· 7,398 chars · 9 deps · depth 18 Reason: Proof of the Lipschitz analogue of Sard's theorem, by assigning to each point the coarsest dyadic cell on which its first-order expansion is accurate and applying the slab bound to the maximal such cells.
On a dyadic cell where T is Lipschitz, each point of S is assigned the coarsest dyadic cell on which its first-order expansion is accurate to ε; the maximal such cells are disjoint, and the image of each lies in a slab of thickness εσn2−k inside a ball of radius Lσn2−k, whose measure is Cε times the measure of the cell.
Proof
Throughout, Qk,j denotes the dyadic cell of generation k and index j, and λn∗ denotes Lebesgue outer measure. When n=1 the factors (2R)n−1 and Ln−1 occurring below are to be read as 1. We write Bˉ(x,r) for the closed ball of (Rn,dE) with centre x and radius r.
Step 1: reduction to a single cell. Let G be the set of pairs (k0,j0)∈N×Zn such that Qk0,j0⊆U and the restriction of T to Qk0,j0 is Lipschitz for the Euclidean metrics with some positive constant. These cells cover U. Indeed, let x∈U. Since T is locally Lipschitz there are r,L′∈R with 0<r, 0≤L′, Bˉ(x,r)⊆U and ∥T(y)−T(y′)∥≤L′∥y−y′∥ for all y,y′∈Bˉ(x,r). By the small-cell claim there is k∈N with σn2−k≤r, and the cell Qk,j of generation k containing x then satisfies ∥y−x∥≤r for every y∈Qk,j, so Qk,j⊆Bˉ(x,r)⊆U and T is Lipschitz on Qk,j with the positive constant max{L′,1}. Thus (k,j)∈G and x∈Qk,j.
By claim 1 of the dyadic lemma the set N×Zn is countable and infinite; let ((km,jm))m∈N enumerate it bijectively and put Ym=T(S∩Qkm,jm) if (km,jm)∈G and Ym=∅ otherwise. Then T(S)=⋃mYm, so by the null-set claim it suffices to prove that T(S∩Q0) is λn-null for every dyadic cell Q0=Qk0,j0 with (k0,j0)∈G.
Step 2: a maximal disjoint family of cells. Fix such a Q0, of generation k0, and let L∈R with 0<L be a Lipschitz constant for T on Q0. Fix ε∈R with 0<ε.
Let x∈S∩Q0. By differentiability of T at x there is ρ∈R with 0<ρ such that
∥T(y)−T(x)−DT(x)(y−x)∥≤ε∥y−x∥for all y∈U with ∥y−x∥≤ρ.
By the small-cell claim there is k∈N with σn2−k≤ρ, and the same holds for every larger k because 2−k decreases as k increases; hence the set Ax={k∈N:k0≤k and σn2−k≤ρ} is nonempty; let k(x) be its least element (The Natural Numbers Are Well Ordered) and let Q(x) be the cell of generation k(x) containing x. Since k0≤k(x) and x∈Q0, nesting gives Q(x)⊆Q0; and every y∈Q(x) satisfies ∥y−x∥≤σn2−k(x)≤ρ and lies in U, so the displayed estimate applies to it.
Let F⊆N×Zn be the set of indices of the cells Q(x) for x∈S∩Q0, and let M be the set of (k,j)∈F for which there is no (k′,j′)∈F with k′<k and Qk,j⊆Qk′,j′.
Every cell indexed by F is contained in a cell indexed by M: given (k,j)∈F, the set of k′∈N with k′≤k such that the cell of generation k′ containing Qk,j (unique by nesting) is indexed by a member of F is nonempty, since it contains k; its least element k∗ gives a pair in M, for a strictly coarser cell in F containing it would contradict minimality.
Distinct members of M index disjoint cells: if the cells of (k,j) and (k′,j′) meet, then by nesting one contains the other, say Qk′,j′⊆Qk,j with k≤k′; if k<k′ this contradicts (k′,j′)∈M, and if k=k′ then the cells coincide, so j=j′ by claim 1 of the dyadic lemma.
All these cells are contained in Q0, so, being pairwise disjoint members of B(Rn), they satisfy
(k,j)∈M∑λn(Qk,j)≤λn(Q0)=(2−k0)n,
by countable additivity and monotonicity of λn (the sum being over a countable index set, enumerated as above with zero terms inserted for indices outside M).
Step 3: the image of a single cell lies in a thin slab. Let (k,j)∈M and choose x∈S∩Q0 with Q(x)=Qk,j. Write A=DT(x) and let ν∈Rn with ∥ν∥=1 satisfy ν⋅(Ah)=0 for every h∈Rn, as provided by the definition of S. For y∈Qk,j we have y,x∈Q0 and ∥y−x∥≤σn2−k, hence
Step 4: summation and conclusion. Every x∈S∩Q0 lies in Q(x), whose index belongs to F and whose cell is therefore contained in a cell indexed by M; hence S∩Q0⊆⋃(k,j)∈MQk,j and
The constants C and k0 do not depend on ε. If λn∗(T(S∩Q0)) were positive, then by The Archimedean Property of the Real Numbers there would be m∈N with C(2−k0)n/m<λn∗(T(S∩Q0)), and taking ε=1/m would contradict the display. Hence λn∗(T(S∩Q0))=0, so T(S∩Q0) is λn-null by the null-set claim. By Step 1, T(S) is λn-null.