}}_{n \in N}

be a sequence in

[0, 1]^{d}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

a non-increasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to 0.

Suppose that

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

forms a

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to (

μ, α, β

). Let

\hat{D}

be the set of points

δ

R

which are limits of a non-decreasing element of

{({1} \cup D)}^{N^{*}}

(in the case of

ρ < 1

D = (1, + \infty)

There exists a constant

M \geq 1

such that for every

δ \in \hat{D}

, one can find a non-decreasing sequence

\hat{δ}

converging to

δ

and a positive measure

m_{ρ, δ}

which satisfy

m_{ρ, δ} (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M)) > 0

, and such that for every

x \in \hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M)

, (recall that

χ \equiv 0

ρ = 1

and the definition of

ɛ_{M}^{ρ}

( 18 ))

\begin{matrix} {limsup}_{r \to 0^{+}} \frac{m_{ρ, δ} (B (x, r))}{r^{D (β, ρ, δ) - ξ_{ρ, δ} (r)}} < \infty, \end{matrix}

(20)

\begin{matrix} where & \begin{matrix} \forall ρ \in (0, 1], D (β, ρ, δ) = min (\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}, β); \\ \forall r > 0, ξ_{ρ, δ} (r) = (4 + d) φ (r) + χ (r) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

\hat{δ}

can be taken equal to the constant sequence

(δ)_{n \geq 1}

δ \in {1} \cup D

For the two first classes of measures of Section 6.2 (Gibbs measures and products of multinomial measures), (4') holds instead of (4) and

D = (1, + \infty)

, and thus Theorem 2.7 applies with any

ρ \in (0, 1]

. To the contrary, as soon as

ρ < 1

, Theorem 2.7 does not apply to the last two classes of Section 6.2 (independent multiplicative cascades and compound Poisson cascades).

Corollary 2.8. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.7 , there exists

M \geq 1

such that for every

δ \in \hat{D}

, there exists a non-decreasing sequence

\hat{δ}

converging to

δ

such that

ℋ^{ξ_{ρ, δ}} (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M)) > 0

. Moreover,

\hat{δ} = (δ)_{n \geq 1}

δ \in {1} \cup D

In particular,

dim \hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M) \geq D (β, ρ, δ)

When

ρ < 1

D (β, ρ, δ)

remains constant and equal to

β

when

δ

ranges in

[1, \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{β}]

. This is what we call a saturation phenomenon. Then, as soon as

\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{β} < δ

, we are back to a “normal” situation where

D (β, ρ, δ)

decreases as

1 / δ

when

δ

increases.

When

ρ = 1

D (β, ρ, δ) = β / δ

, thus there is no saturation phenomenon.

Corollary 2.9. Fix

\tilde{ɛ} = (ɛ_{n})_{n \geq 1}

a sequence converging to 0 at

\infty

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.7 , if the family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}

both forms a weakly redundant and a

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous system with respect to

(μ, α, τ_{μ}^{*} (α))

, then there exists a constant

M \geq 1

such that for every

δ \in [\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}, + \infty) \cap \hat{D}

, there exists a non-decreasing sequence

\hat{δ}

converging to

δ

such that

\begin{matrix} dim (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M)) & = & dim (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M) \ ⋃_{δ^{'} > δ} S_{μ} (ρ, δ^{'}, α, \tilde{ɛ})) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & D (τ_{μ}^{*} (α), ρ, δ) . \end{matrix}

Moreover,

\hat{δ}

can be taken equal to

(δ)_{n \geq 1}

δ \in {1} \cup D

Remark 2.10. 1. Corollary 2.8 is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.7 .

2. In order to prove Corollary 2.9 , let us first observe that if

δ > 1

and

\hat{δ}

is a non-decreasing sequence converging to

δ

when

n

tend to

\infty

\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M) \subset S_{μ} (ρ, δ^{'}, α, ɛ_{M}^{ρ})

for all

δ^{'} < δ

. Theorem 2.2 gives the optimal upper bound for

dim (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M))

. Again by Theorem 2.2 , if

δ \geq \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}

, for

δ^{'} > δ

, the sets

S_{μ} (ρ, δ^{'}, α, ɛ_{M}^{ρ})

form a non-increasing family of sets of Hausdorff dimension

< D (τ_{μ}^{*} (α), ρ, δ)

. This implies

ℋ^{ξ_{ρ, δ}} (\cup_{δ^{'} > δ} S_{μ} (ρ, δ^{'}, α, \tilde{ɛ})) = 0

. Then the lower bound for

dim (\hat{S} μ (ρ, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ ρ M) \ \cup_{δ^{'} > δ} S_{μ} (ρ, δ^{'}, α, \tilde{ɛ}))

is given by Corollary 2.8 .

This holds for any sequence

\tilde{ɛ}

converging to zero.

When

δ = 1

, one necessarily has

ρ = 1

and

\hat{δ} = (1)_{n \geq 1}

. The arguments are then similar to those used for

δ > 1

3. The previous statements are still valid if property (4') is replaced by property (4(

ρ

)) of Remark 2.6 , and in Section 6.2 , the measures considered are such that either

D = (1, \infty)

D

is dense in

(1, \infty)

3 Upper bound for the Hausdorff dimension of conditioned limsup-sets: Proof of Theorem 2.2

The sequence

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

is fixed, and is supposed to form a weakly redundant system (Definition 2.1 ). We shall need the functions

\forall j \geq 1

\begin{matrix} τ_{μ, ρ, j} (q) = - j^{- 1} {log}_{2} \sum_{n \in T_{j}} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} and τ_{μ, ρ} (q) = {liminf}_{j \to \infty} τ_{μ, ρ, j} (q), \end{matrix}

with the convention that the empty sum equals 0 and

log (0) = - \infty

In the sequel, the Besicovitch's covering theorem is used repeatedly

Theorem 3.1. (Theorem 2.7 of [36] ) Let

d

be an integer greater than 1. There is a constant

Q (d)

depending only on

d

with the following properties. Let

A

be a bounded subset of

R^{d}

and

ℱ

a family of closed balls such that each point of

A

is the center of some ball of

ℱ

There are families

ℱ_{1}, . . ., ℱ_{Q (d)} \subset ℱ

covering

A

such that each

ℱ_{i}

is disjoint, i.e.

A \subset^{Q (d)} ⋃_{i = 1} ⋃_{F \in ℱ_{i}} F and \forall F, F^{'} \in ℱ_{i} with F \neq F^{'}, F \cap F^{'} = \emptyset .

Let

(N_{j})_{j \geq 1}

be a sequence as in Definition 2.1 , and let us consider for every

j \geq 1

the associated partition

{T_{j, 1}, . . ., T_{j, N_{j}}}

T_{j}

. For every subset

S

T_{j}

, for every

1 \leq i \leq N_{j}

, Theorem 3.1 can be used to extract from

{B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) : n \in T_{j, i} \cap S}

Q (d)

disjoint families of balls denoted by

T_{j, i, k} (S)

1 \leq k \leq Q (d)

, such that

\begin{matrix} ⋃_{n \in T_{j, i} \cap S} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) \subset^{Q (d)} ⋃_{k = 1} ⋃_{n \in T_{j, i, k} (S)} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) . \end{matrix}

(21)

Let us then introduce the functions

\begin{matrix} {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ, j} (q) & = & - j^{- 1} {log}_{2} {sup}_{S \subset T_{j}} \sum_{n \in \cup_{i = 1}^{N_{j}} \cup_{k = 1}^{Q (d)} T_{j, i, k} (S)} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} (j \geq 1) \end{matrix}

and {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ} (q) = {liminf}_{j \to \infty} {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ, j} (q)

. Recall that

τ_{μ}

is defined in ( 7 ).

Lemma 3.2. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.2 , one has

\begin{matrix} τ_{μ, ρ} \geq d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ} and {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ} \geq ρ τ_{μ} . \end{matrix}

(22)

Proof.

∙

Let us show the first inequality of ( 22 ).

First suppose that

q \geq 0

. Fix

j \geq 1

and

1 \leq i \leq N_{j}

. For every

n \in T_{j, i}

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) \cap [0, 1]^{d}

is contained in the union of at most

3^{d}

distinct dyadic boxes of generation

j_{ρ} : = [j ρ] - 1

denoted

B_{1} (n), \dots, B_{3^{d}} (n)

. Hence

μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} \leq {(\sum_{i = 1}^{3^{d}} μ (B_{i} (n)))}^{q} \leq 3^{d q} \sum_{i = 1}^{3^{d}} μ {(B_{i} (n))}^{q} .

Moreover, since the balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

(

n \in T_{j, i}

) are pairwise disjoint and of diameter larger than

2^{- (j + 1)}

, there exists a universal constant

C_{d}

depending only on

d

such that each dyadic box of generation

j_{ρ}

meets less than

C_{d} 2^{d (1 - ρ) j}

of these balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})

. Hence when summing over

n \in T_{j, i}

the masses

μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q}

, each dyadic box of generation

j_{ρ}

appears at most

C_{d} 2^{d (1 - ρ) j}

times. This implies that

\begin{matrix} \sum_{n \in T_{j, i}} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} & \leq & 3^{d q} C_{d} 2^{d (1 - ρ) j} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, 2^{j_{ρ}} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k})^{q} \end{matrix}

(23)

\begin{matrix} and \sum_{n \in T_{j}} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} & \leq & 3^{d q} C_{d} N_{j} 2^{d (1 - ρ) j} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, 2^{j_{ρ}} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k})^{q} . \end{matrix}

(24)

Since

log N_{j} = o (j)

, one gets

τ_{μ, ρ} (q) \geq d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ} (q)

Now suppose that

q < 0

. Let us fix

j \geq 1

and

1 \leq i \leq N_{j}

. For every

n \in T_{j, i}

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})

contains a dyadic box

B (n)

of generation

[j ρ] + 1

, and

μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} \leq μ {(B (n))}^{q}

. The same arguments as above also yield

τ_{μ, ρ} (q) \geq d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ} (q)

∙

We now prove the second inequality of ( 22 ).

Suppose that

q \geq 0

. Fix

j \geq 1

and

S

a subset of

T_{j}

, as well as

1 \leq i \leq N_{j}

and

1 \leq k \leq Q (d)

. We use the decomposition ( 21 ). Since the balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})

(

n \in T_{j, i, k} (S)

) are pairwise disjoint and of diameter larger than

2^{- (j + 1) ρ}

, there exists a universal constant

C_{d}^{'}

, depending only on

d

, such that each dyadic box of generation

j_{ρ}

meets less than

C_{d}^{'}

of these balls. Consequently, the arguments used to get ( 23 ) yield here

\begin{matrix} \sum_{n \in T_{j, i, k (S)}} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} & \leq & 3^{d q} C_{d}^{'} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, 2^{j_{ρ}} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k})^{q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} and \sum_{n \in \cup_{i = 1}^{N_{j}} \cup_{k = 1}^{Q (d)} T_{j, i, k} (S)} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} & \leq & 3^{d q} C_{d}^{'} Q (d) N_{j} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, 2^{j_{ρ}} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k})^{q} . \end{matrix}

The right hand side in the previous inequality does not depend on

S

, hence

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{S \subset T_{j}} \sum_{n \in \cup_{i = 1}^{N_{j}} \cup_{k = 1}^{Q (d)} T_{j, i, k} (S)} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} \leq 3^{d q} C_{d}^{'} Q (d) N_{j} \sum_{k \in {0, \dots, 2^{j_{ρ}} - 1}^{d}} μ (I_{j, k})^{q}, \end{matrix}

and the conclusion follows. The case

q < 0

is left to the reader. □

Proof of Theorem 2.2 .

∙

First case:

α \leq τ_{μ}^{'} (0^{-})

. Hence

τ_{μ}^{*} (α) = {inf}_{q \geq 0} (α q - τ_{μ} (q))

Let us first prove that

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α) \leq \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{δ}

Fix

η > 0

and

N

so that

ɛ_{n} < η

for

n \geq N

. Let us introduce the set

S_{μ} (N, η, ρ, δ, α) = \cup_{n \geq N : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + η)} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

. This set is also written

S_{μ} (N, η, ρ, δ, α) = ⋃_{j \geq {inf}_{n \geq N} {log}_{2} (λ_{n}^{- 1})} ⋃_{n \in T_{j} : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + η)} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) .

