2202 05247

SPECTRAL DIMENSIONS OF KREĬN–FELLER OPERATORS IN
HIGHER DIMENSIONS
MARC KESSEBÖHMER AND ALJOSCHA NIEMANN

arXiv:2202.05247v1 [math.SP] 10 Feb 2022
Abstract. We study the spectral dimensions of Kreı̆n–Feller operators for finite

Borel measures ν on the d-dimensional unit cube via a form approach. We in-
troduce the notion of the spectral partition function of ν, and assuming that the
lower ∞-dimension of ν exceeds d − 2, we show that the upper spectral Neumann
dimension coincides with the unique zero of the spectral partition function. We
show that if the lower ∞-dimension of ν is strictly less than d − 2, the form
approach breaks down. Examples are given for the critical case, that is the lower
∞-dimension of ν equals d − 2, such that for one case the form approach breaks
down, another case, where the operator is well defined but we have no discrete
set of eigenvalues, and for the third case, where the spectral dimension exists.
We provide additional regularity assumptions on the spectral partition function,
guaranteeing that the Neumann spectral dimension exists and may coincide with
the Dirichlet spectral dimension. We provide examples—namely absolutely con-
tinuous measures, Ahlfors–David regular measure, and self-conformal measures
with or without overlaps—for which the spectral partition function is essentially
given by its Lq -spectrum and both the Dirichlet and Neumann spectral dimensions
exist. Moreover, we provide general bounds for the upper Neumann spectral
dimension in terms of the upper Minkowski dimension of the support of ν and its
lower ∞-dimension. Finally, we give an example for which the spectral dimension
does not exist.
Contents
1. Introduction and statement of main results 2
1.1. Introduction and background 2
1.2. Preliminaries 3
1.3. Main results 6
1.4. Applications 10
2. Form approach for Kreı̆n–Feller operators 12
2.1. Sobolev spaces and embeddings 12
2.2. Stein extension 13
FB 3 – Mathematik und Informatik, University of Bremen, Bibliothekstr. 1, 28359 Bremen,
Germany
E-mail addresses: mhk@uni-bremen.de, niemann1@uni-bremen.de.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 35P20; 35J05; 28A80; 42B35; 45D05.
Key words and phrases. Kreı̆n–Feller operator; Laplace operator; spectral asymptotics; Lq -spectrum,
spectral partition function, Dirichlet forms, Minkowski dimension, coarse multifractal formalism,
Sobolev spaces, adaptive partition algorithm.
This research was supported by the DFG grant Ke 1440/3-1.
1
2 SPECTRAL DIMENSIONS OF KREĬN–FELLER OPERATORS
2.3. Form approach 15

2.4. Kreı̆n–Feller operator 16
2.5. Smoothing methods 20
3. Partition functions and Lq -spectra 22
3.1. The partition function 23
3.2. The Lq -spectrum 26
3.3. The spectral partition function and connections to the Lq -spectrum 27
3.4. Special cases 30
4. Optimal partitions and partition entropy 34
4.1. Bounds for the partition entropy 34
4.2. Application to subadditive set functions 36
5. Coarse multifractal analysis 40
6. Upper bounds 45
6.1. Upper bound for spectral dimension 45
6.2. Upper bounds for the Jν,a,b -partition entropy 47
6.3. Upper bounds on the embedding constants 49
7. Lower bounds 52
7.1. Lower bound on the spectral dimension 52
7.2. Lower bound on the embedding constant 54
8. Proof of main results 56
9. Examples 57
9.1. Critical cases 57
9.2. Non-existence of the spectral dimension 61
References 62
1. Introduction and statement of main results

1.1. Introduction and background. In this article we extend our work on the
spectral dimension of the Kreı̆n–Feller operator with respect to compactly supported
finite Borel measures ν to higher dimensions. The Kreı̆n–Feller operator for the
one-dimensional case was introduced in [Kre51; Fel57; KK58] and since the late
1950’s has been studied in some detail by various authors [Kac59; UH59; MR62;
BS70; KW82; Fuj87; SV95; Vol05; Nga11; Arz14; Arz15; DN15; FW17; NTX18;
FM20; Min20; NX20; PS21]; more recently, in [KN22; KN21b] the authors gave an
almost complete picture of the relationships between the spectral dimension and the
Lq -spectrum of ν. For dimensions d > 1, however, the situation is quite different;
in general, it is not even possible to define the Kreı̆n–Feller operator for a given
Borel measure ν, since in general there is no continuous embedding of the Sobolev
space of weakly differentiable functions into Lν2 (for example, when ν has atoms).
For Dirichlet boundary conditions, in [HLN06] a sufficient condition in terms of
the maximal asymptotic direction of the Lq -spectrum of ν has been established, as
provided in (♠), which ensures a compact embedding of the relevant Sobolev space
into Lν2 . We would like to note that Triebel already stated this condition implicitly
in 1997 in [Tri97] and in 2003 (see [Tri03; Tri04]) he indicated that there is a
SPECTRAL DIMENSIONS OF KREĬN–FELLER OPERATORS 3
subtle connection between the multifractal concept of the Lq -spectrum and analytic
properties of the associated ‘fractal’ operators.
In this paper we extend ideas for the one-dimensional case developed in [KN22;
KN21b] to higher dimensions d ≥ 2 and in this way follow the line of investigation
outlined in [BS67; NS95; NS01; HLN06; NX21]. We will introduce the new
notion of partition functions, which is needed for higher dimensions and naturally
generalises Lq -spectra (Section 3). This new construction is closely related to certain
optimal embedding constants for Sobolev spaces (see Section 6.3) as elaborated by
Maz’ya and Preobrazenskii [Maz85; MP84] for d = 2 and Adams [Maz11, Section
1.4.1] for d > 2.
The spectral dimension of Kreı̆n–Feller operator for higher dimensions has
been first computed by Triebel [Tri97, Theorem 30.2] for Ahlfors–David regular
measures, by Naimark and Solomyak [Sol94; NS95] in the setting of self-similar
measures under the open set condition (OSC), and recently by Ngai and Xie [NX21]
for a class of graph-directed self-similar measures satisfying the graph open set
condition. As an application of our general results we extend these achievements to
self-conformal measures without any restriction on the separation conditions. In fact,
we prove that under the assumption (♠) the spectral dimension for self-conformal
measures can be identified as the unique intersection of the Lq -spectrum with the
line of slope 2 − d through the origin (Theorem 1.16).
1.2. Preliminaries. We now proceed to outline the theoretical preliminaries nec-
essary to determine the spectral properties of the Kreı̆n–Feller operator ∆νD/N for
a given finite non-zero Borel measure ν on the fixed d-dimensional unit cube
Q B di=1 Ii , d ≥ 2 with I j unit intervals, for j = 1, . . . , d, which are either half-
Q
open, open, or closed. For a bounded open set Ω ⊂ Rd with Lipschitz
boundary, let
us define the Sobolev spaces H (Ω) as the completion of Cb Ω with respect to the
1 ∞
metric given by the inner product

Z Z
h f, giH 1 (Ω) B f g dΛ + ∇ f ∇g dΛ,
Ω Ω
and let H01 (Ω)be the respective completion of C∞ Here C∞
c (Ω). c (Ω) denotes the
vector space of smooth function with compact support contained in Ω and Cb∞ Ω
the vector space of functions f such that f ∈ C m (Ω) for all m ∈ N with Dα f
uniformly continuous on Ω for all α B (α1 , . . . , αd ) ∈ Nd0 . We will consider the
inner product Z
h f, giH 1 (Ω) B ∇ f ∇g dΛ,
0
Ω
on H01 (Ω), which gives rise to an equivalent metric (see (PWI)). We will concentrate
on the cases where Ω is equal to the interior of the unit cube Q̊ = (0, 1)d and in this
case we write H 1 B H 1 (Q), H01 B H01 (Q) and LΛ 2 B L2 (Q). We will assume that
Λ
the canonical embedding ι of an appropriate subspace of H 1 into Lν2 B Lν2 (Q) is
continuous and has a dense image. To do this, we first consider the mapping

ι : C∞ b Q , h·, ·i H 1 → Lν , ι(u) B u,
2
which is continuous if and only if we find a constant K > 0 such that
kuk2L2 ≤ K kuk2H 1
ν
and in this case we can extend the operator to H 1 . Our first observation (Propo-
sition 2.14) is that ι is not continuous if the lower ∞-dimension of ν lies under a
certain threshold, namely,
maxQ∈DnN log ν (Q)
dim∞ (ν) B lim inf < d − 2,
n→∞ −n log 2
where DnN denotes a partition of Q by cubes of the form Q B di=1 Ii with (half-open,
Q
open, or closed) intervals Ii with endpoints in the dyadic grid, i. e. (k − 1) 2−n , k2−n
for some k ∈ Z, such that Dn+1 N is a refinement of DN for each n ∈ N, this means
n
that each element of Dn can be decomposed into 2d disjoint elements of Dn+1
N N .
We set Dn B n∈N DnN , which

