Paper detail

A remark on two notions of flatness for sets in the Euclidean space

In this note we compare two ways of measuring the $n$-dimensional "flatness" of a set $S\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $d>n$. The first one is to consider the classical Reifenberg-flat numbers $α(x,r)$ ($x \in S$, $r>0$), which measure the minimal scaling-invariant Hausdorff distances in $B_r(x)$ between $S$ and $n$-dimensional affine subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^d$. The second is an `intrinsic' approach in which we view the same set $S$ as a metric space (endowed with the induced Euclidean distance). Then we consider numbers ${\sf a}(x,r)$'s, that are the scaling-invariant Gromov-Hausdorff distances between balls centered at $x$ of radius $r$ in $S$ and the $n$-dimensional Euclidean ball of the same radius. As main result of our analysis we make rigorous a phenomenon, first noted by David and Toro, for which the numbers ${\sf a}(x,r)$'s behaves as the square of the numbers $α(x,r)$'s. Moreover we show how this result finds application in extending the Cheeger-Colding intrinsic-Reifenberg theorem to the biLipschitz case. As a by-product of our arguments, we deduce analogous results also for the Jones' numbers $β$'s (i.e. the one-sided version of the numbers $α$'s).

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.