Let us fix

D \geq 0

. Remark that

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \subset S_{μ} (N, η, ρ, δ, α)

. We use this set as covering of

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ})

in order to estimate the

D

-dimensional Hausdorff measure of

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ})

Fix

q \geq 0

such that

τ_{μ} (q) > - \infty

. Let

j_{q}

be an integer large enough so that

j \geq j_{q}

implies

τ_{μ, ρ, j} (q) \geq τ_{μ, ρ} (q) - η

. For

j_{N} = max (j_{q}, {inf}_{n \geq N} {log}_{2} (λ_{n}^{- 1}))

, one gets that for some constant

C

depending on

D, δ, α, η, ρ

and

q

\begin{matrix} ℋ_{2 \cdot 2^{- j_{N} δ}}^{ξ_{D}} (S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ})) & \leq & \sum_{j \geq j_{N}} \sum_{n \in T_{j} : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + η)} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))} | B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) |^{D} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \sum_{j \geq j_{N}} \sum_{n \in T_{j}} | B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ}) |^{D} λ_{n}^{- q ρ (α + η)} μ {(B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}^{q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \sum_{j \geq j_{N}} (22^{- j δ})^{D} 2^{(j + 1) q ρ (α + η)} 2^{- j τ_{μ, ρ, j} (q)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C \sum_{j \geq j_{N}} 2^{- j (D δ - q ρ (α + η) + τ_{μ, ρ} (q) - η)} . \end{matrix}

Therefore, if

D > \frac{ρ (α + η) - τ_{μ, ρ} (q) + η}{δ}

ℋ_{2 \cdot 2^{- j_{N} δ}}^{ξ_{D}} (S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}))

converges to 0 as

N \to \infty

, and

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \leq D

. This yields

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \leq \frac{q ρ (α + η) - τ_{μ, ρ} (q) + η}{δ}

, which is less than

\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ (α q - τ_{μ} (q)) + (q ρ + 1) η}{δ}

by Lemma 3.2 . This holds for every

η > 0

and for every

q \geq 0

such that

τ_{μ} (q) > - \infty

. Finally,

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \leq \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ {inf}_{q \geq 0} α q - τ_{μ} (q)}{δ} = \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ τ_{μ}^{*} (α)}{δ}

Let us now show that

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \leq τ_{μ}^{*} (α)

. This time, for

j \geq 1

we define

S_{j} = {n \in T_{j} : λ_{n}^{ρ (α + η)} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))}

. By ( 21 ), we remark that

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \subset {⋃_{j \geq j_{N}}}^{N_{j}} {⋃_{i = 1}}^{Q (d)} ⋃_{k = 1} ⋃_{n \in T_{j, i, k} (S_{j})} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) .

By definition of

{\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ} (q)

, a computation mimicking the previous one yields

\begin{matrix} ℋ_{2 \cdot 2^{- ρ j_{N}}}^{ξ_{D}} (S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ})) & \leq & C \sum_{j \geq j_{N}} 2^{- j (D ρ - q ρ (α + η) + {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ} (q) - η)} . \end{matrix}

Hence

dim S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \leq \frac{q ρ (α + η) - {\hat{τ}}_{μ, ρ} (q) + η}{ρ}

, for every

η > 0

and every

q \geq 0

such that

τ_{μ} (q) > - \infty

. The conclusion follows from Lemma 3.2 .

Finally, if

τ_{μ}^{*} (α) < 0

and

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}) \neq \emptyset

, the previous estimates show that

ℋ_{2 \cdot 2^{- ρ j_{N}}}^{ξ_{D}} (S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, \tilde{ɛ}))

is bounded for

D \in (τ_{μ}^{*} (α), 0)

(one can formally extend the definition of

ℋ^{ξ_{D}}

to the case

D < 0

). This is a contradiction.

∙

The proof when

α \geq τ_{μ}^{'} (0^{-})

follows similar lines. □

4 Conditioned ubiquity. Proof of Theorem 2.7 (case $ρ = 1$ )

We assume that a 1-heterogeneous ubiquitous system is fixed. With each couple

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

is associated the ball

I_{n} = B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

. For every

δ \geq 1

I_{n}^{(δ)}

denotes the contracted ball

B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

. The following property is useful in the sequel. Because of the assumption (1) on

φ

and

ψ

, one has

\begin{matrix} \exists C > 1, \forall 0 < r \leq s \leq 1, s^{- φ (s)} \leq C r^{- φ (r)} and s^{- ψ (s)} \leq C r^{- ψ (r)} . \end{matrix}

(25)

We begin with a simple technical lemma

Lemma 4.1. Let

y \in [0, 1]^{d}

, and let us assume that there exists an integer

j (y)

such that for some integer

c \geq 2

, ( 11 ) and ( 13 ) hold for

y

and every

j \geq j (y)

There exists a constant

M

independent of

y

with the following property:

for every

n

such that

y \in B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

and

{log}_{c} λ_{n}^{- 1} \geq j (y) + 4

D_{M}^{m} (B (y, 2 λ_{n}))

and

P_{M}^{1} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}))

hold.

Proof. Let us assume that $y \in B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)$ with $λ_{n} \leq c^{- j (y) - 4}$ . Let $j_{0}$ be the smallest integer $j$ such that $c^{- j} \leq λ_{n} / 2$ , and $j_{1}$ the largest integer $j$ such that $c^{- j} \geq 2 λ_{n}$ . One has $j_{0} \geq - {log}_{c} λ_{n} \geq j_{1} \geq j (y)$ . One thus ensured by construction that $j_{0} - 4 \leq - {log}_{c} λ_{n} \leq j_{1} + 4$ .
Let us recall that $I_{j} (y)$ is the unique $c$ -adic box of scale $j$ which contains $y$ , and that $k_{j, y}$ is the unique $k \in N^{d}$ such that $y \in I_{j, k}^{c} = I_{j} (y)$ . One has $I_{j_{0}}^{c} (y) \subset B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) \subset \cup_{∥ k - k_{j_{1}, y}^{c} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j_{1}, k}^{c}$ , which yields $μ (I_{j_{0}}^{c} (y)) \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n})) \leq \sum_{∥ k - k_{j_{1}, y}^{c} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} μ (I_{j_{1}, k}^{c})$ . Applying ( 11 ) and ( 12 ) yields $| c^{- j_{0}} |^{α + ψ (| c^{- j_{0}} |)} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n})) \leq 3^{d} | c^{- j_{1}} |^{α - ψ (| c^{- j_{1}} |)} .$ Combining the fact that $j_{0} - 4 \leq - {log}_{c} λ_{n} \leq j_{1} + 4$ with ( 25 ) and ( 18 ) gives $λ_{n}^{α + ɛ_{M, n}^{1, +}} = M^{- 1} | 2 λ_{n} |^{α + ψ (2 λ_{n})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n})) \leq M | 2 λ_{n} |^{α - ψ (2 λ_{n})} = λ_{n}^{α - ɛ_{M, n}^{1, -}}$ for some constant $M$ that does not depend on $y$ .
Similarly, one gets from ( 13 ) and ( 14 ) that $D_{M}^{m} (B (y, 2 λ_{n}))$ holds for some constant $M > 0$ that does not depend on $y$ . □

of Theorem 2.7 in the case

ρ = 1

. All along the proof,

C

denotes a constant which depends only on

c

α

β

δ

φ

and

ψ

The case

δ = 1

follows immediately from the assumptions (here

m_{1} = m

Now let

M \geq 1

be the constant given by Lemma 4.1 . Let

δ \in \hat{D} \cap (1, + \infty)

, and let

{d_{n}}_{n \geq 1}

be a non-decreasing sequence in

D

converging to

δ

(if

δ \in D

d_{n} = δ

for every

n

). For every

k \geq 1

j \geq 1

and

y \in [0, 1]^{d}

, let

\begin{matrix} n_{j, y}^{(d_{k})} = inf {n : λ_{n} \leq c^{- j}, \exists j^{'} \geq j : \begin{matrix} B (x_{n}, λ_{n}) \in ℬ_{j^{'}} (y) \\ \exists L \in B_{n}^{d_{k}}, (P3 15) holds \end{matrix}} . \end{matrix}

(26)

We shall find a sequence

\hat{δ} = (δ_{j})_{j \geq 1}

, converging to

δ

, to construct a generalized Cantor set

K_{δ}

{\hat{S}}_{μ} (1, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ_{M}^{1})

and simultaneously the measure

m_{δ}

K_{δ}

. The successive generations of

c

-adic boxes involved in the construction of

K_{δ}

, namely

G_{n}

, are obtained by induction.

First step: The first generation of boxes defining

K_{δ}

is taken as follows. Let

L_{0} = [0, 1]^{d}

. Consider the first element

d_{1}

D

of the sequence converging to

δ

. We first impose that

δ_{j} : = d_{1}

, for every

j \geq 1

Due to assumptions (2), (3) and (4), there exist

E^{L_{0}} \subset E_{n_{L_{0}}}^{L_{0}}

such that

m (E^{L_{0}}) \geq ∥ m ∥ / 4

and an integer

n_{L_{0}}^{'} \geq n_{L_{0}}

such that for all

y \in E^{L_{0}}

y \in \cap_{N \geq 1} \cup_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

, for every

j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'}

, both ( 11 ) and ( 13 ) hold, there are infinitely many integers

j

such that ( 15 ) holds for some

L \in ℬ_{j}^{d_{1}} (y)

In order to construct the first generation of balls of the Cantor set, we invoke the Besicovitch's covering Theorem 3.1 . We are going to apply it to

A = E^{L_{0}}

and to several families

ℱ_{1} (j)

of balls constructed as follows.

For

y \in E^{L_{0}}

, let us denote

n_{j, y}^{(d_{1})}

n_{j, y}

. Then for every

j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'} + 4

, let us define

ℱ_{1} (j) = {B (y, 2 λ_{n_{j, y}}) : y \in E^{L_{0}}}

The family

ℱ_{1} (j)

fulfills the conditions of Theorem 3.1 . Thus, for every

j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'} + 4

Q (d)

families of disjoint balls

ℱ_{1}^{1} (j), . . ., ℱ_{1}^{Q (d)} (j)

, can be extracted from

ℱ_{1} (j)

Therefore, since

m (A) = m (E^{L_{0}}) \geq ∥ m ∥ / 4

, for some

i

one has

m (⋃_{F_{1, k}^{i} \in ℱ_{1}^{i} (j)} F_{1, k}^{i}) \geq ∥ m ∥ / (4 Q (d))

. Again, one extracts from

ℱ_{1}^{i} (j)

a finite family of pairwise disjoint balls

{\tilde{G}}_{1} (j) = {B_{1}, B_{2}, \dots, B_{N}}

such that

\begin{matrix} m (⋃_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m ∥}{8 Q (d)} . \end{matrix}

(27)

By construction, with each

B_{k}

can be associated a point

y_{k} \in E^{L_{0}}

so that

B_{k} = B (y_{k}, 2 λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}})

. Moreover, by construction (see ( 26 )),

I_{n_{j, y_{k}}} = B (x_{n_{j, y_{k}}}, λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}}) \subset B (y_{k}, 2 λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}}) = B_{k}

. Thus

I_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{(d_{1})} = B (x_{n_{j, y_{k}}}, λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{d_{1}})

is included in

B_{k}

. Finally, Lemma 4.1 yield

P_{M}^{1} (B (x_{n_{j, y_{k}}}, λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}}))

and

D_{M}^{m} (B_{k})

Let

J_{k}

be the closure of one of the

c

-adic boxes of maximal diameter included in

I_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{(d_{1})}

, and such that both ( 15 ) holds for

J_{k}

. Such a box exists by ( 26 ). Moreover, by construction one has

| J_{k} | \leq | I_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{(d_{1})} | \leq C | J_{k} |

for some universal constant

C

We write

\underset{̲}{B_{k}} = J_{k}

. Conversely, if a

c

-adic box

J

can be written

\underset{̲}{B}

for some larger ball

B

, one writes

B = \bar{J}

. Therefore, for every closed box

J

constructed above one can ensure by construction that

\begin{matrix} C^{- 1} | J | \leq | \bar{J} |^{d_{1}} \leq C | J |, \end{matrix}

(28)

where

C

depends only on the fixed given sequence

{d_{n}}_{n}

. We eventually set

\begin{matrix} G_{1} (j) = {\underset{̲}{B_{k}} : B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} . \end{matrix}

(29)

We notice the following property that will be used in the last step: By construction, if

I_{1}

and

I_{2}

belong to

G_{1} (j)

then their distance is at least

{max}_{i \in {1, 2}} (| \bar{I_{i}} | / 2 - {(| \bar{I_{i}} | / 2)}^{d_{1}})

, which is larger than

{max}_{i \in {1, 2}} | \bar{I_{i}} | / 3

for

j

large enough (

d_{1} > 1

by our assumption).

On the algebra generated by the elements of

G_{1} (j)

, a probability measure

m_{δ}

is defined by

m_{δ} (I) = \frac{m (\bar{I})}{\sum_{J_{k} \in G_{1} (j)} m (\bar{J_{k}})} .

Let

I \in G_{1} (j)

. By construction,

D_{M}^{m} (\bar{I})

holds. Using consecutively this fact, ( 28 ) and ( 25 ), one obtains

m (\bar{I}) \leq M | \bar{I} |^{β - φ (| \bar{I} |)} \leq C | I |^{β / d_{1}} | \bar{I} |^{- φ (| \bar{I} |)} \leq C | I |^{β / d_{1}} | I |^{- φ (| I |)} .

Moreover, by ( 27 ), and remembering the definition of

G_{1} (j)

( 29 ), one gets

\sum_{J_{k} \in G_{1} (j)} m (\bar{J_{k}}) = \sum_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} m (B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m ∥}{8 Q (d)} .

As a consequence,

\forall I \in G_{1} (j), m_{δ} (I) \leq 8 Q (d) C ∥ m ∥^{- 1} | I |^{β / d_{1}} | I |^{- φ (| I |)}

By our assumption (1), we can fix

j_{1}

large enough so that

\forall I \in G_{1} (j_{1}), 8 Q (d) C ∥ m ∥^{- 1} \leq | I |^{- φ (| I |)} .