S
o defines a semiring of sets, and for Q ∈ D we set
D(Q) B Q e∈ D : Q e ⊂ Q . We remark that our definition of dim∞ (ν) is consistent
with the usual definition in terms of balls rather than cubes from a uniform lattice
(see e. g. [Str93]). Obviously, we always have dim∞ (ν) ≤ d, and the assumption
dim∞ (ν) > 0 excludes the possibility of ν having atoms.
Now, suppose ι is continuous and note that its image is nalways dense in Lν2 (cf. o
Proposition 2.4). If ι is not injective, that is Nν B ker (ι) = f ∈ H 1 : kι( f )kLν2 = 0
is different from the null space, one simply restricts to
n o
Nν⊥ B f ∈ H 1 : ∀g ∈ Nν : h f, giH 1 = 0 .
D E
Then for the form ( f, g) 7→ f ◦ ι−1 , g ◦ ι−1 1 restricted to Neumann boundary
H
conditions ι Nν⊥ we write EN . Replacing H 1 with H01 in the definition of Nν⊥

⊥
gives riseD to a new linearE subspace denoted by N̊ν (cf. (2.1)) and for theform
( f, g) 7→ f ◦ ι , g ◦ ι
−1 −1
1 , restricted to the Dirichlet boundary conditions ι N̊ν ,
⊥
H0
we write ED . This allows to define two Kreı̆n–Feller operators ∆νD and ∆νN with
respect to the two different forms. For more details on this form approach, we refer
to Section 2. Now, if the Hu–Lau–Ngai condition from [HLN06]
dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, (♠)
is fulfilled, then a result of Maz’ya [Maz85] adapted to the dyadic grid (see
Lemma 6.7) ensures, that the embedding ι is compact and ∆νDN admits a count-
able 2
set ofeigenfunctions spanning Lν with a non-negative sequence of eigenvalues
λn ED/N tending to infinity. As mentioned above, the Hu–Lau–Ngai condition
n∈N
already appeared implicitly in [Tri97, Theorem 30.2 (Isotropic fractal drum)] in the
context of Ahlfors–David regular measures, for which we provide more details in
1.4 below). We note that for Q ∈ D with ν (Q) > 0 we have dim∞ (ν) ≤ dim∞ ν|Q

and hence the condition (♠) carries over to the restricted measure ν|Q . We define
the upper and lower exponent of divergence of the eigenvalue counting function
n o
N D/N (x) B sup n ∈ N : λn ∆νD/N ≤ x by

log N D/N (x) log N D/N (x)
sD/N B lim inf and sD/N B lim sup ,
x→∞ log(x) x→∞ log(x)
and refer to these numbers as the upper, resp. lower, spectral dimension of ED/N
(or of ∆D/N or just of ν). If the two values coincide we denote the common value by
sD/N , and call it the Dirichlet (respect. Neumann) spectral dimension.
Next, let us turn to the concept of partition functions, which in a certain extent
is borrowed from the thermodynamic formalism. For an arbitrary monotone set
function J : D → R≥0 we define the associated partition function, for q ∈ R≥0 ,
1 X
τJD/N (q) B lim sup τJ,n
D/N
(q) with τJ,n D/N
(q) B n
log J (Q)q (1.1)
n→∞ log 2 D/N
Q∈Dn
n o
with DnD B Q ∈ DnN : ∂Q ∩ Q = ∅ . The reason why the definition of DnD is ap-
propriate becomes apparent in constructing certain functions with compact support
contained in Q̊ for the proof of the lower bounds in the Dirichlet case (see proof
of Lemma 7.1). Note that we use the convention 00 = 0, that is for q = 0 we
neglect the summands with J (Q) = 0 in the definition of τJD/N . An important
quantity in the one-dimensional case and also in certain higher-dimensional cases
is the Lq -spectrum of ν, given by βνD/N B τνD/N . In this paper, we are particularly
interested in the set function
 b
sup
 Q∈D(Q) Q


 ν e log Λ Qe , a = 0,
Jν,a,b (Q) B 
e
eb ea

Q∈D(Q) ν Q Λ Q ,

sup e
 a , 0,
with b ≥ 0 and a ∈ R. We write Jν,t (Q) B Jν,2/d−1,2/t (Q) and Jν (Q) B
Jν,2/d−1,1 (Q). We note that the general parameter a, b will also prove useful when
considering polyharmonic operators in higher dimensions (see e. g. [KN21a]).
Our most powerful auxiliary object is the (Dirichlet/Neumann) spectral partition
function with respect to ν given by the special choice J = Jν,a,b . As a consequence
of Lemma 3.7 we know that the spectral partition function does not depend on the
specific choice of the collection of dyadic cubes DnD/N . We consider the critical
exponent
 

 X 

κJ B inf  q
< .
 
q ≥ 0 : J(Q) ∞
 

 


Q∈D
 
First, to obtain upper estimates of the spectral dimension, we construct optimal
partitions using an adaptive partition algorithm as presented in Section 4. As a
byproduct of Section 4, we are able to improve a result of [Bor71, Theorem 1]
(see Section 4.2). Let us define the set of J-partitions ΠJ to be the set of finite
o exists a partition P of Q by dyadic
collections P of dyadic ncubes such that there e
cubes from D with P = Q ∈ P : J(Q) > 0 . We define
e
MJ (x) B inf card (P) : P ∈ ΠJ , J (Q) < 1/x .

and
log MJ (x) log MJ (x)
hJ B lim sup , hJ B lim inf
x→∞ log x x→∞ log x
will be called the upper, resp. lower, J-partition entropy. We will see in Section 4
and Section 5 that under some mild additional assumptions on J, hJ and κJ coincide.
1.3. Main results. The following abstract theorem provides an upper bound on the
upper spectral dimension in terms of the upper J-partition entropy.
Theorem 1.1. Suppose there exists a non-negative, monotone set function J on D,
which is uniformly vanishing, i. e. limn→∞ supQ∈Sk≥n DN J(Q) = 0, such that for all
k
b Q with Q u dΛ = 0, we have
R
Q ∈ D and all u ∈ C∞
kuk2L2 (Q) ≤ J(Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) .

ν Λ
Then s ≤ s ≤ hJ .
D N
For lower estimates of the spectral dimension we use certain disjoint families of
dyadic cubes and borrow ideas from the coarse multifractal analysis (see [Fal14;
Rie95]) which will be the topic of Section 5. In there we will also see how the
dyadic partition approach and the optimal partition approach are related by ideas
from large deviation theory. For all n ∈ N and α > 0, we define
D/N D/N D/N
n o
Nα,J (n) B card Mα,J (n) , Mα,J (n) B Q ∈ DnD/N : J (Q) ≥ 2−αn ,
and set
log+ Nα,J log+ Nα,J
D/N D/N
D/N (n) (n)
FJ (α) B lim sup , and F JD/N (α) B lim inf .
n log 2n n log 2n
We refer to the quantities
D/N
D/N FJ (α) F JD/N (α)
FJ B sup and F JD/N B sup
α>0 α α>0 α
as the upper, resp. lower, optimised (Dirichlet/Neumann) coarse multifractal dimen-
sion with respect to J. The lower estimate of the spectral dimension is based on
the following abstract observation which connects the optimised coarse multifractal
dimension and the spectral dimension.
Theorem 1.2. Assume there exists a non-negative monotone set function J on D
with dim∞ (J) > 0 (see Section 3) such that for every Q ∈ D with J (Q) > 0 there
exists a non-negative and non-zero function ψQ ∈ C∞ c with support contained in
˚ ˚
hQi3 (see Section 2.5 for the definition of hQi3 ) such that
2 2
ψQ L2 ≥ J(Q) ∇ψQ L2 Rd .
ν Λ( )
Then
N D
F JN ≤ sN and F J ≤ sN , F JD ≤ sD ≤ sN and F J ≤ sD ≤ sN .
If J is uniformly vanishing and