We choose the

c

-adic elements of the first generation of the construction of

K_{δ}

as being those of

G_{1} : = G_{1} (j_{1})

. By construction

\begin{matrix} \forall I \in G_{1}, m_{δ} (I) \leq | I |^{β / d_{1} - 2 φ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

(30)

One knows that by construction, for every

I \in G_{1}

, there exists

y_{k} \in E^{L_{0}}

such that

B (x_{n_{j_{1}, y_{k}}}, λ_{n_{j_{1}, y_{k}}}) \subset \bar{I} = B (y_{k}, 2 λ_{n_{j_{1}, y_{k}}})

As a consequence, for every

y \in \cup_{I \in G_{1}} I

, there exists an integer

n

such that

λ_{n} \leq c^{- 4}

| x_{n} - y | \leq λ_{n}^{δ_{n}}

, and

P_{M}^{1} (I_{n}) = P_{M}^{1} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}))

holds.

Second step: The second generation of boxes is obtained as follows. Consider

d_{2}

, the second element of the sequence

{d_{n}}_{n}

converging to

δ

. Let

n_{1}

be the largest integer among the

n_{j_{1}, y_{k}}^{(d_{1})}

I \in G_{1}

. For every

j > n_{1}

, one imposes

δ_{j} : = d_{2}

Let us focus on one of the

c

-adic boxes

L \in G_{1}

. The selection procedure is the same as in the first step. Due to assumptions (2), (3) and (4), one can find a subset

E^{L}

E_{n^{L}}^{L}

such that

m^{L} (E^{L}) \geq ∥ m^{L} ∥ / 4

and an integer

n_{L}^{'} \geq n_{L}

such that for all

y \in E^{L}

y \in \cap_{N \geq 1} \cup_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

, -

\forall j \geq n_{L}^{'} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1})

\begin{matrix} \forall k, ∥ k - k c j, y ∥_{\infty} \leq 1, D_{1}^{m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}} (f_{L} (I c j, k)) and P_{1}^{1} (I c j, k) hold . \end{matrix}

(31)

There are infinitely many integers

j

such that ( 15 ) holds for some

L \in ℬ_{j}^{d_{2}} (y)

We again apply Theorem 3.1 to

A = E^{L}

and to families

ℱ_{2} (j)

of balls constructed as above. Hence, for every

j \geq n_{L}^{'} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1}) + 4

ℱ_{2} (j) = {B (y, 2 λ_{n_{j, y}^{(d_{2})}}) : y \in E^{L}}

(

n_{j, y}^{(d_{2})}

is defined in ( 26 )). We set

n_{j, y} : = n_{j, y}^{(d_{2})}

The family

ℱ_{2} (j)

fulfills the conditions of Theorem 3.1 and covers

E^{L}

. By Theorem 3.1 , for every

j \geq n_{L}^{'} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1}) + 4

Q (d)

families of pairwise disjoint boxes

ℱ_{2}^{1} (j), \dots, ℱ_{2}^{Q (d)} (j)

, whose union covers

E^{L}

, can be extracted from

ℱ_{2} (j)

. In particular, since

m^{L} (A) = m^{L} (E^{L}) \geq ∥ m^{L} ∥ / 4

, there exists one family of disjoint boxes

ℱ_{2}^{i} (j) = {F_{2, 1}^{i}, F_{2, 2}^{i}, \dots}

which satisfies

m^{L} (\cup_{F_{2, k}^{i} \in ℱ_{2}^{i} (j)} F_{2, k}^{i}) \geq ∥ m^{L} ∥ / 4 Q (d) .

As in the first step, one extracts from

ℱ_{2}^{i} (j)

a finite family of disjoint balls

{\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j) = {B_{1}, B_{2}, \dots, B_{N}}

such that

\begin{matrix} m^{L} (⋃_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j)} B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m^{L} ∥}{8 Q (d)} . \end{matrix}

(32)

As above, with each

B_{k}

is associated a point

y_{k} \in E^{L}

so that

B_{k} = B (y_{k}, 2 λ_{n_{j, y_{k}}})

, and

I_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{(d_{2})} \subset I_{n_{j, y_{k}}} \subset B_{k}

. Now, notice that Lemma 4.1 applies with

m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}

instead of

m

and with the same constant

M

. It follows that

D_{M}^{m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}} (f_{L} (B_{k}))

and

P_{M}^{1} (I_{n_{j, y_{k}}})

hold. Let

J_{k}

be the closure of one of the

c

-adic balls of maximal diameter included in

I_{n_{j, y_{k}}}^{(d_{2})}

such that ( 15 ) holds for

J_{k}

We then define the notation

\underset{̲}{B_{k}} = J_{k}

, and conversely

B_{k} = \bar{J_{k}}

. One also has ( 28 ) (for the same constant

C

). We eventually define

\begin{matrix} G_{2}^{L} (j) = {\underset{̲}{B_{k}} : B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j)} . \end{matrix}

(33)

On the algebra generated by the elements

I

G_{2}^{L} (j)

, an extension of the restriction to the ball

L

of the measure

m_{δ}

is defined by

m_{δ} (I) = \frac{m^{L} (\bar{I})}{\sum_{J_{k} \in G_{2}^{L} (j)} m^{L} (\bar{J_{k}})} m_{δ} (L) .

Let

I \in G_{2}^{L} (j)

. Since

D_{M}^{m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}} (f_{L} (\bar{I}))

holds, one has

\begin{matrix} m^{L} (\bar{I}) & \leq & M {(\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})}^{β - φ (\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})} \leq C | I |^{β / d_{2}} | L |^{- β} {(\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | I |^{β / d_{2}} | L |^{- β} | I |^{- φ (| I |)}, \end{matrix}

where ( 25 ) has been used. Moreover, by ( 32 ) and ( 33 ),

\sum_{J_{k} \in G_{2}^{L} (j)} m^{L} (\bar{J_{k}}) = \sum_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j)} m^{L} (B_{k}) \geq ∥ m^{L} ∥ / 8 Q (d) .

Consequently, since

m_{δ} (L)

can be bounded using ( 30 ), one gets

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (I) & \leq & 8 m_{δ} (L) Q (d) ∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1} C | I |^{β / d_{2}} | L |^{- β} | I |^{- φ (| I |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 8 Q (d) ∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1} C | L |^{β / d_{1} - β - 2 φ (| L |)} | I |^{β / d_{2} - φ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

By (1), one can choose

j_{2} (L)

large enough so that for every integer

j \geq j_{2} (L)

, for every

c

-adic ball

I \in G_{2}^{L} (j)

8 Q (d) C ∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1} | L |^{β / d_{1} - β - 2 φ (| L |)} \leq | I |^{- φ (| I |)}

. Then, taking

j_{2} = max {j_{2} (L) : L \in G_{1}}

, and defining

G_{2} = ⋃_{L \in G_{1}} G_{2}^{L} (j_{2}),

this yields an extension of

m_{δ}

to the algebra generated by the elements of

G_{1} \cup G_{2}

and such that for every

I \in G_{1} \cup G_{2}

m_{δ} (I) \leq | I |^{β / d_{2} - 2 φ (| I |)}

(indeed if

I \in G_{1}

| I |^{β / d_{1}} \leq | I |^{β / d_{2}}

because

d_{2} \geq d_{1}

Notice that by construction, for every

I \in G_{2}

| I | \leq {max}_{I \in G_{1}} 2 (c^{- 4} | I |)^{d_{2}}

Third step: We end the induction. Assume that

n

generations of closed

c

-adic boxes

G_{1}, . . ., G_{n}

are found for some integer

n \geq 2

. Assume also that a probability measure

m_{δ}

on the algebra generated by

\cup_{1 \leq p \leq n} G_{p}

is defined and that the following properties hold (the fact that this holds for

n = 2

comes from the two previous steps):

(i) For every

1 \leq p \leq n

, the elements of

G_{p}

are closed pairwise disjoint

c

-adic boxes, and for

2 \leq p \leq n

{max}_{I \in G_{p}} | I | \leq 2 c^{- 4 d_{p}} {max}_{I \in G_{p - 1}} | I |^{d_{p}}

For every

1 \leq p \leq n

, with each

I \in G_{p}

is associated a ball

\bar{I}

such that

I \subset \bar{I}

. There exists a constant

C > 0

depending on

{d_{n}}_{n}

such that

C^{- 1} | I | \leq | \bar{I} |^{d_{p}} \leq C | I |

. Moreover, if

I_{1}

and

I_{2}

belong to

G_{p}

then their distance is at least

{max}_{i \in {1, 2}} | \bar{I_{i}} | / 2 - {(| \bar{I_{i}} | / 2)}^{d_{p}}

. Moreover, the

\bar{I}

's (

I \in G_{p}

) are pairwise disjoint.

(ii) For every

2 \leq p \leq n

, each element

I

G_{p}

is included in an element

L

G_{p - 1}

. Moreover,

\bar{I} \subset L

{log}_{c} (| \bar{I} |^{- 1}) \geq n_{L} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1})

and

\bar{I} \cap E_{n_{L}}^{L} \neq \emptyset

(iii) There exists a sequence

\hat{δ} = {δ_{q}}_{q \geq 1}

such that

\forall 1 \leq p \leq n

and

I \in G_{p}

, there is an integer

q

such that

I \subset I_{q}^{(δ_{q})} = B (x_{q}, λ_{q}^{δ_{q}}) \subset \bar{I}

P_{M}^{1} (I_{q})

holds, and

δ_{q} = d_{p}

. Moreover, the sequence

\hat{δ}

is non-decreasing, and

\forall q

δ_{q} \leq δ

(iv) For every

I \in \cup_{1 \leq p \leq n} G_{p}

m_{δ} (I) \leq | I |^{β / d_{n} - 2 φ (| I |)}

(v) For every

1 \leq p \leq n - 1

L \in G_{p}

, and

I \in G_{p + 1}

such that

I \subset L

m_{δ} (I) \leq 8 Q (d) m_{δ} (L) \frac{m^{L} (\bar{I})}{∥ m^{L} ∥} .

(vi) Every

L \in \cup_{1 \leq p \leq n} G_{p}

satisfies ( 15 ).

The constructions of a generation

G_{n + 1}

c

-adic balls and an extension of

m_{δ}

to the algebra generated by the elements of

\cup_{1 \leq p \leq n + 1} G_{p}

such that properties (i) to (vi) hold for

n + 1

are done in the same way as when

n = 1

By induction, and because of the separation property (i), we get:

a sequence

(G_{n})_{n \geq 1}

and a non-decreasing sequence

\hat{δ}

converging to

δ

, a probability measure

m_{δ}

σ (I : I \in \cup_{n \geq 1} G_{n})

such that properties (i) to (vi) hold for every

n \geq 2

. We now define

K_{δ} = ⋂_{n \geq 1} ⋃_{I \in G_{n}} I .

By construction,

m_{δ} (K_{δ}) = 1

and because of property (iii), one has

K_{δ} \subset {\hat{S}}_{μ} (1, \hat{δ}, α, ɛ_{M}^{1})

. The measure

m_{δ}

can be extended to

ℬ ([0, 1]^{d})

by the usual way:

m_{δ} (B) : = m_{δ} (B \cap K_{δ})

for

B \in ℬ ([0, 1]^{d})

. Finally, since

δ_{n} \leq δ

for every

n \geq 1

, property (iv) implies that for every

I \in \cup_{p \geq 1} G_{p}

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (I) \leq | I |^{β / δ - 2 φ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

(34)

Last step: Proof of ( 20 ). If

I \in G_{n}

, we set

g (I) = n

Let us fix

B

an open ball of

[0, 1]^{d}

of length less than the one of the elements of

G_{1}

, and assume that

B \cap K_{δ} \neq \emptyset

. Let

L

be the element of largest diameter in

\cup_{n \geq 1} G_{n}

such that

B

intersects at least two elements of

G_{g (L) + 1}

included in

L

Remark that this implies that

B

does not intersect any other element of

G_{g (L)}

, and as a consequence

m_{δ} (B) \leq m_{δ} (L)

Let us distinguish three cases:

∙

| B | \geq | L |

, one has by ( 34 )

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (B) \leq m_{δ} (L) \leq | L |^{β / δ - 2 φ (| L |)} \leq C | B |^{β / δ - 2 φ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

(35)

∙

| B | \leq c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |

, let

L_{1}, . . ., L_{p}

be the elements of

G_{g (L) + 1}

that intersect

B

We use property (v) to get

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (B) = \sum_{i = 1}^{p} m_{δ} (B \cap L_{i}) \leq m_{δ} (L) \frac{8 Q (d)}{∥ m^{L} ∥} \sum_{i = 1}^{p} m^{L} ({\bar{L}}_{i}) . \end{matrix}

(36)

Let

j_{0}

be the unique integer such that

c^{- j_{0}} \leq | B | < c^{- j_{0} + 1}

. Assume

B

intersects for instance the boxes

L_{i_{1}}

and

L_{i_{2}}

. Then, by (i), one has

| B | \geq max (| {\bar{L}}_{i_{1}} |, | {\bar{L}}_{i_{2}} |) / 3

when

j_{0}

is large enough. Hence, if

| B |

is small enough, one has

| B | \geq ({max}_{i = 1, . . ., p} | {\bar{L}}_{i} |) / 3

and the scale of the boxes

{\bar{L}}_{i}

(defined as

[- {log}_{c} | {\bar{L}}_{i} |]

) is always larger than

j_{0} - [{log}_{c} 3] \geq j_{0} - 2

By property (ii), for each

i \in {1, . . . d}

, one has

E_{n_{L}}^{L} \cap {\bar{L}}_{i} \neq \emptyset

. Let

y \in E_{n_{L}}^{L} \cap {\bar{L}}_{i}

for some

i

, and let us consider the

c

-adic box

I_{j_{0} - 2, k_{j_{0} - 2, y}}^{c}

. For every

z \in {\bar{L}}_{i}

| y - z | \leq c^{- (j_{0} - 2)}

. One deduces that

{\bar{L}}_{i} \subset ⋃_{k : ∥ k - k_{j_{0} - 2, y} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j_{0} - 2, k}^{c} .