n o
qJD/N B inf q ≥ 0 : τJD/N (q) < 0 ∈ R>0 ,
then qJD/N is the unique zero of τJD/N and qJN = κJ . In general, κJ ≤ qJN .
Under the condition (♠) and for any t ∈ (2, 2 dim∞ (ν)/(d − 2)) the set function
Jν,t is uniformly vanishing and using [Maz85, Corollary, p. 54, 381–382], Theorem
1.1 is applicable for Jν,t (see Lemma 6.9 and Proposition 6.6). For the critical case
dim∞ (ν) = d − 2 there is the possibility of no continuous embedding, a continuous
but non-compact or a compact embedding. In Section 9.1 we give examples (for
d = 3) of absolutely continuous measures with dim∞ (ν) = d − 2 such that each
possibility is realised. For the case of compact embedding, Theorem 1.1 can be
employed to show that in our example sN = 3/2 (Example 9.2).
We will see that Theorem 1.2 is applicable for J = ν in the case d = 2 and J = Jν
for d > 2. The following list of results give the main achievements of this paper.
The proofs are postponed to Section 8. As an auxiliary quantity we need
!
N\D
dim∞ (ν) B lim inf − log max ν (Q) / log 2n
n→∞ Q∈DnN \DnD
D/N D/N
and we introduce the shorthand notation qD/N B qJD/N
ν
,F B F Jν , F D/N B
F JD/N
ν
, τD/N B τJD/N
ν
and h B hJν , h B hJν . In the following we write dim M (A) for
the upper Minkowski dimension of the bounded set A ⊂ Rd and—slightly abusing

notation—we also write dim M (ν) B dim M supp (ν) for the compactly support
Borel measure ν.
Theorem 1.3. Let ν be a Borel probability measure on Q such that dim∞ (ν) > d − 2.
(1) Under Neumann boundary conditions we have
N
F N ≤ sN ≤ h ≤ h = sN = qN = F , (1.2)
(2) Under Dirichlet boundary conditions and ν(Q̊) > 0 we have
D
F D ≤ sD , F = qD ≤ sD ≤ qN .
(3) In particular, if d = 2, then sN = 1, and under the assumption ν(Q̊) > 0, we
s = 1.
D
also have
N D
(4) If τ q = 0, or equivalently F = F , then the upper Dirichlet and
N D
Neumann spectral dimensions have the common value sD = sN = qN . This

assumption is particularly fulfilled if
dim M supp (ν) ∩ ∂Q

N\D
< qN . (1.3)
dim∞ (ν) −d+2
Remark 1.4. Since qN ≥ d/2, we can replaces qN by d/2 on the right hand side
in (1.3) making this condition independent of qN . Moreover, (1.3) can easily be
verified for particular measures such as
(1) ν with dim M supp (ν) ∩ ∂Q = 0, particularly for supp (ν) ⊂ Q̊,

(2) ν given by the d-dimensional Lebesgue measure Λ|Q restricted to Q (then

the left-hand side in (1.3) is equal to (d − 1) /2).
Let us also remark that in Section 9.2 we present an example for which sN < sN
holds.
1.3.1. Regularity results.
Definition 1.5. We define two notions of regularity.
N
(1) We call ν Neumann multifractal-regular (N-MF-regular), if F N = F and
N
Dirichlet multifractal-regular (D-MF-regular), if F D = F .
(2) We call the measure ν Neumann/Dirichlet partition function regular (D/N-
PF-regular), if
• τD/N (q) = lim inf n τJD/N
ν ,n
(q) for q ∈ q D/N − ε, qD/N , for some ε > 0,
or
• τD/N qD/N = lim inf n τJD/N ν ,n
qD/N and τD/N is differentiable in qD/N .
Remark 1.6. The above theorem and the notion of regularity give rise to the follow-
ing list of observations:
(1) If the Neumann spectral dimension exists, then it is given by purely measure-
geometric data encoded in the ν-partition entropy, namely we have h = h
and this value coincides with the spectral dimension.
(2) N-MF-regularity implies equality everywhere in the chain of inequalities
(1.2) and in particular the Neumann spectral dimension exists. If ν is D-
MF-regular, then we have equality everywhere in all chains of inequalities
above and in particular both Neumann and Dirichlet spectral dimensions
exist.
(3) To the best of our knowledge, all measures examined in the literature, for
which the spectral dimension is known, are PF-regular.
The following theorem shows that the spectral partition function is a valuable
auxiliary concept to determine the spectral behaviour for a given measure ν.
Theorem 1.7. Under the assumption dim∞ (ν) > d − 2 we have the following
regularity result:
(1) If ν is N-PF-regular, then it is N-MF-regular and the Neumann spectral
dimension sN exists.
(2) If ν is D-PF-regular and τN qD = 0, then both the Dirichlet und Neumann
spectral dimension exist and coincide, i. e. sD = sN .
This result is optimal in the sense that there is an example (derived from an
similar example for d = 1 in [KN21b]) of a measure ν which is not τ-regular and
for which sN > sN . It should be noted that PF-regularity is easy accessible if the
spectral partition function is essentially given by the Lq -spectrum.
In the following proposition we present lower bounds of the lower spectral
dimension in terms of the subdifferential of τD/N in q, defined as
n o
∂τD/N (q) B a ∈ R : ∀t ∈ R τD/N (t) ≥ a (t − q) + τD/N (q) .
Proposition 1.8. If for some 0 ≤ q ≤ qD/N we have τD/N (q) = limn τJD/N ν ,n
(q) and
−∂τ (q) = [a, b], then
D/N
aq + τD/N (q)
≤ sD/N .
b

Remark 1.9. In the case that τN (qN ) = lim τJNν ,n qN and τN is differentiable in qN ,
we infer qN ≤ sN and hence obtain a direct proof of the regularity statement, namely,
qN = sN = sN .
Also, if τD/N (1) = limn τJD/N
ν ,n
(1) = d − 2, we have the lower bound
+
τD/N (1) − d + 2
− ≤ sD/N ,
τD/N (1)
where f ± (x) denotes the left-sided, respectively right-sided, derivative of f : R≥0 →
R in x > 0.
Corollary 1.10. Let d = 2. Assume βνD/N is differentiable in 1. Then sD/N = 1.
1.3.2. General bounds in terms of fractal dimensions. We obtain general bounds for
sN in terms of the upper Minkowski dimension dim M (ν) and the possibly smaller
lower ∞-dimension dim∞ (ν) of ν (see also Figure 1.1 on page 10).
Corollary 1.11. Assume dim∞ (ν) > d − 2. Then for the Neumann upper spectral
dimension we have
d dim M (ν) dim∞ (ν)

≤ ≤ sN ≤ .
2 dim M (ν) − d + 2 dim∞ (ν) − d + 2
Remark 1.12. Note that by choosing measures with dim M (ν) close to d − 2 we can
easily find examples where sN becomes arbitrarily large.
It is also worth mentioning that the analogous situation in the dimension d = 1 is
quite different (cf. [KN21b]), namely the lower bound becomes an upper bound,
dim M (ν) 1
sN/D ≤ ≤ .
dim M (ν) + 1 2
This inequality naturally links to the famous question by M. Kac [Kac66], ‘Can one
hear the shape of a drum?’ This question has been modified by various authors e. g.
in [Ber79; Ber80; BC86; Lap91], and closer to our context by Triebel in [Tri97].
In the plane, the spectral dimension does not encode any information about the
fractal-geometric nature of the underlying measure as we always have have sD/N = 1
for any bounded Borel measure with ν(Q̊) > 0. This has been observed in [Tri97]
for the special case of α-Ahlfors–David regular measures. For all other dimensions,
our results show that the upper spectral dimension sN is uniquely determined by
the spectral partition function τN , which in turn reflects many important fractal-
geometric properties of ν. For the case d > 2, this common ground provides
τN (q)
2 dim M (ν)
q
1 2 qN 3
Figure 1.1. Partition function τN in dimension d = 3 for the

self-similar measure ν supported on the Sierpiński tetraeder with
all four contraction ratios equal 1/2 and with probability vector
(0.36, 0.36, 0.2, 0.08). Natural bounds for sN = qN in this set-
ting are the zeros of the dashed line x 7→ −x τN (0) − 1 + τN (0)
and the dotted line x 7→ (1 − x) (dim∞ (ν) − 1) + 1 as given
in Corollary 1.11. In this case τN (0) = dim M (ν) = 2 and
dim∞ (ν) = − log (0.36) / log (2) = 1.47 . . .
interesting bounds on the upper Minkowski dimension of the support of ν and the
lower ∞-dimension of ν in terms of the upper spectral dimension as follows:
sN (d − 2)
dim M (ν) ≥ ≥ dim∞ (ν) .
sN − 1
So the answer to Kac’s question is ‘partially yes’. If additionally the Lq -spectrum
βνN is an affine function, we obtain βνN (q) = dim M (ν) + dim M (ν) (1 − q) and with
Corollary 1.11
sN (d − 2)
dim∞ (ν) = dim M (ν) = .
sN − 1
In this case, Kac’s question regarding dimensional quantities must be answered in
the affirmative.
1.4. Applications. Finally, we give some leading examples where the spectral
partition function is essentially given by the Lq -spectrum of ν (see Section 3.4.3
and Section 3.4.1) and in this case we are able to provide the following complete
picture.
1.4.1. Absolutely continuous measures. As a first application of our results, we

present the case of absolutely continuous measures.
Proposition 1.13. Let ν be absolutely continuous with respect to the d-dimensional
Lebesgue measure. Then (♠) holds, if and only if its density is r-integrable for some
r > d/2. In particular, the spectral partition function exists as a limit with
τN (q) = τD (q) = d − 2q, for q ∈ [0, r) ,
ν is D/N-PF-regular, and the Dirichlet and Neumann spectral dimension exist and
equal sD = sN = d/2.
In Section 9.1 we treat absolutely continuous measures in dimension d = 3 with
densities which are r-integrable for r ∈ [1, d/2) and not r-integrable for r > d/2.
These are critical cases with respect to our condition (♠) and the spectral properties
can only be determined by a finer analysis. Also for absolutely continuous measures
we have the following rigidity result in terms of reaching the minimal possible value
d/2 of the spectral dimension.
Proposition 1.14. The following rigidity result holds:
(1) If sN = d/2, then τN (q) = d − 2q for all q ∈ [0, d/2].
(2) If τN (q) = lim τJNν ,n (q) = d − 2q for some q > d/2, then τN (q) = d − 2q for
all q ∈ [0, d/2] and sN = d/2.
1.4.2. Ahlfors–David regular measure. As a second application, we consider a
class of measures with linear partition functions, namely we treat α-Ahlfors–David
regular measures ν on Q for α > 0, i. e. there exist constants C > 0 such that for
every x ∈ supp (ν) and r ∈ 0, d1/2 we have
C −1 rα ≤ ν (B (x, r)) ≤ Crα ,
where B (x, r) denotes the open ball with centre x and radius r > 0. Note that for
α-Ahlfors–David regular measures ν we have α = dim M (ν) = dim∞ (ν).
Proposition 1.15.
Assume that ν is α-Ahlfors–David regular with α ∈ (d − 2, d]
such that ν Q̊ > 0. Then both Neumann and Dirichlet spectral dimensions exist
and are given by sD = sN = α/ (α − d + 2).
This proposition recovers some of the major achievements on isotropic α-sets
Γ (in our terms this means that the α-dimensional Hausdorff measure restricted to
Γ is α-Ahlfors–David regular) as investigated by Triebel in his book [Tri97]. This
follows in our framework from the fact that the partition function is linear and exists
as a limit, see Section 3.4.2.
1.4.3. Self-conformal measures. As a third application, we treat self-conformal
measures with possible overlaps, following up on a question explicitly posed in
[NX21, Sec. 5].
Theorem 1.16. If ν is a self-conformal measure on the closed unit cube Q with
ν(∂Q) = 0, contractions {S i : Q → Q}i=1,...,` (with possible overlaps) and probability
vector (pi )i=1,...,` , ` ≥ 2 (see Section 3.4.3 for precise definitions). The spectral
partition function exists as a limit and is given by
τD/N (q) = βνN (q) + (d − 2) q,
where βνN denotes the Neumann-Lq -spectrum of ν (see Section 3.2 for definition).
Assuming dim∞ (ν) > d−2, then ν is D/N-PF-regular and the Dirichlet and Neumann
spectral dimension exist and equal sD = sN = qN . In particular, in the case d = 2,
we always have sD = sN = 1.
Remark 1.17. We remark that in the situation of Theorem 1.16 under OSC the
spectral dimension can be expressed in terms of an associated pressure function, i. e.
qN is the unique solution of P (q(ψ + (2 − d)ϕ)) = 0, where . . . , `} → R :
ψ : {1, N
ω 7→ log pω1 and ϕ : {1, . . . , `} → R : ω 7→ (d − 2) log S ω1 (σω) .

N 0
Remark 1.18. In general, it can be difficult to verify the condition dim∞ (ν) > d − 2,
but in the case d = 2 a sufficient condition is that the measure ν is invariant with
respect to an IFS given by a system of bi-Lipschitz contractions such that the
attractor is not a singleton ([HLN06, Lemma 5.1]). This carries over to self-similar
measures provided that the contractive similitudes do not share the same fixed point,
so that dim∞ (ν) > 0 and the spectral dimension is given by sD = sN = 1.
2. Form approach for Kreı̆n–Feller operators

2.1. Sobolev spaces and embeddings. In this section we recall the form approach
following ideas in [HLN06]. Fix d ≥ 2 and Q ⊂ Rd . The space H 1 with the bilinear
form h f, giH 1 defines a Hilbert space and H01 a closed subspace. For all u ∈ H01 , or
n o
u ∈ f ∈ H 1 : Q f dΛ = 0 , the Poincaré inequality, respect. Poincaré–Wirtinger
R
inequality (see [Rui12, Lemma 3, p. 500] and Lemma 2.1), reads, for some constant
c > 0, as follows
kukL2 ≤ c k∇ukL2 . (PWI)
Λ Λ
Since Q is bounded, the norm induced by the form h f, giH 1 is therefore equivalent
0
to the norm induced by h f, giH 1 on H01 . We will consider only those finite Borel
measures ν on the closure of some Lipschitz domain Ω ⊂ Rd for which the following
Poincaré inequality holds with c1 > 0.

kukL2 Ω ≤ c1 kukH 1 (Ω) for all u ∈ Cb∞ Ω . (PI)
ν
This then guarantees an embedding of the Sobolev spaces H 1 (Ω) and H01 (Ω) into

Lν2 . In fact, since Cb∞ Ω lies dense in H 1 (Ω) (this follows e. g. from the extension
1
domains), for every u ∈ H (Ω) there exists a sequence (un ) of
property of Lipschitz
elements of Cb Ω such that un → u with respect to the norm in H 1 (Ω). Now, (PI)
∞

implies that (un ) is also a Cauchy sequence in Lν2 , hence there exists u ∈ Lν2 Ω such

that un → u in Lν2 Ω . It is easy to see that this limit is independent of the particular
choice of (un ) and we therefore obtain in this way a bounded linear operator

ι B ιν B ιΩ,ν : H 1 (Ω) → Lν2 Ω , f 7→ f ,

with ι(u) = u for all u ∈ Cb∞ Ω . If ι is also injective, then we may regard H 1 (Ω)

as a subspace of Lν2 Ω . In case the map is not injective we consider the following
closed subspace of H 1 (Ω)

Nν B ker (ι) = f ∈ H 1 (Ω) : kι( f )kL2 Ω = 0
ν
n o
and have the natural embedding Nν⊥ B f ∈ H 1 (Ω) : ∀g ∈ Nν : h f, giH 1 (Ω) = 0 ,→

Lν2 Ω which is again given by ι. In particular, there exists a sequence (un ) ∈ Cb∞ Ω

such that un → u in H 1 (Ω) and ι (un ) = un → ι (u) in Lν2 Ω . The extended version
of the Poincaré inequality (PI) reads as
kι(u)kLν2 (Ω) ≤ c1 kukH 1 (Ω) for all u ∈ H 1 (Ω) .
This embedding carries over to

N̊ν B f ∈ H0 (Ω) : ∀g ∈ Nν ∩ H0 : h f, giH 1 (Ω) = 0
⊥ 1 1
(2.1)
0
and by (PWI), we have respectively

kι(u)kLν2 (Ω) ≤ c2 kukH 1 (Ω) for all u ∈ H01 (Ω) . (PI-D)
0
2.2. Stein extension. We say a bounded domain Ω ⊂ Rd permits a Stein extension,

if there exists a continuous linear operator EΩ : H 1 (Ω) → H 1 Rd such that
EΩ ( f )|Ω = f and

EΩ : Cb∞ Ω → Cc∞ Rd with E ( f ) |Ω = f.