The ball

B

intersects

L_{i}

, thus the distance between

y

and

B

is at most

c^{- (j_{0} - 2)}

As a consequence, if

L_{i^{'}} \neq L_{i}

, the distance between

y

and

L_{i^{'}}

is lower than

c^{- (j_{0} - 3)}

This implies that

\begin{matrix} ^{p} ⋃_{i = 1} {\bar{L}}_{i} \subset ⋃_{k : ∥ k - k_{j_{0} - 3, y} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c} . \end{matrix}

(37)

Since

y \in E_{n_{L}}^{L}

and

j_{0} \geq - {log}_{c} | L | + n_{L} + 3

, assumption (3) ensures the control of the

m

-mass of the unions of all the balls that appear on the left hand-side of ( 37 ) by the sum of the masses of the

3^{d}

c

-adic boxes

I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c}

∥ k - k_{j_{0} - 3, y} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1

These boxes all satisfy

m^{L} (I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c}) \leq {(\frac{| I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c} |}{| L |})}^{β - φ (\frac{| I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c} |}{| L |})} \leq C {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| B |}{| L |})}

where

C

depends only on

β

. Injecting this in ( 36 ) and using that the

{\bar{L}}_{i}

are pairwise disjoint, one obtains that for

| B |

small enough

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (B) & \leq & m_{δ} (L) \frac{8 Q (d)}{∥ m^{L} ∥} \sum_{i = 1}^{p} m^{L} ({\bar{L}}_{i}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & m_{δ} (L) \frac{8 Q (d)}{∥ m^{L} ∥} 3^{d} C {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| B |}{| L |})} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & m_{δ} (L) \frac{C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} | B |^{- φ (B)}, \end{matrix}

where

C

takes into account all the constant factors. We then use consecutively two facts. First, by ( 34 ),

m_{δ} (L) \leq | L |^{β / δ} | L |^{- 2 φ (| L |)} \leq C | L |^{β / δ} | B |^{- 2 φ (| B |)}

, which implies, since

r \mapsto r^{β (1 - 1 / δ)}

is bounded near 0,

m_{δ} (B) \leq \frac{C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} | B |^{β / δ} | B |^{- 3 φ (| B |)} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β (1 - 1 / δ)} \leq \frac{C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} | B |^{β / δ} | B |^{- 3 φ (| B |)} .

Second, (vi) allows to upper bound

∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1}

| L |^{- φ (L)}

, which yields

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (B) \leq C | L |^{- φ (| L |)} | B |^{β / δ} | B |^{- 3 φ (| B |)} \leq C | B |^{β / δ} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

(38)

∙

c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L | < | B | \leq | L |

: one needs at most

c^{d (n_{L} + 4)}

contiguous boxes of diameter

c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |

to cover

B

. For these boxes, the estimate ( 38 ) can be used.

Also one knows by (vi) that

c^{n_{L}} \leq | L |^{- φ (L)}

, so for

| B |

small enough

\begin{matrix} m_{δ} (B) \leq C c^{d (n_{L} + 4)} {(c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |)}^{β / δ - 4 φ (c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |)} \leq C c^{d n_{L}} | B |^{β / δ - 4 φ (| B |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C | L |^{- d φ (| L |)} | B |^{β / δ - 4 φ (| B |)} \leq C | B |^{β / δ - (4 + d) φ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

Remembering ( 35 ) and ( 38 ), and using assumption (1), one gets a constant

C

such that for every non-trivial ball

B

[0, 1]^{d}

small enough, one has

m_{δ} (B) \leq C | B |^{β / δ} | B |^{- (4 + d) φ (| B |)}

. This yields ( 20 ). □

5 Dilation and Saturation. Proof of Theorem 2.7 (Case $ρ < 1$ )

The introduction of the condition ( 16 ) induces a modification in the construction of the Cantor set with respect to the case

ρ = 1

, in the selection of the couples

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

. The following lemma is comparable with Lemma 4.1

Lemma 5.1. Let

y \in [0, 1]^{d}

, and assume that ( 11 ) and ( 13 ) hold for

y

when

j \geq j (y)

for some integer

j (y)

. There exists a constant

M

independent of

y

with the following property: for every integer

j

such that

j (1 - χ (c^{- j})) \geq \frac{j (y) + 5}{ρ}

, for every integer

n

such that

λ_{n} \in [c^{- j + 1}, c^{- j (1 - χ (c^{- j}))}]

and

\begin{matrix} B (y, (c^{ρ} - 1) c^{- j ρ}) \subset B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) \subset B (y, c^{- j ρ (1 - χ (c^{- j}))}), \end{matrix}

(39)

then

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

holds. Moreover, the same constant

M

can be chosen so that

D_{M}^{m} (B (y, r))

holds for

r \in (0, c^{- j (y) - 1})

Proof. Let us fix

j

such that ( 39 ) holds, and let us denote

j_{1}

the integer

[j ρ] + 2

and

j_{2}

the integer

[j ρ (1 - χ (c^{- j}))] - 2

. By definition of

j_{1}

and

j_{2}

, ( 39 ) implies that

I_{j_{1}}^{c} (y) \subset B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) \subset \cup_{∥ k - k_{j_{2}, y}^{c} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j_{2}, k}^{c}

. Combining this with ( 11 ) yields

\begin{matrix} (c^{- j_{1}})^{α + ψ (c^{- j_{1}})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) \leq 3^{d} (c^{- j_{2}})^{α - ψ (c^{- j_{2}})} . \end{matrix}

(40)

One has

c^{- j_{1}} \leq 2 λ_{n}^{ρ} = | B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) | \leq 2 c^{- j_{2}}

, but by ( 39 ) one also has

\begin{matrix} C^{- 1} (2 c^{- j_{2}})^{\frac{1}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}} \leq 2 λ_{n}^{ρ} \leq C (2 c^{- j_{1}})^{1 - χ (c^{- j})} \end{matrix}

(41)

for some constant

C

independent of

y

and

j

. Hence, using the monotonicity of

r \mapsto r^{- ψ (r)}

, ( 40 ) and ( 41 ) yields the two inequalities

\begin{matrix} M^{- 1} (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})^{\frac{α}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}} (2 λ_{n}^{\frac{ρ}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}})^{ψ (2 λ_{n}^{\frac{ρ}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}})} & \leq & μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})^{ψ (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})} & \leq & {(2 λ_{n}^{\frac{ρ}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}})}^{ψ (2 λ_{n}^{\frac{ρ}{1 - χ (c^{- j})}})} \end{matrix}

for some constant

M \geq 1

also independent of

y

and

j

. Eventually, since

χ (r) \to 0

when

r \to 0

, one has

\frac{1}{1 - χ (c^{- j})} \leq 1 + 2 χ (c^{- j})

for

j

large enough. As a consequence, for the same constant

M

one can write

M^{- 1} (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})^{α + 2 α χ (2 λ_{n}^{ρ}) + ψ (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})} \leq μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) .

The upper bound of ( 40 ) is treated with the same arguments, and one obtains

μ (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ})) \leq M (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})^{α - α χ (2 λ_{n}^{ρ}) - ψ (2 λ_{n}^{ρ})}

. Hence

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

holds.

To prove that

D_{M}^{m} (B (y, r)

holds for some

M > 0

independent of

y

and

r \in (0, c^{- j (y) - 1})

it is enough to write that

B (y, r) \subset \cup_{∥ k - k_{j, y}^{c} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j, k}^{c}

, where

j

is the largest integer such that

r \leq c^{- j}

, and then to use ( 13 ). □

y

j

and

(x_{n}, λ_{n})

satisfy ( 16 ), then they also satisfy ( 39 ). This ensures that the Cantor set we are going to build is included in

S μ (ρ, δ, α, ɛ ρ M)

of Theorem 2.7 in the case

ρ < 1

. Here again, the case

δ = 1

is obvious and left to the reader. Since

D = (1, \infty)

, we deal with the sets

{\hat{S}}_{μ} (ρ, (δ)_{n \geq 1}, α, ɛ_{M}^{ρ})

, which are equal to the sets

S_{μ} (ρ, δ, α, ɛ_{M}^{ρ})

Let

δ > 1

. As in the proof of Theorem 2.7 , we construct a generalized Cantor set

K_{δ}

S μ (ρ, δ, α, ɛ ρ M)

and a measure

m_{ρ, δ}

K_{δ}

First step: The first generation in the construction of

K_{δ}

is as follows:

Let

L_{0} = [0, 1]^{d}

. Using assumption (2(

ρ

)), there exist a subset

E^{L_{0}}

E_{n_{L_{0}}}^{L_{0}}

m

-measure larger than

∥ m ∥ / 4

and an integer

n_{L_{0}}^{'} \geq n_{L_{0}}

such that

\forall y \in E^{L_{0}}

\forall j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'}

, ( 11 ) and ( 13 ) hold. There is a subset

{\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}

E^{L_{0}}

m

-measure greater than

∥ m ∥ / 8

such that for every

y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}

, ( 16 ) holds.

Once again we are going to apply Theorem 3.1 to

A = {\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}

and to families

ℬ_{1} (j)

of balls built as follows. Let

y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}

. We define 16

\begin{matrix} n_{j, y, ρ} = inf {n : c^{- n (1 - χ (c^{- n}))} \leq c^{- \frac{j + 5}{ρ}} and () holds with j_{i} (y) = n} . \end{matrix}

(42)

Then for every

j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'}

, let us introduce the family

ℬ_{1} (j) = {B (y, 3 c^{- ρ n_{j, y, ρ}}) : y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}} .

For every

j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'}

, the family

ℬ_{1} (j)

fulfills conditions of Theorem 3.1 .

Hence,

\forall j \geq n_{L_{0}}^{'}

Q (d)

families of disjoint balls

ℬ_{1}^{1} (j), . . ., ℬ_{1}^{Q (d)} (j)

can be extracted from

ℬ_{1} (j)

. The same procedure as in Theorem 2.7 allows us to extract from these new families a finite family of disjoint balls

{\tilde{G}}_{1} (j) = {B_{1}, B_{2}, \dots, B_{N}}

such that

\begin{matrix} m (⋃_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m ∥}{16 Q (d)} . \end{matrix}

(43)

Remember that with each

B_{k}

can be associated a point

y_{k} \in {\tilde{E}}^{L_{0}}

so that

B_{k} = B (y_{k}, 3 c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}})

. Let us fix one of the balls

B_{k} = B (y_{k}, 3 c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}})

By construction, one can find

[c^{n_{j, y_{k}, ρ} (d (1 - ρ) - χ (c^{- n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}))}]

points

x_{n}

in the ball

B (y_{k}, c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}})

such that ( 16 ) holds. We denote

S (B_{k})

the set of these points

x_{n}

. The corresponding balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

are pairwise disjoint. By construction, for each of these points

x_{n} \in S (B_{k})

, one has

\begin{matrix} B (y_{k}, (c^{ρ} - 1) c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}) \subset B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}) \subset B (y_{k}, c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ} (1 - χ (c^{- n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}))}) . \end{matrix}

(44)

Therefore each point

x_{n} \in S (B_{k})

such that ( 16 ) holds verifies the conditions of Lemma 5.1 . Thus

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

and

D_{M}^{m} (B_{k})

hold for some constant

M

independent of the scale and of

x

. This constant

M

is the one chosen to define

S μ (ρ, δ, α, ɛ ρ M)

Let us now consider

I_{n}^{(δ)} = B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

. Let

J_{n, k}

be the closure of one of the

c

-adic box of maximal diameter included in

I_{n}^{(δ)}

. Since

| B_{k} | = 6 c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}

, one has

| B_{k} | \leq C | J_{n, k} |^{ρ / δ}

for some constant

C

depending only on

δ

We write

\underset{̲}{B_{k}} = J_{n, k}

. Conversely, if a closed

c

-adic box

J

can be written

\underset{̲}{B}

for some larger ball

B

, one writes

B = \bar{J}

. Pay attention to the fact that a number equal to

# S (B_{k}) \geq [c^{n_{j, y_{k}, ρ} (d (1 - ρ) - χ (c^{- n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}))}]

c

-adic boxes

J_{n, k}

can be written as

\underset{̲}{B_{k}}

for the same ball

B_{k}

. For every

c

-adic box

J

such that there exists

k

with

B_{k} = \bar{J}

, one ensured by construction

\begin{matrix} | \bar{J} | \leq C | J |^{ρ / δ} \end{matrix}

(45)

for some constant

C

depending on

δ

. Moreover, the

c

-adic box

J

is included in a contracted ball

I_{n}^{(δ)} = B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

such that

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

holds.

Since

| B_{k} | = 6 c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}

, there is

C > 0

independent of

k

and

ρ

such that

\begin{matrix} # S (B_{k}) \geq [c^{n_{j, y_{k}, ρ} (d (1 - ρ) - χ (c^{- n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}))}] \geq C^{- 1} | B_{k} |^{- \frac{d (1 - ρ)}{ρ}} | B_{k} |^{χ (| B_{k} |)} . \end{matrix}

(46)

We eventually define

\begin{matrix} G_{1} (j) = {J_{n, k} : \bar{J_{n, k}} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} . \end{matrix}

(47)

We notice that

I_{1}

and

I_{2}

belong to

G_{1} (j)

and

\bar{I_{1}} \neq \bar{I_{2}}

then the distance between

I_{1}

and

I_{2}

is by construction at least

{max}_{i \in {1, 2}} \bar{I_{i}} / 3

On the algebra generated by the elements of

G_{1} (j)

, a probability measure

m_{δ, ρ}

is defined by

m_{ρ, δ} (I) = \frac{\frac{m (\bar{I})}{# S (\bar{I})}}{\sum_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} m (B_{k})} .

Since

D_{M}^{m} (\bar{I})

holds for the measure

m

, by ( 45 ) and ( 25 ), we have

m (\bar{I}) \leq M | \bar{I} |^{β - φ (| \bar{I} |)} \leq C | I |^{ρ β / δ} | \bar{I} |^{- φ (| \bar{I} |)} \leq C | I |^{ρ β / δ} | I |^{- φ (| I |)} .

Then, one also has by ( 46 ) and ( 44 )

\begin{matrix} (# S (\bar{I}))^{- 1} & \leq & C | \bar{I} |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ)}{ρ}} | \bar{I} |^{- χ (| \bar{I} |)} \leq C | I |^{\frac{ρ}{δ} \frac{d (1 - ρ)}{ρ}} | I |^{- χ (| I |)} \leq C | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ)}{δ}} | I |^{- χ (| I |)} . \end{matrix}

Moreover, by ( 43 ) and the definition of

G_{1} (j)

( 29 ), one gets

\sum_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{1} (j)} m (B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m ∥}{16 Q (d)} .

Thus,

\forall I \in G_{1} (j), m_{ρ, δ} (I) \leq 16 Q (d) C ∥ m ∥^{- 1} | I |^{- φ (| I |)} | I |^{- χ (| I |)} | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}}

. By our assumption (1), we can fix

j_{1}

large enough so that

\forall I \in G_{1} (j_{1}), 16 Q (d) C ∥ m ∥^{- 1} \leq | I |^{- φ (| I |)} .

We choose the

c

-adic elements of the first generation of the construction of

K_{δ}

as being those of

G_{1} : = G_{1} (j_{1})

. By construction

\begin{matrix} \forall I \in G_{1}, m_{ρ, δ} (I) \leq | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - 2 φ (| I |) - χ (| I |)}, \end{matrix}

(48)

and for every

x \in \cup_{I \in G_{1}} I

, there exists an integer

n

so that

λ_{n} \leq c^{- 5 / ρ}

∥ x_{n} - x ∥_{\infty} \leq λ_{n}^{δ}

, and

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

holds. Moreover,

{max}_{I \in G_{1}} | I | \leq 2 c^{- 5 δ / ρ}

Second step: The second generation is built as in the case

ρ = 1

, by focusing on one

c

-adic box

L

of the first generation. We give the essential clues to obtain this second generation.

Using assumption (2(

ρ

)), there exist a subset

E^{L}

E_{n_{L}}^{L}

m^{L}

-measure larger than

∥ m^{L} ∥ / 4

and an integer

n_{L}^{'} \geq n_{L}

such that for all

y \in E^{L}

, for every

j \geq n_{L}^{'} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1})

, ( 31 ) holds. Then, there exists a subset

{\tilde{E}}^{L}

E^{L}

m^{L}

-measure greater than

∥ m^{L} ∥ / 8

such that for every

y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L}

, ( 16 ) holds.

One more time we apply Theorem 3.1 to

A = {\tilde{E}}^{L}

and to families of balls

ℬ_{2} (j)

Let

y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L}

. For every

j \geq n_{L}^{'} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1})

, we define the family

ℬ_{2} (j) = {B (y, 3 c^{- ρ n_{j, y, ρ}}) : y \in {\tilde{E}}^{L}} .

The family

{\tilde{ℬ}}_{2} (j)

fulfills conditions of Theorem 3.1 . Hence,

Q (d)

families of disjoint balls

ℬ_{2}^{1} (j), . . ., ℬ_{2}^{Q (d)} (j)

can be extracted from

ℬ_{2} (j)

. Moreover, one can also extract from these families one finite family of disjoint balls

{\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j) = {B_{1}, B_{2}, \dots, B_{N}}

such that

\begin{matrix} m^{L} (⋃_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2} (j)} B_{k}) \geq \frac{∥ m^{L} ∥}{16 Q (d)} . \end{matrix}

(49)

Each of these balls

B_{k}

can be written

B (y_{k}, 3 c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}})

for some point

y_{k} \in {\tilde{E}}^{L}

and some integer

n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}

. Moreover, by ( 16 ), with each

B_{k}

can be associated

[c^{n_{j, y_{k}, ρ} (d (1 - ρ) - χ (c^{- n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}}))}]

points

x_{n}

B (y_{k}, c^{- ρ n_{j, y_{k}, ρ}})

such that ( 16 ) holds. As above,

S (B_{k})

denotes the set of these points

x_{n}

. The corresponding balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

are pairwise disjoint.

By construction, ( 44 ) holds for each of these points

x_{n} \in S (B_{k})

. Moreover, Lemma 5.1 holds with the measure

m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}

instead of

m

and with the same constant

M

. Consequently, each point

x_{n} \in S (B_{k})

such that ( 16 ) holds is such that

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{ρ}))

and

D_{M}^{m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}} (f_{L} (B_{k}))

hold. We then consider

I_{n}^{(δ)} = B (x_{n}, λ_{n}^{δ})

, and we denote by

J_{n, k}

the closure of one

c

-adic box of maximal diameter included in

I_{n}^{(δ)}

. Again one has ( 45 ).

We write

\underset{̲}{B_{k}} = J_{n, k}

. Conversely, if a closed

c

-adic box

J

can be written

\underset{̲}{B}

for some larger ball

B

, one writes

B = \bar{J}

. We eventually set

\begin{matrix} G_{2}^{L} (j) = {J_{n, k} : \bar{J_{n, k}} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j)} . \end{matrix}

(50)

On the algebra generated by the elements of

G_{2}^{L} (j)

, an extension of the probability measure

m_{ρ, δ}

is defined by

m_{ρ, δ} (I) = m_{ρ, δ} (L) \frac{\frac{m^{L} (\bar{I})}{# S (\bar{I})}}{\sum_{B_{k} \in {\tilde{G}}_{2}^{L} (j)} m^{L} (B_{k})} .

Since

D_{M}^{m^{L} \circ f_{L}^{- 1}} (f_{L} (B_{k}))

and ( 45 ) hold, one gets

\begin{matrix} m^{L} (\bar{I}) \leq {(\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})}^{β - φ (\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})} \leq C | I |^{\frac{ρ β}{δ}} | L |^{- β} {(\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| \bar{I} |}{| L |})} \leq C | I |^{\frac{ρ β}{δ}} | L |^{- β} | I |^{- φ (| I |)}, \end{matrix}

where the monotonicity of

x \mapsto x^{- φ (x)}

of assumption (1) is used. Then ( 46 ) applied to

\bar{I}

and ( 49 ) yield

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (I) & \leq & m_{ρ, δ} (L) \frac{16 Q (d) C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} | I |^{\frac{ρ β}{δ}} | L |^{- β} | I |^{- φ (| I |)} | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ)}{δ}} | I |^{- χ (| I |)}, \end{matrix}

and using ( 48 ) finally gives

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (I) & \leq & \frac{16 Q (d) C | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - β - 2 φ (| L |) - χ (| L |)}}{∥ m^{L} ∥} | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - φ (| I |) - χ (| I |)} \end{matrix}

By assumption (1) one can choose

j_{2} (L)

large enough so that for every integer

j \geq j_{2} (L)

, for every

I \in G_{2}^{L} (j)

16 Q (d) C ∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1} | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - β - 2 φ (| L |) - χ (| L |)} \leq | I |^{- φ (| I |)} .

Then, taking

j_{2} = max {j_{2} (L) : L \in G_{1}}

and defining

G_{2} = \cup_{L \in G_{1}} G_{2}^{L} (j_{2}),

this yields an extension of

m_{ρ, δ}

to the algebra generated by the elements of

G_{1} \cup G_{2}

One has for every

I \in G_{1} \cup G_{2}

m_{ρ, δ} (I) \leq | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - 2 φ (| I |) - χ (| I |)} .

Remark that by construction if

J \in G_{1}

and

I \in G_{2}

verify

I \subset J

one has

\sum_{I^{'} \in G_{2}, {\bar{I}}^{'} = \bar{I}} m_{ρ, δ} (I^{'}) \leq 16 Q (d) m_{ρ, δ} (J) \frac{m^{J} (\bar{I})}{∥ m^{J} ∥} .

Also notice that by construction,

| I | \leq {max}_{J \in G_{1}} 2 (c^{- 5} | J |)^{δ / ρ} \leq (2 c^{- 5 δ / ρ})^{2}

for every

I \in G_{2}

. Moreover,

I

is contained in some

I_{n}^{(δ)}

such that

| I_{n}^{(δ)} | \leq C | I |

, where

C

is a constant which depends only on

c

Third step: Assume that

n

generations of closed

c

-adic boxes

G_{1}, . . ., G_{n}

have already been found for some integer

n \geq 2

. Assume also that a probability measure

m_{ρ, δ}

on the algebra generated by

\cup_{1 \leq p \leq n} G_{p}

is defined and that:

(i) The elements of

G_{p}

are pairwise disjoint closed

c

-adic boxes, and for

1 \leq p \leq n

{max}_{I \in G_{p}} | I | \leq {(2 c^{- 5 δ / ρ})}^{p}

For every

1 \leq p \leq n

, with each

I \in G_{p}

is associated a ball

\bar{I}

such that

I \subset \bar{I}

. There exists a constant

C > 0

which depends only on

δ

such that ( 45 ) holds. Moreover, if

I_{1}

and

I_{2}

belong to

G_{p}

and

\bar{I_{1}} \neq \bar{I_{2}}

, their distance is at least

{max}_{i \in {1, 2}} {\bar{I}}_{i} / 3

. Moreover, the

\bar{I}

's (

I \in G_{p}

) are pairwise disjoint.

(ii) For every

2 \leq p \leq n

, each element

I

G_{p}

is a subset of an element

L

G_{p - 1}

. Moreover,

\bar{I} \subset L

{log}_{c} (| \bar{I} |^{- 1}) \geq n_{L} + {log}_{c} (| L |^{- 1})

and

\bar{I} \cap E_{n_{L}}^{L} \neq \emptyset

(iii) For every

1 \leq p \leq n

and

I \in G_{p}

, there exists an integer

q

such that

I \subset B (x_{q}, λ_{q}^{δ}) = I_{q}^{(δ)} \subset \bar{I}

and

P_{M}^{ρ} (B (x_{q}, λ_{q}^{ρ}))

holds, and

| I_{q}^{(δ)} | \leq C | I |

for some constant

C

which depends only on

c

(iv) For every

I \in \cup_{1 \leq p \leq n} G_{p}

m_{ρ, δ} (I) \leq | I |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - 2 φ (| I |) - χ (| I |)} .

(v) For every

1 \leq p \leq n - 1

L \in G_{p}

, and

I \in G_{p + 1}

such that

I \subset L

\sum_{I^{'} \in G_{p + 1}, \bar{I^{'}} = \bar{I}} m_{ρ, δ} (I^{'}) \leq 16 Q (d) m_{ρ, δ} (L) \frac{m^{L} (\bar{I})}{∥ m^{L} ∥} .

The construction of a generation

G_{n + 1}

c

-adic boxes and an extension of

m_{ρ, δ}

to the algebra generated by the elements of

\cup_{1 \leq p \leq n + 1} G_{p}

such that properties (i) to (v) hold for

n + 1

are done as when

n = 1

Then, by induction, we get a sequence

(G_{n})_{n \geq 1}

and a probability measure on

σ (I : I \in \cup_{n \geq 1} G_{j})

such that properties (i) to (v) hold for every

n \geq 2

, and

K_{ρ, δ} = ⋂_{n \geq 1} ⋃_{I \in G_{n}} I

. By construction,

m_{ρ, δ} (K_{ρ, δ}) = 1

and because of (iii)

K_{ρ, δ} \subset S μ (ρ, δ, α, ɛ ρ M)

. Finally, the measure

m_{ρ, δ}

is extended to

ℬ ([0, 1]^{d})

in the usual way:

m_{ρ, δ} (B) : = m_{ρ, δ} (B \cap K_{ρ, δ})

for every

B \in ℬ ([0, 1]^{d})

. Last step: Proof of ( 20 ). If

I \in G_{n}

, recall that we set

g (I) = n

Fix

B

an open ball of

[0, 1]

of diameter less than the one of the elements of

G_{1}

such that

B \cap K_{ρ, δ} \neq \emptyset

. Let

L

be the element of largest diameter in

\cup_{n \geq 1} G_{n}

such that

B

intersects at least two balls

{\bar{L}}_{i}

such that

L_{i}

belongs to

G_{g (L) + 1}

and

L_{i}

is included in

L

(hence

m_{ρ, δ} (B) \leq m_{ρ, δ} (L)

∙

| B | \geq | L |

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) \leq m_{ρ, δ} (L) \leq | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - 2 φ (| L |) - χ (| L |)} \leq C | B |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - 2 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

∙

| B | < c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |

, let

L_{1}, . . ., L_{p}

be the

c

-adic boxes in

G_{g (L) + 1}

such that

\forall i

{\bar{L}}_{i}

intersects

B

. Property (v) yields

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) = \sum_{i = 1}^{p} \sum_{L \in G_{g (L) + 1}, \bar{L} = {\bar{L}}_{i}} m_{ρ, δ} (B \cap L) \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{p} m_{ρ, δ} (L) \frac{16 Q (d)}{∥ m^{L} ∥} m^{L} ({\bar{L}}_{i}) . \end{matrix}

Let

j_{0}

be the unique integer so that

c^{- j_{0}} \leq | B | < c^{- j_{0} + 1}

. Because of (i), one has

| B | \geq {max}_{i} | {\bar{L}}_{i} | / 3

. As a consequence

- {log}_{c} | {\bar{L}}_{i} | \geq j_{0} - [{log}_{c} 3] \geq j_{0} - 2

The same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 2.7 (Case

ρ = 1

) yield that there exists an index

i_{0}

and a point

y \in E_{n_{L}}^{L} \cap {\bar{L}}_{i_{0}}

such that one has

\cup_{i = 1}^{p} {\bar{L}}_{i} \subset \cup_{k : ∥ k - k_{j_{0} - 3, y} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c}

. Hence

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 1}^{p} m^{L} ({\bar{L}}_{i}) \leq \sum_{k : ∥ k - k_{j_{0} - 3, y} ∥_{\infty} \leq 1} m^{L} (I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c}), \end{matrix}

(51)

and by definition of

E_{n_{L}}^{L}

, one can bound

m^{L} (I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c})

m^{L} (I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c}) \leq {(\frac{| I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c} |}{| L |})}^{β - φ (\frac{| I_{j_{0} - 3, k}^{c} |}{| L |})} \leq C {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| B |}{| L |})} .