Necessarily, we then have that Cb∞ Ω lies dense in H 1 (Ω). The second property
above is not standard in the literature but follows from [Ste70, Sec. 3.2 and 3.3]. In
fact, in the proof presented in [Ste70, Sec. 3.2 and 3.3] we observe that the auxiliary
functions Λ+ and Λ− defined therein have compact support provided Ω is bounded.
Since it is the product of smooth functions with compact support with a finite sum
of smooth functions, the extension given by Stein satisfies the required mapping
property. Since Q is a bounded Lipschitz domain, the Stein extension EQ with the
above properties is well defined.
Lemma 2.1. There exist a constant DQ > 0 such that for all cubes Q ⊂ Q with
edges parallel to the coordinate axes and u ∈ H 1 (Q),
Z 2
1
DQ kukH 1 (Q) ≤ k∇ukL2 (Q) +
2 2
u dΛ ≤ kukH 1 (Q) .
2

Λ Λ(Q) Q
Proof. Let T : Rd → Rd , x 7→ x0 + hx, with h ∈ (0, 1), x0 ∈ Q, such that the cube
Q B T (Q). First, note that u ◦ T ∈ H 1 (Q) and k∇ (u ◦ T )k2L2 (Q) = h2−d k∇uk2L2 (Q) ,
Λ Λ
for all u ∈ H 1 (Q). Clearly, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have for all
u ∈ H 1 (Q)
Z 2
1
u dΛ ≤ kukL2 (Q) .
2
Λ(Q) Q Λ
From [NS01, Lemma 3, p. 500] we obtain that there exists CQ > 0 such that for all
u ∈ H 1 (Q)
Z ! Z 2
u dΛ ≤ k∇ukL2 (Q) + u dΛ .
2 2
CQ
Q Λ Q
Now, for u ∈ H 1 (Q) and T : Rd → Rd with T (x) = x0 + hx for some h ∈ (0, 1) and
x0 ∈ Q, such that T (Q) = Q , we have u ◦ T ∈ H 1 (Q) and
Z Z
CQ
u dΛ = CQ
2
u2 ◦ T dΛ
hd Q Q
Z 2
+ u ◦ T dΛ
T )k2L2 (Q)

≤ k∇ (u ◦
Λ Q
Z 2
= h2−d k∇uk2L2 (Q) + h−2d u dΛ .

Λ Q
Hence, using h < 1, we obtain
Z Z 2 Z 2
1
2 2
k∇uk2L2 (Q) +h −d
u dΛ ≤ k∇ukL2 (Q) +
2
u dΛ .

CQ u dΛ ≤ h
Q Λ Q Λ Λ(Q) Q
This gives
Z 2
min {1, CQ } 1
kukH 1 (Q) ≤ k∇ukL2 (Q) +
2 2
u dΛ .

2 Λ Λ(Q) Q
Lemma 2.2. Let T : Rd → Rd , x 7→ x0 + hx, with h ∈ (0, 1), x0 ∈ Q, such that the
cube Q B T (Q) belongs to D. Then we have:

(1) EQ : H 1 (Q) → H 1 Rd , u 7→ EQ (u ◦ T ) ◦ T −1 defines a Stein extension

with EQ ≤ kEQ k /h2 ,
n o
(2) EQ |NΛ (Q) ≤ kEQ k /DQ with NΛ (Q) B u ∈ H 1 (Q) : Q u dΛ = 0 .
R
R prove the second claim. Fix T : x 7→ x0 + hx such that T (Q) = Q

Proof. We only
and assume Q u dΛ = 0. For a vector space V we write in the followingV ? B V \{0}.
Hence, we obtain

EQ (u) H 1 (Rd ) EQ (u ◦ T ) ◦ T −1 H 1 (Rd )
EQ |NΛ (Q) = sup = sup
u∈NΛ (Q)? kukH 1 (Q) u∈NΛ (Q)? kukH 1 (Q)
R 2 R 2 1/2
∇ EQ (u ◦ T ) ◦ T −1 dΛ + EQ (u ◦ T ) ◦ T −1 dΛ
≤ sup 2 1/2
u∈NΛ (Q)?
R R
−1 2 dΛ + 1

Q
∇ (u ◦ T ) ◦ T Λ(Q) Q u dΛ
1/2
hd−2 (∇ (EQ (u ◦ T )))2 dΛ + hd E(u ◦ T )2 dΛ
R R
= sup 1/2
u∈NΛ (Q)?
R
hd−2 Q (∇ (u ◦ T ))2 dΛ
R 1/2
hd−2 (∇ (EQ (u ◦ T )))2 dΛ + E(u ◦ T )2 dΛ
R
≤ sup 1/2
u∈NΛ (Q)?
R
hd−2 Q (∇ (u ◦ T ))2 dΛ
kEQ (u ◦ T )kH 1 (Rd ) kEQ k
≤ sup ≤ ,
u∈NΛ (Q)? DQ ku ◦ T kH 1 (Q) DQ
u ◦ T dΛ = 0, hd < hd−2 and

R
where in the last inequality we used the fact that Q
Lemma 2.1.
Lemma 2.3. Assuming that the following Poincaré inequality holds

kukLν2 (Rd ) ≤ c1 kukH 1 (Rd ) for all u ∈ Cc∞ Rd ,

and let ιRd : H 1 Rd → Lν2 Rd denote the embedding and RQ : Lν2 Rd → Lν2 (Q),
f 7→ f |Q the restriction operator. Then we have ιQ = RQ ◦ ιRd ◦ EQ .

Proof. First note that ιRd restricted to Cc∞ Rd is the identity. Now, using the fact

that EQ : Cb∞ Q → Cc∞ Rd combined with the above observation we find for all

u ∈ Cb∞ Q ,
RQ ιRd ◦ EQ (u) = RQ (EQ (u)) = u|Q = ιQ (u) .

Since ιQ is continuous and Cb∞ Q lies dense in H 1 , the claim follows.

2.3. Form approach. Since ι B ιQ maps Nν⊥ bijectively to dom EN B ι Nν⊥

and N̊ν⊥ to dom ED B ι N̊ν⊥ , we may define the relevant corresponding forms by
the push forward
D E
EN (u, v) B ι−1 u, ι−1 v 1 , for u, v ∈ dom(EN )
H
and D E
ED (u, v) B ι−1 u, ι−1 v , for u, v ∈ dom(ED ).
H01

Proposition 2.4. The set dom ED lies dense in Lν2 Q̊ and dom EN lies dense in
Lν2 .
Proof. Here we follow the arguments of [HLN06]. Let Cc (Q̊) denote the space of
continuous
functions from Q to R with compact support in Q̊. It is well known
that
Cc∞ Q̊ lies dense in Cc Q̊ with respect to the uniform norm, hence Cc∞ Q̊ lies

dense in Lν2 (Q̊). This carries over to the orthogonal projection onto ι N̊ν⊥ since

ι N̊ν is the zero space in Lν2 (Q̊). Similarly, it for the Neumann note that Cb (Q) lies
dense in Lν2 and by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem Cb∞ (Q) lies dense in Cb (Q) with
respect to the uniform norm. Hence, the claim follows.

Proposition 2.5. Assuming (PI), we have that dom ED/N equipped with the inner
product h f, giν + ED/N ( f, g) defines a Hilbert spaces, i. e. ED/N is a closed form
with respect to Lν2 .
Proof. Since both cases can be treated completely analogously, we only consider
the first case: We first observe that Nν⊥ is a closed linear subspace with respect
to h·, ·iH 1 , which by (PI) induces a norm that is equivalent to the norm induced
by h·, ·iH 1 + hι·, ι·iν . Therefore, Nν⊥ , h·, ·iH 1 + hι·, ι·iν is a Hilbert space space and

since EN + h·, ·iν is the push-forward of h·, ·iH 1 + hι·, ι·iν , the claim follows.
2.4. Kreı̆n–Feller operator. From
Proposition
2.5,Proposition 2.4 and [Kig01,
Theorem B.1.6.], we deduce that E , dom ED/N is a densely defined closed
D/N
D/N
form on Lν2 . Thus, for ED/N there exists non-negative
D/N 1/2
self-adjoint operator ∆ν
on Lν2 such that f ∈ dom ∆ν ⊂ dom ∆νD/N = dom(ED/N ), if and only

if f ∈ dom ED/N and there exists u ∈ Lν2 such that

ED ( f, g) = hu, giL2 (Q̊) , g ∈ dom ED
ν
and
EN ( f, g) = hu, giLν2 (Q) , g ∈ dom EN .
D/N D/N
In this we have u = ∆ν f . We call ∆ν Kreı̆n–Feller operator and f ∈
case,
dom ∆νD an (Dirichlet) eigenfunction with eigenvalue λ ∈ R, if
Z
E ( f, g) = λ
D
f g dν
Q̊

for all g ∈ dom ED . And we call f ∈ dom ∆νN an (Neumann) eigenfunction with
eigenvalue λ ∈ R, if Z
EN ( f, g) = λ f g dν
Q

for all g ∈ dom EN . In order to prove that the embedding dom ED/N , ED/N ,→
Lν2 is compact under the assumption dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, we need the following result
due to Maz’ya n [Maz85, Theorem 3, p. 387, o 2nd edition p. 579]: For d > 2 and
t > 2, the set u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) : kukH 1 (Rd ) ≤ 1 is precompact in Lνt , if and only if
lim sup %(1−d/2) ν (B(x, %))1/t = 0,
r↓0 x∈Rd ,%∈(0,r)
n o
and for d = 2, u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) : kukH 1 (Rd ) ≤ 1 is precompact in Lνt , if and only if
1/2
lim sup log(%) ν (B(x, %))1/t = 0.
r↓0 x∈Rd ,%∈(0,r)
Proposition
assumption dim∞ (ν) > d − 2 implies (PI) and the embedding
2.6. The
dom E D/N ,E D/N ,→ Lν2 is compact.
Proof. For t ∈ (2, 2 dim∞ (ν)/(d − 2)) and d > 2, the assumption (PI) implies
lim sup %(1−d/2) ν (B(x, %))1/t = 0,
r↓0 x∈Rd ,%∈(0,r)
and for d = 2,
1/2
lim sup log(%) ν (B(x, %))1/t = 0,
r↓0 x∈Rd ,%∈(0,r)
(see n[HLN06]).
Hence,
by [Maz85,
o Theorem 3 and Theorem
4, p. 583] we know
that u ∈ Cc R : kukH 1 (Rd ) ≤ 1 is precompact in Lν R . Thus, there exists c > 0
∞ d t d

such that for all u ∈ Cc∞ Rd , we have
kukLν2 (Rd ) ≤ kukLνt (Rd ) ≤ c · kukH 1 (Rd ) ,

which implies that the identity Cc∞ Rd → Lν2 Rd map permits a unique continuous

continuation ιRd : H 1 Rd → Lν2 Rd . To see that ιRd is compact, fix a bounded

sequence (un ) in H 1 Rd . We find another sequence (vn ) in Cc∞ Rd such that
kvn − un kH 1 (Rd ) → 0. The aforementioned precompactness leads to a subsequence
(vnk ) converging in Lν2 (Rd ) to an element v. Then ιRd (unk ) also converges to v in

Lν2 (Rd ), since

v − ιRd (unk ) L2 (Rd ) = v − vnk + vnk − ιRd (unk ) L2 (Rd )
ν ν

≤ v − vnk L2 (Rd ) + ιRd (vnk − unk ) L2 (Rd )
ν ν
≤ v − v
nk L2 (Rd ) + c · v − u
nk nk H 1 (Rd ) → 0.
ν
n o
This shows that ιRd u ∈ H 1 (Rd ) : kukH 1 (Rd ) ≤ k is precompact for every k > 0.
Since for the Stein extension EQ we have for all u ∈ H 1
kEQ (u)kH 1 (Rd ) ≤ kEQ k kukH 1 (Q) ,

n o
it follows that ιRd ◦ EQ u ∈ H 1 (Q) : kukH 1 (Q) ≤ 1 is precompact as a subset of
n o
ιRd ◦ u ∈ H 1 Rd : kukH 1 (Rd ) ≤ kEQ k . Applying the restriction operator RQ from
Lemma 2.3, we find that
n o n o
u ∈ dom EN : ι−1 u H 1 (Q) ≤ 1 ⊂ ι u ∈ H 1 : kukH 1 (Q) ≤ 1
n o
= RQ ιRd ◦ EQ u ∈ H 1 : kukH 1 (Q) ≤ 1
is, as a subset of a continuous image of a relatively compact set, relative

compact in
Lν (Q). In particular, there exists c1 > 0 such that for all u ∈ dom EN
2

kukLν2 ≤ c2 ι−1 u H 1 .
The Dirichlet case follows by almost the same means without the use of the extension
operator (see also [HLN06]).
Corollary 2.7. Assume dim∞ (ν) > d − 2. Then the operator n D/N o ∆
D/N has compact
resolvent and there exists a complete set of eigenvectors fk with eigenvalues

D/N D/N D/N k∈N
λn ∆ν with λn ∆ν ≤ λn+1 ∆ν tending to infinity.
n∈N
Remark 2.8. Let E be a closed form with domain dom (E) densely defined on Lν2 , in
particular dom (E) defines a Hilbert space with respect to ( f, g)E B h f, gi ν + E( f, g),
and assume that the inclusion from dom (E) , h·, ·iE into Lν2 is compact. Then the

Poincaré–Courant–Fischer–Weyl min-max principle is applicable, that is for the
i-th eigenvalue λi (E) of E, i ∈ N, we have (see also [Kig01, Theorem B.I.14] or
[Dav95; KL93])
λi (E) = inf sup R (ψ) : ψ ∈ G? : G <i dom (E) , h·, ·iE ,
n n o o
where we write G <i (H, h·, ·i), if G is a linear subspace of the Hilbert space H with
inner product h·, ·i and the vector space dimension of G is equal to i ∈ N; for the
Rayleigh–Ritz quotient is given by R (ψ) B E(ψ, ψ)/hψ, ψiν .
The following proposition will be crucial for the proof of the upper bound of the
spectral dimension as stated in Corollary 6.10.
Proposition 2.9. We have for all i ∈ N,

λi ED = inf sup RH 1 (ψ) : ψ ∈ G? : G <i

N̊ν⊥ , h·, ·iH 1
0 0

= inf sup RH 1 (ψ) : ψ ∈ G? : G <i H01 , h·, ·iH 1 ,
0 0
where the relevant Rayleigh–Ritz quotient is given by RH 1 (ψ) B hψ, ψiH 1 /hιψ, ιψiν .
0 0
The same result holds true for EN with N̊ν⊥ replaced by Nν⊥ and H01 by H 1 .

Proof. The first equality follows by the min-max principle and the fact that dom ED '
N̊ν⊥ . The part ‘≥’ for the second equality follows from the inclusion N̊ν⊥ ⊂ H01 . For
the reverse inequality we consider an i-dimensional subspace G = span( f1 , . . . , fi ) ⊂
H01 . There exists a unique decomposition f j = f j,1 + f j,2 with f j,1 ∈ N̊ν,⊥ and f j,2 ∈ N̊ν ,

j = 1, . . . , i. Suppose that f j,1 are not linearly independent, then there exists
j=1,··· ,i
a non-zero element g ∈ G ∩ Nν . To see this fix (λ1 , . . . , λn ) , (0, . . . , 0) with
λ1 f1,1 + · · · + λi fi,1 = 0. Then
λ1 f1,1 + f1,2 + · · · + λi fi,1 + fi,2 = λ1 f1,2 + · · · + λi fi,2 C g.

| {z } | {z }
∈G? ∈Nν
Using ED (g, g) > 0, we get in this case

sup RH 1 (ψ) : ψ ∈ G? = ∞.
0
f j,1 ∈ N̊ν and f j,2 ∈ N̊ν and particularly ι( f j,2 ) = 0,

Otherwise, using the assumption ⊥
we have for every vector a j ∈ Ri \ {0}

 DP E DP E
, + ,
P P
a f a f a f a f

X X  j j 1, j j j 1, j H01 j j 2, j j j 2, j H01
RH 1  a j f1, j + a j f2, j  =

P P
0
j j hι j a j f1, j , ι j a j f1, j iν
 
X 
≥ RH 1  a j f1, j  .
0
j
Note that span( f1,1 , . . . , fi,1 ) ⊂ N̊ν⊥ is also i-dimensional subspace in H01 . Hence, in
any case the reverse inequality follows.
Lemma 2.10. There exists c > 0 such that we have for all i ∈ N

λi EN ≤ cλi ED .
Proof. Using (PWI), we obtain for all u ∈ H01 that

hu, uiH 1 (Q) ≤ (c + 1) hu, uiH 1 (Q) .
0
and H01 (Q) ⊂ H 1 (Q). Hence, the claim follows from Proposition 2.9.
Lemma 2.11. Let ν1 , ν2 be bounded Borel measures on Q . Suppose (PI) holds for
ν1 and
ν2 (E) ≤ ν1 (E), for all E ∈ B(Q).
Then we have ιν1 (u) = ιν2 (u) holds ν2 -almost surely for every u ∈ H 1 (Q). In
particular, if both ∆νD/N
1
and ∆νD/N
2
have compact resolvent, then
sνD/N
2
≤ sνD/N
1
and sνD/N
2
≤ sνD/N
1
.