There are

3^{d}

such pairwise disjoint boxes in the sum ( 51 ), hence

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) & \leq & \frac{16 Q (d)}{∥ m^{L} ∥} m_{ρ, δ} (L) 3^{d} C {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{- φ (\frac{| B |}{| L |})} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{16 Q (d) 3^{d} C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} m_{ρ, δ} (L) {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} | B |^{- φ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

By (iv), one obtains

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (L) & \leq & | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} | L |^{- 2 φ (| L |) - χ (| L |)} \leq | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} | B |^{- 2 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)}, \end{matrix}

which yields

m_{ρ, δ} (B) \leq \frac{16 Q (d) 3^{d} C}{∥ m^{L} ∥} | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} | B |^{- 3 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} .

Then, the second property of ( 15 ) in assumption (4) allows to upper bound

∥ m^{L} ∥^{- 1}

| L |^{- φ (| L |)}

, which is lower than

| B |^{- φ (| B |)}

, and thus

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) \leq C | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

(52)

Finally, if

β > \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}

, ( 52 ) yields

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) & \leq & C | B |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} {(\frac{| B |}{| L |})}^{β - \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | B |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)}; \end{matrix}

β \leq \frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ}

, ( 52 ) yields

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) & \leq & C | B |^{β} | L |^{\frac{d (1 - ρ) + ρ β}{δ} - β} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} \leq C | B |^{β} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

In both cases, if

D (β, ρ, δ) = min (β, \frac{1 - ρ + ρ β}{δ})

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) \leq C | B |^{D (β, ρ, δ)} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

(53)

∙

c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L | \leq | B | \leq | L |

: one needs at most

c^{d (n_{L} + 4)}

contiguous

c

-adic boxes of length

c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |

to cover

B

. For these boxes, ( 53 ) can be used to get

\begin{matrix} m_{ρ, δ} (B) & \leq & C c^{d (n_{L} + 4)} {(c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |)}^{D (β, ρ, δ) - 4 φ (c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |) - χ (c^{- n_{L} - 3} | L |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C c^{d n_{L}} | B |^{D (β, ρ, δ)} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | L |^{- d φ (| L |)} | B |^{D (β, ρ, δ)} | B |^{- 4 φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | B |^{D (β, ρ, δ)} | B |^{- (4 + d) φ (| B |) - χ (| B |)} . \end{matrix}

This shows ( 20 ) and ends the proof of Theorem 2.7 when

ρ < 1

. □

6 Examples

Section 6.1 exhibits several families

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

which satisfy ( 10 ) or ( 16 ) for any measure

m

, and form weakly redundant systems. Then Section 6.2 provides examples of triplets

(μ, α, τ_{μ}^{*} (α))

leading to

ρ

-heterogeneous ubiquitous systems.

It also gives relevant interpretations to property

P_{M}^{ρ}

6.1 Examples of families ${(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in N}$

Let us notice first that, to ensure ( 10 ), it suffices that

\begin{matrix} ⋂_{N \geq 1} ⋃_{n \geq N} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2) = [0, 1]^{d} . \end{matrix}

(54)

∙

Family of the

b

-adic numbers.

Fix

b

an integer

\geq 2

. Let us consider the sequence

{(k b^{- j}, 2 b^{- j})}

, for

j \in N

and

k = (k_{1}, k_{2}, \dots, k_{d}) \in {0, \dots, b^{j} - 1}^{d}

. By construction, for every

j \geq 2

\cup_{k \in {0, \dots, b^{j} - 1}^{d}} B (k b^{- j}, b^{- j}) = [0, 1]^{d}

. Hence ( 54 ) is satisfied, ( 16 ) holds for any measure

m

and the family is weakly redundant.

∙

Family of the rational numbers.

By Theorem 200 of [26] , any point

x = (x_{1}, \dots, x_{d}) \in [0, 1]^{d}

such that at least one of the

x_{i}

is an irrational number satisfies for infinitely many

p = (p_{1}, p_{2}, \dots, p_{d})

and

q

the inequality

∥ x - p / q ∥_{\infty} \leq q^{- (1 + 1 / d)}

. As a consequence, the sequence

{(p / q, 2 q^{- (1 + 1 / d)})}

for

q \in N^{*}

and

p = (p_{1}, p_{2}, \dots, p_{d}) \in {0, \dots, q - 1}^{d}

fulfills ( 54 ). Here again, ( 16 ) holds for any measure

m

To ensure the weak redundancy, one must select only the rational numbers

{(p / q, 2 q^{- (1 + 1 / d)})}

such that at least one fraction

p_{i} / q

is irreducible. But ( 54 ) is no more satisfied. Indeed, the rational numbers

p / q

themselves do not belong to the corresponding limsup-set (each rational number belongs only to a finite number of balls

B (p / q, 2 q^{- (1 + 1 / d)})

. Nevertheless, as soon as the rational points are not atoms of

m

(for instance if

\underset{̲}{dim} (m) > 0

), both ( 10 ) and ( 16 ) hold. In this case, by Theorem 193 of [26] , the same holds with

{(p / q, 2 / \sqrt{5} q^{2})}

when

d = 1

. This family is used to prove ( 2 ).

∙

Family of the

{({n α}, 1 / n)}_{n \in N}

Let us focus on the case

d = 1

to introduce another family. Let

α

be an irrational number. For every

n \in N

, we denote by

{n α}

the fractional part of

n α

. If

x / \in Z + α Z

, one has

| n α - x | < 1 / 2 n

for an infinite number of integers

n

(see Theorem II.B in [16] for instance). Hence

R \ (Z + α Z) \subset ⋂_{N \geq 1} ⋃_{n \geq N} B ({n α}, 1 / 2 n) .

As soon as

m (Z + α Z) = 0

, ( 10 ) is satisfied for the family

{({n α}, 1 / n)}_{n \geq 1}

. We do not know the measures

m

for which ( 16 ) holds. However the following property concerning the redundancy holds:

Proposition 6.1.

{({n α}, 1 / n)}_{n \geq 1}

forms a weakly redundant system if and only if

inf {ξ : # {(p, q) \in N \times N^{*} : | α - p / q | \leq q^{- ξ}} = \infty} = 2

One knows that every irrational number is approximated at rate

ξ \geq 2

by the rational numbers. But the system

{({n α}, 1 / n)}_{n}

is weakly redundant if and only if the approximation rate by rational numbers of

α

is exactly equals 2.

Proof. Notations of Definition 2.1 are used.

Remark that

T_{j}

(defined by ( 6 )) contains exactly

2^{j}

integers.

Suppose that the family is not weakly redundant. For every partition of

T_{j}

into

N_{j}

subsets, one has

{limsup}_{j \to + \infty} j^{- 1} log N_{j} > 0

. Let us fix such a partition.

There exists

ɛ > 0

such that for infinitely many integers

j

, one can find a real number

x \in [0, 1]

such that more than

2^{ɛ j}

among the

{B (x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \in T_{j}}

contain

x

Since these integers

n

belong to

T_{j}

, the corresponding

λ_{n}

belong to

(2^{- (j + 1)}, 2^{- j}]

Consequently, these

2^{ɛ j}

integers

n

all verify

| {n α} - x | \leq 2^{- j}

By a classical argument, there are two integers

n

and

n^{'}

T_{j}

such that

\begin{matrix} n \neq n^{'}, | n - n^{'} | \leq 2^{j} and | {n α} - {n^{'} α} | \leq 2 \cdot 2^{- j (1 + ɛ)} . \end{matrix}

(55)

We deduce from ( 55 ) that there exists

p \in N

such that

| | n - n^{'} | α - p | \leq 2 \cdot 2^{- j (1 + ɛ)} \leq 2 | n - n^{'} |^{- (1 + ɛ)}

. Hence

| α - p / | n - n^{'} | | \leq 2 | n - n^{'} |^{- (2 + ɛ)}

. Since ( 55 ) holds for infinitely many

j

| n - n^{'} |

cannot be bounded as

j

goes to

\infty

. This yields

ξ_{α} : = inf {ξ : # {(p, q) \in N \times N^{*} : | α - p / q | \leq q^{- ξ}} = \infty} > 2

Conversely, if

ξ_{α} > 2

, fix

ɛ \in (0, ξ_{α} - 2)

. For infinitely many

(p, q) \in N \times N^{*}

, one has

| α - p / q | \leq q^{- (2 + ɛ)}

. For such an integer

q

, one has

{n q α} \leq 1 / q n

for every

n \in [1, q^{ɛ / 2}]

. For

q

large enough, let

j_{q}

be the largest integer

j

so that

[j, j + 1] \subset [{log}_{2} (q), (1 + ɛ / 2) {log}_{2} (q)]

. Consider then

T_{j_{q}}

. By construction, the point

0

belongs to at least

2^{\frac{ɛ}{4} j_{q}}

balls

B (x_{n}, λ_{n})

such that

n \in T_{j_{q}}

. Hence

N_{j_{q}} \geq 2^{j_{q} ɛ / 4}

. Since this holds for infinitely many

j

's, the conclusion follows. □

∙

Poisson point processes.

Let

S

be a Poisson point process with intensity

λ \otimes ν

in the square

[0, 1] \times (0, 1]

, where

λ

denotes the Lebesgue measure on

[0, 1]

and

ν

is a positive locally finite Borel measure on

(0, 1]

(see [34] for the construction of a Poisson process). Let us take the family

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

equal to the set

S

. Let

c

be an integer

\geq 2

. Then for

j \geq 1

, let us introduce the quantities

T_{j}^{c} = {n : c^{- (j + 1)} < λ_{n} \leq c^{- j}}

, as well as

β_{j} = j^{- 1} {log}_{c} ν ((c^{- (j - 1)}, c^{- (j - 2)}]) and β = {limsup}_{j \to \infty} β_{j} .

One has

β = {limsup}_{j \to \infty} j^{- 1} {log}_{b} E (# T_{j - 2})

for

b \in {2, c}

, but we use a basis

c

rather than 2 in order to discuss property ( 16 ). In fact, it is a general property that the number

{limsup}_{j \to \infty} j^{- 1} {log}_{c} # T_{j}^{c}

itself does not depend on

c

. We group the information concerning ( 10 ), ( 16 ) and weak redundancy:

Proposition 6.2.

(1) Suppose $\int_{[0, 1]} exp (2 \int_{[t, 1]} ν ((2 y, 1)) d y) d t = + \infty$ . This implies in particular $β \geq 1$ . With probability 1, ( 54 ) holds.
(2) Fix $ρ \in (0, 1)$ . Let $χ$ be a function defined as in Definition 2.5 .
If there exists an increasing sequence $(j_{n})_{n \geq 1}$ such that $β_{j_{n}} \geq 1 - χ (c^{- j_{n}}) + 4 / j_{n}$ , then with probability 1, ( 16 ) holds for any measure $m$ .
(3) ${(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}$ is weakly redundant almost surely if and only if $β \leq 1$ .

As a consequence, if

ν (d λ) = γ d λ / λ^{2}

with

γ > 1 / 2

, with probability 1, the system

S

is weakly redundant and ( 54 ) holds. In addition, if

γ

is large enough, with probability 1, ( 16 ) holds for any measure

m

Proof. (i) It is a consequence of Shepp's theorem (see [42] and [13] ).
(ii) We shall need the following lemma.
Lemma 6.3. Let $γ \in (1, 2, 1)$ . Let $N$ be a Poisson random variable with parameter $M$ . For all $p \geq 1$ , one has $P (N \leq M - M^{γ}) = O (M^{- p}) (M \to \infty)$ .