Proof. We have for all u ∈ Cb∞ Q
kukLν2 ≤ c1 kukH 1 .
(Q) ≤ kukLν2 (Q)
2 1
N
Now, for each u ∈ H 1 there exists (un )n∈N ∈ Cb∞ Q such that un → ιν1 (u) in
Lν21 (Q) and un → u in H 1 (Q). Moreover, by assumption, we have Lν21 (Q) ⊂ Lν22 (Q)
and

un − ιν1 (u) L2 ≤ un − ιν1 (u) L2 → 0,
ν2 ν1
which yields ιν1 (u) = ιν2 (u) holds ν2 -almost surely. Now, the last claim follows from
the min-max principle stated in Proposition 2.9 and ιν1 = ιν2 ν2 -almost surely.
2.5. Smoothing methods.
Lemma 2.12. For m > 1 and r > 0, let Q be a cube with side length mr and Q0 ⊂ Q
a centred and parallel sub-cube with side length r. Then there exists ϕQ,m ∈ Cc∞ (Rd )
which satisfies the following properties:
(1) 0 ≤ ϕQ,m (x) ≤ 1, x ∈ Rd ,

(2) supp(ϕQ,m ) ⊂ Q̊,
(3) ϕQ,m (x) = 1, for x ∈ Q0 ,
(4) for all i = 1, . . . , d and x ∈ Q we have(∂/∂xi ) ϕQ,m (x) ≤ C (m − 1)−1 r−1 ,
where the constant C > 0 depends only on d.
Proof. Let ψ : x 7→ 1B̊1 (0) c2 exp 1/ kxk2 − 1 be the normalised Friedrichs’ mol-

ball with radius r > 0 and centre x in

lifier with B̊r (x)R denoting the open unit
Rd and c2 B 1/ B̊ (0) exp 1/ kxk2 − 1 dx and ψ B ψ (x/) / d be the mollifier
1
with radius of mollification B (m − 1) r/6. For the centred and parallel sub-cube
Q00 ⊂ Q with side length (m + 2) r/3 we define ϕQ,m as the convolution
Z
ϕQ,m (x) B 1 Q00 ? ψ (x) B 1Q00 (y)ψ (x − y) dΛ(y), x ∈ Rd .
Rd
For x ∈ Q0 and since 2ε + r = (m + 2)r/3, we have x − Bε (0) ⊂ Q00 . Hence, we have
Q0
Q00
Q + B1 (0)
00
Figure 2.1. Illustration of the construction of ϕQ,m for the case

d = 2, m = 5/2.
Z Z
ϕQ,m (x) = 1Q00 (y)ψ (x − y) dΛ(y) = 1Q00 (y)ψ (x − y) dΛ(y)
Rd x−Bε (0)
Z Z
= ψ (x − y) dΛ(y) = ψ (y) dΛ(y) = 1
x−Bε (0) Bε (0)
and consequently supp ϕQ,m ⊂ Q00 + Bε (0) ⊂ Q̊. Further, for x ∈ Q00 + Bε (0), we
have

Z
1 00 (y) (∂/∂xi ) ψ (x − y) dΛ(y)

(∂/∂xi ) ϕQ,m (x) =

Q00 Q

Z
2 |x − y |
≤ 1Q00 (y) i i 2 ψ (x − y) dΛ(y)
Q 00
ε2 x−y 2 − 1
ε
Z
1 2
≤ 1Q00 (y) ψ (x − y) dΛ(y)
ε Q00 ∩Bε (x) x−y 2 − 1 2
ε
Z
1 2
≤
ε Bε (0)+x x−y 2 2 ψ (x − y) dΛ(y)
ε −1
Z
1 2
= 2 ψ (y) dΛ(y)
ε Bε (0) y 2

ε − 1
Z
1 2
= ψ(y) dΛ(y).
ε B1 (0) kyk2 − 12

−2
Observing B (0) kyk2 − 1 ψ(y) dΛ(y) < ∞, the claim follows.
R

1
For s > 0 let hQi s denote the cube centred and parallel with respect to Q such that
Λ(Q) = s−d Λ hQi s , s > 0 (i. e. hQi s = T (Q)+(1− D T (x) = sx, x ∈ R Eand
d

D s)xE0 with
x0 ∈ R is the centre of Q). Note that we have hQi1/s = s Q + (1 − s )x0 =
d −1 −1
s s
Q.
Lemma 2.13. Let Q be a with side length mr > 0, m > 1. Then there exists a
constant C > 0 depending on m > 1 and d such that for ϕQ,m as defined in Lemma
2.12 we have
2 1−2/d
Λ hQi1/m
R
∇ϕQ,m dΛ
2 ≤ C(m − 1)−2 m1−2/d .
ν hQi1/m
R
ϕQ,m dν
Proof. Using Lemma 2.12, we find
2
Λ (Q) / (m − 1)2 r12
R
∇ϕQ,m dΛ 2 dC 2 Λ (Q)1−2/d
≤ dC ≤
ϕ2Q,m dν
R
(m − 1)2 m ν hQi1/m

ν hQi1/m
1−2/d
Λ hQi1/m
= dC 2 (m − 1)−2 m1−2/d .
ν hQi1/m
The following proposition applies only in the case d > 2.
Proposition 2.14. If dim∞ (ν) < d − 2 and d > 2, then the identity operator

C∞b Q , h·, ·i H
2
1 → Lν
is not continuous.
Proof. First note that

maxQ∈DnN log ν (Q)
dim∞ (ν) = lim inf <d−2
n→∞ −n log 2
implies that there exists a sequence of cubes (Qn ) ∈ DN with strictly decreasing
diameters such that ν (Qn ) ≥ Λ (Qn )a/d , n ∈ N, for some a ∈ (dim∞ (ν) , d − 2).
Now we have for un B Λ hQn i2 1/d−1/2 ϕhQn i2 ,2 with C > 0 given in Lemma 2.12

Z Z !
2 2
kun k2H 1 = Λ hQn i2 2/d−1 + ϕ
∇ϕ
hQn i2 ,2 dΛ hQn i2 ,2 dΛ
Q Q
Z !
2/d−1 CΛ hQn i2 2
≤ Λ hQn i2 + ϕhQn i2 ,2 dΛ

Λ(Qn )2/d Q

≤ Λ hQn i2 2/d−1 4CΛ hQn i2 −2/d+1 + Λ hQn i2 ≤ 4(C + 1).

On the other hand we have for n tending to infinity
kun k2L2 ≥ Λ hQn i2 2/d−1 ν (Qn ) = 22−d Λ (Qn )2/d−1 ν (Qn )

ν
≥ 22−d Λ (Qn )(a+2−d)/d → ∞.
This proves the claim.
3. Partition functions and Lq -spectra

As in the introduction mentioned, here we consider the d-dimensional unit cube
Q B di=1 Ii , for d ≥ 2 fixed and I j (half-open, open, or closed) unit interval for
Q
j = 1,S. . . , d. The semiring of dyadic cubes D associated with Q are defined by
D B n∈N DnN . For example, if Q = (0, 1]d , then we may choose
 d 

Y −n 
D= , −n
+ n
.
 
2 k 2 (k 1) : k ∈ with k ≤ 2 − 1, n ∈

 i i i N0 i N 

 
i=1
Even though, the particular choice of the set of dyadic cubes is not unique, we will
see that this does not affect our results (see Lemma 3.7, Lemma 3.9 and Lemma
3.12 ).
In this chapter we introduce the new notion of partition functions with respect
to a non-negative, monotone set function J defined on the dyadic cubes D. One
further natural assumption is that J is locally non-vanishing, that is, if J(Q) > 0 for
Q ∈ D, then there exists Q0 ( Q, Q0 ∈ D with J(Q0 ) > 0. Note that this assumption
is satisfied for each specific choice for J that we consider.
Of particular interests are the cases when J is chosen to be Jν as defined in
the introduction or J = ν, where in the latter case we obtain the well-known
Lq -spectrum, for which we also write βνDN .
3.1. The partition function. Recall the definition in (1.1) of the partition function
with respect to J given by
P
log q
D/N J(C)
C∈D
τJD/N (q) B lim sup τJ,n (q), with τJ,n
D/N
(q) B n
n→∞ log(2n )
n o
together with the critical values qJD/N B inf q ≥ 0 : τJD/N (q) < 0 and
 

 X 

κJ B inf  q
< .
 
q ≥ 0 : J(Q) ∞
 

 


Q∈D
 
We start with some general observations for which we need the following objects:
\[n o maxQ∈DnN log J (Q)
supp (J) B Q : Q ∈ DnN , J (Q) > 0 and dim∞ (J) B lim inf .
k∈N n≥k
n→∞ − log 2n
We call dim∞ (J) the ∞-dimension of J which generalises the lower ∞-dimension
for ν defined in (♠). Obviously, the following holds.
Lemma 3.1. If dim∞ (J) > 0, then J is uniformly vanishing, i. e. we have
limn→∞ maxC∈DnN J(C) = 0.
Remark 3.2. Note that thanks to the monotonicity of J the assumption limn→∞ maxC∈DnN J(C) =
0 is equivalent to limn→∞ supC∈Sk≥n DN J(C) = 0.
k
In the following lemma we use the convention −∞ · 0 = 0 and as for measure we

write dim M (J) B dim M supp (J) .
Lemma 3.3. For q ≥ 0, we have
− dim∞ (J)q ≤ τJN (q) ≤ dim M (J) − dim∞ (J)q (3.1)
and
dim∞ (J) > 0 ⇐⇒ qJN < ∞.
In particular, qJN ≤ dim M (J) / dim∞ (J) and
qJN < ∞ =⇒ κJ = qJN .
Proof. The first claim follows from the following simple inequalities
   
 X   X 
q max log J (Q) ≤ log  q
J(C)  ≤ log  1 + q max log J (Q) .
 