The proof of Lemma 6.3 uses the identity $\sum_{k = 0}^{n} exp (- M) \frac{M^{k}}{k!} = \int_{M}^{\infty} \frac{u^{n}}{n!} e^{- u} d u$ ( $M > 0$ , $n \in N$ ) as well as Laplace's method for equivalents of integrals.
For $j \geq 1$ and $0 \leq k \leq c^{[j ρ]} - 1$ , let ${\hat{I}}_{[j ρ], k}^{c}$ be the subset of $I_{[j ρ], k}^{c}$ obtained by keeping one over $c$ of the consecutive $c$ -adic subintervals of $I_{[j ρ], k}$ of generation $j - 2$ , that is ${\hat{I}}_{[j ρ], k}^{c} = ⋃_{k^{'} = 0, \dots, c^{j - [j ρ] - 3} - 1} I_{j - 2, c^{j - 2 - [j ρ]} k + c k^{'}}^{c}$ . Let us also define the random sets $S_{j, k} = {n : λ_{n} \in (c^{- (j - 1)}, c^{- (j - 2)}], x_{n} \in {\hat{I}}_{[j ρ], k}^{c}}$ , and the random variables $N_{j, k} = # S_{j, k}$ . The $N_{j, k}$ 's are mutually independent Poisson random variables with parameter $M_{j}$ equal to the product of $ν ((c^{- (j - 1)}, c^{- (j - 2)}])$ with $| {\hat{I}}_{[j ρ], k}^{c} |$ , that is $M_{j} = c^{j β_{j}} \cdot c^{- [j ρ] - 1}$ .
Fix $γ \in (1 / 2, 1)$ and let $E_{j} = {\forall 0 \leq k \leq c^{[j ρ]} - 1, N_{j, k} \geq M_{j} - M_{j}^{γ}}$ for $j \geq 1$ .
One has $P (E_{j}) = {(P (N_{j, 0} \geq M_{j} - M_{j}^{γ}))}^{c^{[j ρ]}}$ . Moreover, by definition of $j_{n}$ , one has ${lim}_{n \to \infty} M_{j_{n}} = \infty$ . Consequently, using the form of $M_{j}$ and Lemma 6.3 , one has ${lim}_{n \to \infty} P (E_{j_{n}}) = 1$ . Since the events $E_{j_{n}}$ are independent, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma one has $P ({limsup}_{n \to \infty} E_{j_{n}}) = 1$ .
A computation shows that $M_{j_{n}} - M_{j_{n}}^{γ} \geq c^{(β_{j_{n}} - ρ) j_{n} - 4}$ for $n$ large enough. It follows that with probability 1, there exist infinitely many $j_{n}$ such that for all $0 \leq k \leq c^{[j_{n} ρ]} - 1$ , $N_{j_{n}, k} \geq c^{j_{n} (1 - ρ - χ (c^{- j_{n}}))}$ . Moreover, by construction, the balls $B (x_{n}, λ_{n})$ for $n \in S_{j, k}$ are pairwise disjoint, and if $y \in [0, 1]$ , $B (y, c^{- j_{n} ρ})$ contains at least one of the ${\hat{I}}_{[j_{n} ρ], k}$ 's. The conclusion follows.
(iii) If $β \leq 1$ , the fact that ${(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}$ forms almost surely a weakly redundant system is a consequence of the estimates obtained in the proofs of Lemma 5 and 8 of [28] for the numbers ${\tilde{N}}_{j, k} = # {n \in T_{j} : x_{n} \in [k 2^{- j}, (k + 1) 2^{- j}]}$ .
If $β > 1$ , computations patterned after those performed in proving (ii) show that if $ɛ \in (0, β - 1)$ , with probability 1, there are infinitely many integers $j$ such that for all $k \in {0, . . ., c^{j} - 1}$ , $# {n \in T_{j} : x_{n} \in I_{j, k}^{c}} \geq c^{j ɛ}$ . □

∙

Random family based on uniformly distributed points.

Let

{x_{n}}_{n}

be a sequence of points independently and uniformly distributed in

[0, 1]^{d}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n}

a non-increasing sequence of positive numbers.

We do not know conditions ensuring that ( 16 ) holds for some non-trivial measure

m

. The following Proposition concerns ( 10 ) and weak redundancy.

Proposition 6.4. Let

β = {limsup}_{j \to \infty} j^{- 1} {log}_{2} # T_{j}

1. Suppose that

{limsup}_{n \to + \infty} (\sum_{p = 1}^{n} λ_{p} / 2) - d log n = + \infty

. This implies

β \geq 1

. With probability 1 ( 54 ) holds.

2. Suppose that

β \leq 1

. With probability 1,

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

is weakly redundant.

As a consequence, if

λ_{n} = γ / n

for some

γ > 2 d

then, with probability 1,

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

is weakly redundant and ( 54 ) holds.

Proof. (i) It is Proposition 9 of [31] .
(ii) The estimates of [28] invoked in the proof of Proposition 6.2 (iii) also concern ${\hat{N}}_{j, k} = # {n \in T_{j} : x_{n} \in [k 2^{- j}, (k + 1) 2^{- j}]}$ for the example we are dealing with (i.e. $(x_{n})$ is a sequence of i.i.d. uniform variables) when $d = 1$ . In particular, when $d = 1$ , a sufficient condition for the system to be weakly redundant is $β \leq 1$ . Since a random variable with uniform distribution in $[0, 1]^{d}$ is a random vector in $R^{d}$ which components are independent uniform random variables in $[0, 1]$ , the same property holds in dimension $d$ if $β \leq 1$ . □

6.2 Examples of measures $μ$ and $m$ , Interpretations of the property $P_{M}^{ρ}$

We give interpretations only for

P_{M}^{1}

, since

P_{M}^{ρ}

contains similar information.

Given the measure

μ

and the exponent

α > 0

, there is typically an uncountable family of values of

β > 0

such that properties ( 11 ), ( 13 ), (3) and (4) of Definition 2.3 hold for many systems

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n}

. Consequently, one seeks for the largest value of

β

. It follows from the study of the multifractal nature of statistically self-similar (including the deterministic) measures we deal with that, in general, this optimal value is given by

β = τ_{μ}^{*} (α)

(see formulas ( 7 ) and ( 8 )).

We select four classes of measures to which Theorem 2.7 is applicable. Other examples can be found in [24, 7, 2, 8, 12] . We keep in mind item 3. of Remark 2.4 .

For the rest of this section the sequences

{x_{n}}_{n \in N}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n \in N}

are fixed, and we assume that

(0, 1)^{d} \subset {limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

For

C, κ, r > 0

and

γ > 1 / 2

, let

φ_{C} (r) = C | log (r) |^{- 1 / 2} {(log log | log (r) |)}^{1 / 2}

{\tilde{φ}}_{κ} (r) = {(log | log (r) |)}^{- κ}

, and

ψ_{γ} (r) = C | log (r) |^{- 1 / 2} {(log | log (r) |)}^{γ}

∙

Product of

d

multinomial measures and frequencies of digits Let

(π_{0}^{(i)}, . . ., π_{c - 1}^{(i)})

1 \leq i \leq d

, be

d

probability vectors with positive components such that

\sum_{l = 0}^{c - 1} π_{j}^{(i)} = 1

\forall 1 \leq i \leq d

. For

1 \leq i \leq d

let

μ^{(i)}

be the multinomial measure on

[0, 1]

associated with

(π_{0}^{(i)}, . . ., π_{c - 1}^{(i)})

, and

μ = μ^{(1)} \otimes \dots \otimes μ^{(d)}

the product measure of the

μ^{(i)}

[0, 1]^{d}

. One has

τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q) = - {log}_{c} \sum_{k = 0}^{c - 1} (π_{k}^{(i)})^{q} and τ_{μ} (q) = \sum_{i = 1}^{d} τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)

. It is convenient to take

α = τ_{μ}^{'} (q)

for some given

q \in R

. Let us then define

β = τ_{μ}^{*} (α) = q τ_{μ}^{'} (q) - τ_{μ} (q)

, and

μ_{q} = μ_{q}^{(1)} \otimes \dots \otimes μ_{q}^{(d)}

, where

μ_{q}^{(i)}

is the multinomial measure associated with the vector

(c^{τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)} (π_{0}^{(i)})^{q}, . . ., c^{τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)} (π_{c - 1}^{(i)})^{q})

It is proved in [11] that each measure

μ^{(i)}

satisfies properties ( 11 ), ( 13 ), (3) and (4') with the exponents

α_{i} = τ_{μ^{(i)}}^{'} (q)

and

β_{i} = q τ_{μ^{(i)}}^{'} (q) - τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)

, and with

m

equal to

μ_{q}^{(i)}

. This requires some work, because the masses of the

c

-adic boxes and of their immediate neighbors need to be controlled. One can choose

m^{I} \circ f_{I}^{- 1} = m = μ_{q}^{(i)}

, and (3) and (4') do not matter. Moreover,

(φ, ψ)

is of the form

(φ_{C}, ψ_{γ})

Now, in terms of conditioned ubiquity, it is interesting to recall the well-known interpretation of the conditions ( 11 ) and ( 13 ), which hold for each

μ^{(i)}

, in terms of

c

-adic expansions (recall Section 1 and the definition ( 1 ) of

φ_{k, j}

): For

μ^{(i)}

-almost every point

x_{i} \in [0, 1]

, for every

0 \leq k \leq c - 1

, for all

y \in I_{j, k_{x_{i}} - 1} \cup I_{j, k_{x_{i}}} \cup I_{j, k_{x_{i}} + 1}, {lim}_{j \to \infty} φ_{k, j} (y) = c^{τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)} (π_{k}^{(i)})^{q}

The previous remarks yield the following result, which implies ( 2 ).

Proposition 6.5. Let

q \in R

. The measure

μ

satisfies properties ( 11 ), ( 13 ), (3) and (4') with

α = τ_{μ}^{'} (q)

β = τ_{μ}^{*} (α)

(φ, ψ)

of the form

(φ_{C}, ψ_{γ})

, and

m^{I} \circ f_{I}^{- 1} = m = μ_{q}

for all

I \in I

Moreover, there exists a sequence

ɛ_{n} ↘ 0

such that, when applying Theorem 2.7 , property

Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, 1, α, ɛ_{M, n}^{1})

in ( 19 ) can be replaced by the following condition in terms of

c

-adic expansion: for every

1 \leq i \leq d

, for every

0 \leq k \leq c - 1

| φ_{k, [{log}_{c} (λ_{n}^{- 1})]} (x_{n, i}) - c^{τ_{μ^{(i)}} (q)} (π_{k}^{(i)})^{q} | \leq ɛ_{n}

, where

x_{n} = (x_{n, 1}, . . ., x_{n, d})

∙

Gibbs measures and average of Birkhoff sums Let

φ

be a

(1, . . ., 1)

-periodic Hölder continuous function on

R^{d}

. Let

T

be the transformation of

[0, 1)^{d}

defined by

T ((x_{1}, . . ., x_{d})) = (c x_{1} m o d 1, . . ., c x_{d} m o d 1)

. For

k \in N

, let

T^{k}

denote the

k^{th}

iteration of

T

(

T^{0} = {Id}_{[0, 1)^{d}}

). For every

x \in [0, 1)^{d}

and

n \geq 1

, let us also define the

n^{th}

Birkhoff sum of

x

S_{n} (φ) (x) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} φ (T^{k} (x))

as well as

D_{n} (φ) (x) = exp (S_{n} (φ) (x))

The Ruelle Perron-Frobenius theorem (see [40] ) ensures that the probability measures

μ_{n}

given on

[0, 1]^{d}

μ_{n} (d x) = D_{n} (φ) (x) d x / \int_{[0, 1)^{d}} D_{n} (φ) (u) d u

converges weakly to a probability measure

μ

which is a Gibbs state with respect to the potential

φ

and the dynamical system

([0, 1)^{d}, T)

. The multifractal analysis of

μ

is performed in [24, 25] for instance. With

φ

is also associated the analytic function

L : q \in R \mapsto d log (c) + {lim}_{n \to \infty} j^{- 1} log \int_{[0, 1)^{d}} D_{n} (q φ) (u) d u

, which is the topological pressure of

q φ

. One has

τ_{μ} (q) = \frac{q L (1) - L (q)}{log (c)}

. For

q \in R

, let

μ_{q}

be the Gibbs measure defined as

μ

, but with the potential

q φ

Then, the structure of

μ

combined with the Hölder regularity of

φ

and the law of the iterated logarithm (see Chapter 7 of [41] ) yield

Proposition 6.6. Let

q \in R

. The measure

μ

satisfies properties ( 11 ), ( 13 ), (3) and (4') with

α = τ_{μ}^{'} (q)

β = τ_{μ}^{*} (α)

, both

φ

and

ψ

of the form

φ_{C}

, and

m^{I} \circ f_{I}^{- 1} = m = μ_{q}

for all

I \in I

There exists

C > 0

such that, when applying Theorem 2.7 , in ( 19 ) property

Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, 1, α, ɛ_{M, n}^{1})

can be replaced in terms of average of Birkhoff sums by:

| L^{'} (q) - A_{[| {log}_{c} (λ_{n}) |]} (x_{n}) | \leq φ_{C} (λ_{n})

, where

A_{p} (x) : = S_{p} (φ) (x) / p

∙

Independent multiplicative cascades, average of branching random walks For these random measures, the situation is subtle. Indeed, the study achieved in [12] concludes that property (4) can be satisfied for some systems

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})}_{n \geq 1}

, while the strong property (4') fails because of the unavoidable large values of

n_{L}

for some

c

-adic boxes

L

Let us recall that these measures

μ

are constructed as follows. Let

X

be a real valued random variable. Let us define

L : q \in R \mapsto d log (c) + log E (e^{q X})

, and assume that

L (1) < \infty

. For every

c

-adic box

J

included in

[0, 1]^{d}

, let

X_{J}

be a copy of

X

Moreover, assume that the

X_{J}

's are mutually independent. The branching random walk is then

\begin{matrix} \forall x \in [0, 1)^{d}, \forall n \geq 1, S_{n} (x) = \sum_{J \in I, c^{- n} \leq | J | \leq c^{- 1}, x \in J} X_{J} . \end{matrix}

(56)

The measure

μ

is obtained as the almost sure weak limit of the sequence

μ_{n}

[0, 1]^{d}

given by

μ_{n} (d x) = {(E (e^{X}))}^{- n} e^{S_{n} (x)} d x

Let

θ : q \in R \mapsto \frac{q L (1) - L (q)}{log (c)}

. In [35, 33] , it is shown that

θ^{'} (1^{-}) > 0

is a necessary and sufficient condition for

μ

to be almost surely a positive measure with support equal to

[0, 1]^{d}

. The multifractal nature of

μ

or of variants of

μ

has been investigated in many works [32, 27, 21, 38, 1, 37, 4] . We need to consider the interior

J

of the interval

{q \in R : θ^{'} (q) q - θ (q) > 0}

For every

q \in J

and every

c

-adic box

I

[0, 1)^{d}

, let us introduce the sequences of measures

μ_{q, n}

and

m_{q, n}^{I}

defined as follows:

μ_{q, n}

is defined as

μ_{n}

but using

X_{J} (q) : = q X_{J}

instead of

X_{J}

in ( 56 ), and

m_{q, n}^{I}

is defined as

μ_{q, n}

but with

q X_{f_{I}^{- 1} (J)}

instead of

X_{J} (q)

in ( 56 ). It is shown in [4] that, with probability 1,

\forall q \in J

, the measures

μ_{q, n}

converge weakly to a positive measure

μ_{q}

[0, 1]^{d}

; In addition,

\forall q \in J

, for every

c

-adic box

I

of generation

\geq 1

, the sequence of measures

m_{q, n}^{J}

converges weakly to a measure

m_{q}^{I}

[0, 1]^{d}

, and

τ_{μ} (q) = θ (q)

J

The following result is a consequence of Theorem 4.1 in [12] .

Proposition 6.7. Suppose that

{limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 4) \supset (0, 1)^{d}

For every

q \in J

, with probability 1 (and also with probability 1, for almost every

q \in J

μ

satisfies properties ( 11 ), ( 13 ), (3) and (4) with the exponents

α = τ_{μ}^{'} (q)

and

β = τ_{μ}^{*} (α)

(φ, ψ)

of the form

({\tilde{φ}}_{κ}, ψ_{γ})

m = μ_{q}

m^{I} \circ f_{I}^{- 1} = m_{q}^{I}

for all

I \in I

, and

D = Q \cap (1, \infty)

There exists

γ > 1 / 2

such that, when applying Theorem 2.7 , in ( 19 ) property

Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, 1, α, ɛ_{M, n}^{1})

can be replaced in terms of average of branching random walks by:

| L^{'} (q) - A_{[| {log}_{c} (λ_{n}) |]} (x_{n}) | \leq ψ_{γ} (2 λ_{n})

, where

A_{p} (x) : = S_{p} (x) / p

∙

Poisson cascades and average of covering numbers in the case

d = 1

Let

ξ > 0

and

S

a Poisson point process in

R \times (0, 1)

with intensity

Λ

given by

Λ (d s d λ) = ξ d s d λ / 2 λ^{2}

. For every

c

-adic box

I

[0, 1]

, define

S_{I} = {(f_{I}^{- 1} (t), | I |^{- 1} λ) : (t, λ) \in S, λ < | I |}

. The point process

S_{I}

is a copy of

S

For every

t \in [0, 1]

and

ɛ \in (0, 1]

, the covering number of

t

at height

ɛ

by the Poisson intervals

{(s - λ, s + λ) : (s, λ) \in S}

is defined by

\begin{matrix} N_{ɛ}^{S} (t) = \sum_{(t, λ) \in S, λ \geq ɛ} 1_{{(s - λ, s + λ)}} (t) = # {(s, λ) \in S : λ \geq ɛ, t \in (s - λ, s + λ)} . \end{matrix}

The measure

μ

[0, 1]

is the almost sure weak limit, as

ɛ \to 0

, of

\begin{matrix} μ_{ɛ} (d t) = {(E (e^{N_{ɛ}^{S} (t)}))}^{- 1} e^{N_{ɛ}^{S} (t)} d t = ɛ^{ξ (e - 1)} e^{N_{ɛ}^{S} (t)} d t . \end{matrix}

(57)

Let

L : q \in R \mapsto ξ^{- 1} + e^{q} - 1

, and let

θ : q \in R \mapsto ξ (q L (1) - L (q))

In [7] , it is shown that

θ^{'} (1^{-}) > 0

is a necessary and sufficient condition for

μ

to be almost surely a positive measure supported by

[0, 1)^{d}

. Let

J = {q \in R : θ^{'} (q) q - θ (q) > 0

. It is also shown in [7] that, with probability 1, for all

q \in J

, the measures

μ_{q, ɛ}

[0, 1]

given by

μ_{q, ɛ} (d t) = ɛ^{ξ (e^{q} - 1)} e^{q N_{ɛ}^{S} (t)} d t

converge weakly, as

ɛ \to 0

, to a positive measure

μ_{q}

[0, 1]

; moreover, for every

q \in J

, for every

c

-adic interval

I

of generation

\geq 1

, the family of measures

m_{q, ɛ}^{I}

constructed as

μ_{q, ɛ}

but with

N_{ɛ}^{S_{I}} (t)

instead of

N_{ɛ}^{S} (t)

in ( 57 ) converges weakly, as

ɛ \to 0

, to a measure

m_{q}^{I}

[0, 1]

; finally, one has

τ_{μ} (q) = θ (q)

J

The same conclusions as in Proposition 6.7 hold if

Q (x_{n}, λ_{n}, 1, α, ɛ_{M, n}^{1})

is replaced by

| L^{'} (q) + \frac{1}{ξ log (λ_{n})} N_{λ_{n}} (x_{n}) | \leq ψ_{γ} (2 λ_{n})

More on covering numbers and related questions can be found in [5, 6] .

6.3 Example where $dim ({limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)) < d$ .

Let us return to the example of Gibbs measures

μ

in Section 6.2 . Let

q_{0} > 0

Fix

K

a subset of

R

such that

τ_{μ}^{'} (K) \cap (τ_{μ}^{'} (q_{0}), τ_{μ}^{'} (- q_{0})) = \emptyset

. Define the system

{(x_{n}, λ_{n})} = {((k + 1 / 2) c^{- j}, c^{- j}) : \frac{log μ (B ((k + 1 / 2), c^{- j}))}{- j log (c)} \in K} .

Let

S = {limsup}_{n \to \infty} B (x_{n}, λ_{n} / 2)

. For every

q \in K

, one has

μ_{q} (S) = 1

and

dim S \leq max (τ_{μ}^{*} (τ_{μ}^{'} (- q_{0})), τ_{μ}^{*} (τ_{μ}^{'} (q_{0}))) < d

References

Arbeiter, M., Patzschke, M.: Random self-similar multifractals. Math. Nachr. 181, 5–42 (1996).
Bacry, E., Muzy, J.-F.: Log-infinitely divisible multifractal processes. Commun. Math. Phys. 236, 449-475 (2003).
Baker, A., Schmidt, W.M.: Diophantine approximation and Hausdorff dimension. Proc. London Math. Soc., 21, 1–11 (1970).
Barral, J.: Continuity of the multifractal spectrum of a random statistically self-similar measures, J. Theor. Probab. 13, 1027–1060 (2000).
Barral, J., Fan, A.-H.: Covering of different points in Dvoretzky covering, to appear in Bull. Sci. Math. (2005).
Barral, J., Fan, A.-H.: Densities of some Poisson $T$ -martingales and random covering numbers, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 338, 571–574 (2003).
Barral, J., Mandelbrot, B.B.: Multifractal products of cylindrical pulses. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 124, 409–430 (2002).
Barral, J., Mandelbrot, B.B.: Random multiplicative multifractal measures. In: Lapidus, M.L., van Frankenhuijsen, M. (eds.) Proc. Symp. Pure Math., Fractal Geometry and Applications: A Jubilee of Benoît Mandelbrot, AMS, Providence, RI (2004).
Barral, J., Seuret, S.: The multifractal nature of heterogeneous sums of Dirac masses. preprint (2004).
Barral, J., Seuret, S.: Lévy processes in multifractal time and fixed points of the smoothing transformation. preprint (2005).
Barral, J., Seuret, S.: Growth speed in singularity sets of random Gibbs measures. Preprint (2004).
Barral, J., Seuret, S.: Renewal of singularity sets of statistically self-similar measures. Preprint (2004).
Bertoin, J.: On nowhere differentiability of Lévy processes. Stochastics and stochastics reports 50, 205–210 (1994).
Brown, G., Michon, G., Peyrière, J.: On the multifractal analysis of measures. J. Stat. Phys. 66, 775–790 (1992).
Bugeaud, Y.: An inhomogeneous Jarnik theorem. J. Anal. Math. 92, 327–349 (2004).
Cassels, J.W.S.: An Introduction to Diophantine Approximation, Cambridge University Press (1957).
Dodson, M.M: Exceptional sets in dynamical systems and Diophantine approximation. Rigidity in Dynamics and Geometry (Cambridge, 2000), 77–98, Springer, Berlin (2002).
Dodson, M.M., Rynne, B.P., Vickers, J.A.G.: Diophantine approximation and a lower bound for Hausdorff dimension, Mathematika 37, 59–73 (1990).
Dodson, M.M, Melián, M.V., Pestana, D., Vélani, S.L.: Patterson measure and Ubiquity, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 20, 37–60 (1995).
Eggleston, H.: The fractonial dimension of a set defined by decimal properties. Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 20, 31–36 (1949).
Falconer, K.J.: The multifractal spectrum of statistically self-similar measures. J. Theor. Prob. 7, 681–702 (1994).
Falconer, K.J.: Techniques in Fractal Geometry, Wiley, New York (1997).
Falconer, K.J.: Representation of families of sets by measures, dimension spectra and Diophantine approximation. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 128, 111–121 (2000).
Fan, A.-H.: Multifractal analysis of infinite products. J. Stat. Phys. 86, 1313–1336 (1997).
Fan, A.-H., Lau, K.S.: Asymptotic behavior of multiperiodic functions. J. Four. Anal. Appl. 4, 129–150 (1998).
Hardy, G.H., Wright, E.M.: An introduction to the theory of numbers, Oxford Univ. Press, NY (1978).
Holley, R., Waymire, E.C.: Multifractal dimensions and scaling exponents for strongly bounded random fractals. Ann. Appl. Probab. 2, 819–845 (1992).
Jaffard, S.: The multifractal nature of Lévy processes. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 114, 207–227 (1999).
Jaffard, S.: On lacunary wavelet series. Ann. Appl. Prob. 10, 313–329 (2000).
Jarnik, V.: Diophantischen Approximationen und Hausdorffsches Mass. Mat. Sbornik 36, 371–381 (1929).
Kahane, J.-P.: Some random series of functions, 2nd Ed. Cambridge Univ. Press (1985).
Kahane, J.-P.: In: J. Bélair and S. Dubuc (eds.) Produits de poids aléatoires et indépendants et applications. Fractal Geometry and Analysis, (1991), pp. 277–324.
Kahane, J.-P., Peyrière, J.: Sur certaines martingales de Benoît Mandelbrot. Adv. Math. 22, 131–145 (1976).
Kingman, J.F.C.: Completely random measures. Pacific J. Math. 21, 59–78 (1967).
Mandelbrot, B.B.: Intermittent turbulence in self-similar cascades: divergence of high moments and dimension of the carrier. J. Fluid Mech. 62, 331–358 (1974).
Mattila, P.: Geometry of Sets and Measures in Euclidian Spaces. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press (1995).
Molchan, G.M.: Scaling exponents and multifractal dimensions for independent random cascades. Commun. Math. Phys. 179, 681–702 (1996).
Olsen, L.: Random Geometrically Graph Directed Self-similar Multifractals. Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser. 307 (1994).
Olsen, L.: A multifractal formalism. Adv. Math. 116, 92–195 (1995).
Parry, W., Policott, M.: Zeta functions and the periodic orbit structure of hyperbolic dynamics. Société Mathématique de France, Astérisque 187–188 (1990).
Philipp, W., Stout, W.: Almost Sure Invariance Principles for Partial Sums of Weakly Dependent Random Variables. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 2, 161, 140 pp (1975).
Shepp, L.A.: Covering the line with random intervals. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete 23, 163–170 (1972).
Stratmann, B.O., Urbanski, M.: Jarnik and Julia: a Diophantine analysis for parabolic rational maps. Math. Scan. 91, 27–54 (2002).

Julien Barral

Stephane Seuret, Tel.: +33-1-39635279, Fax: +33-1-39635995, INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105, 78150 Le Chesnay Cedex, FRANCE E-mail address : julien.barral@inria.fr, stephane.seuret@inria.fr

Julien Barral

Stéphane Seuret