  
Q∈DnN     Q∈DnN
C∈Dn N C∈Dn ,ν(C)>0
N
Now, assume qJN < ∞. It follows there exists q > 0 such that τJN (q) < 0. Conse-
quently, we obtain from (3.1) − dim∞ (J)q ≤ τJN (q) < 0, which gives dim∞ (J) > 0.
Reversely, suppose dim∞ (ν) > 0. In the case dim∞ (J) = ∞, using (3.1), we have
qJN = 0 due to τJN (q) = −∞ for q > 0. Now, let us consider the case 0 < dim∞ (J) <
∞. Then it follows from (3.1) that τJN (q) < 0 for all q > dim M (J) / dim∞ (J) which
proves the implication.
Now, assume qJN < ∞. Then we have τJN (q) < 0 for all q > qJN , and therefore, for
every ε > 0 with τJN (q) < −ε < 0 and n large enough, we obtain
X
J(Q)q ≤ 2−nε ,
Q∈DnN
n o
implying Q∈D J(Q)q < ∞. This shows inf q ≥ 0 : Q∈D J(Q)q < ∞ ≤ qJN . For
P P
the reversed inequality we note that if qJN = 0, then the claimed equality is clear.
If, on the other hand, qJN > 0, then we necessarily have dim∞ (J) < ∞. Since,
τJN is decreasing, convex and proper, it follows that qJN is a zero of τJN and for all
0 < q < qJN
0 < τJN (q).
This implies that for every 0 < δ < τJN (q), there is subsequence (nk ) such that
2nk δ ≤
X
J(Q)q
Q∈DnNk
and therefore, X X X
∞= J(Q)q ≤ J(Q)q
k∈N Q∈DnN Q∈D
k
n o
and consequently qJN ≤ inf q ≥ 0 : q <∞.
P
Q∈D J(Q)
Remark 3.4. Note that in the case dim∞ (J) ≤ 0, we deduce from Lemma 3.3 τJN (q)
is non-negative for q ≥ 0, hence qJN = ∞. However, it is possible that κJ < ∞.
Indeed, in Example 9.2 we give an example of a measure ν, where κJν gives the
precise upper bound for the spectral dimension, while κJν < qJNν = ∞.
Lemma 3.5. If dim∞ (J) ∈ (0, ∞), then τJN is convex and strictly decreasing on R≥0 .
In particular, if qJN > 0, then qJN is the only zero of τJN .
Proof. First, note that Lemma 3.3 implies τJN (q) ∈ R for all q ≥ 0 and limq τJN (q) =
−∞. Since dim∞ (J) > 0 it follows Lemma 3.1 that for n large J(Q) < 1, Q ∈ DnN .
Hence, it follows that τJN is decreasing and as pointwise limit superior of convex
functions again convex. Now, we show that τJN is strictly decreasing. Assume there
exist 0 ≤ q1 < q2 such that τJN (q1 ) = τJN (q2 ). Since, τJN is decreasing function we
obtain τJN (q1 ) = τJN (q) for all q ∈ [q1 , q2 ]. Let q00 ∈ (q1 , q2 ). The convexity of τJN
implies for all q0 > q00
τJN (q00 ) − τJN (q1 ) τJN (q0 ) − τJN (q1 )
0= ≤ ≤ 0,
q00 − q1 q0 − q1
which implies τJN (q) = τJN (q1 ) for all q > q1 which contradicts limq τJN (q) = −∞.
For the second claim note that, since τJN is convex, it follows that τJN is continuous
on R>0 . Hence, we obtain τJN (qJN ) = 0. Finally, the uniqueness follows from the fact
that τJN is a finite strictly decreasing function.
Definition 3.6. We say that a non-negative, monotone set function J defined on all
possible dyadic sub-cubes of Q is locally almost subadditive if for any two sets of
e D of Q by dyadic cubes there exists a constant C > 0 such that
dyadic partitions D,
N
for every Q ∈ Dn we have
X
J Q0 .

J (Q) ≤ C
e N :Q∩Q0 ,∅
Q 0 ∈D n+2
Lemma 3.7. For a non-negative, monotone and locally almost subadditive set
function J defined on all possible dyadic sub-cubes of Q, we have that the definition
of τJD/N does not depend on the particular choice of the dyadic partition.
Proof. Let DnD/N and D

e nD/N be two partitions of Q. Since for Q ∈ DnD/N ,
n o
card Q0 ∈ D e D/N : Q ∩ Q0 , ∅ ≤ 6d ,
n+2
we obtain
 q
X X  X 
J (Q)q ≤ J Q0 
C 
 
Q∈DnD/N Q∈DnD/N e N :Q∩Q0 ,∅
Q 0 ∈D n+2
X q
≤ 6dqC q max J Q0
e N :Q∩Q0 ,∅
Q 0 ∈D
Q∈DnD/N n+2
X q
= 6dqC q max J Q0
e N :Q∩Q0 ,∅
Q 0 ∈D
e nD/N
Q∈D n+2
X
≤ 6dqC q 2d J Q0 q ,

e D/N
Q 0 ∈D n+2
e D/N intersects at most 2d cubes

using in the last inequality the fact that each Q0 ∈ D n+2
e nD/N . Exchanging the role of D and D
in D e proves the lemma.
We now summarise the above and mention a few more basic characteristics.
Fact 3.8. We make the following elementary observations under the assumption
dim∞ (J) ∈ (0, ∞):
(1) limq→∞ τJN (q) /q = − dim∞ (J).
(2) τJN (q) > −∞ for all q ≥ 0.
(3) τJN (0) = dim M (J) ≤ d, where dim M (J) denotes the upper Minkowski
dimension defined by
n o
log card Q ∈ DnN : Q ∩ supp(J) , ∅
dim M (J) B lim sup .
n→∞ log(2n )
(4) If τJN (1) ≥ 0 and qJN > 1 hold, then
dim∞ (J) + τJN (1)
qJN ≤ .
dim∞ (J)
(5) If qJN > 1, then

dim M (J)
≤ qJN .
dim M (J) − τJN (1)
(6) If qJN < 1, then
dim M (J)
qJN ≤ .
dim M (J) − τJN (1)
(7) If supp (J) ⊂ Q̊, then we have τJD (q) = τJN (q).
D/N
(8) The partition function is scale invariant, i. e. for c > 0, we have τcJ =
τJD/N .
Proof. We only give a proof of the assertion in (3), namely τJN (0) = dim M (J).
First, observe that, if Q ∈ DnN , Q ∩ supp(J) , ∅, then there exists Q0 ∈ DnN with
Q0 ∩ Q , ∅ and J(Q0 ) > 0. This can be seen as follows: For x ∈ Q ∩ supp(J)
there exists a subsequence (nk ) such that x ∈ Qnk , Qnk ∈ Dnk and ν(Qnk ) > 0. For
k ∈ N such that nk ≥ n there exists exactly one Q0 ∈ DnN with Qnk ⊂ Q0 . Now,
x ∈ Qnk ⊂ Q0 , implying Q0 ∩ Q , ∅ and since J nis monotone, we have ν(Q o ) > 0.
0
Furthermore, for each Q ∈ DnN , we have card Q00 ∈ DnN : Q00 ∩ Q , ∅ ≤ 3d .

Combining these two observations, we obtain
n o
card Q ∈ DnN : Q ∩ supp(J) , ∅
n o
≤ card Q ∈ DnN : ∃Q0 ∈ DnN , Q0 ∩ Q , ∅, J(Q0 ) > 0
n o
≤ 3d card Q ∈ DnN : J(Q) > 0 ,
implying τJN (0) ≥ dim M (J).

For the reversed inequality, we first show that for Q ∈ DnN with J(Q) > 0, we have
Q∩supp(J) , ∅. Indeed, since J is locally non-vanishing there exists a subsequence
(nk ) with Qnk ∈ Dnk , J Qnk > 0 and Qnk ⊂ Qnk−1 ⊂ Q. Since Qnk is a nested
N
T k
sequence of non-empty compact subsets of Q we have ∅ , k∈N Qnk ⊂ supp(J)∩ Q.
Therefore, we complete the proof by observing
n o n o
card Q ∈ DnN : J(Q) > 0 ≤ card Q ∈ DnN : Q ∩ supp(J) , ∅
n o
≤ 3d card Q ∈ DnN : Q ∩ supp(J) , ∅ .

3.2. The Lq -spectrum. In this section we collect some important facts about the Lq -
D/N D/N D/N D/N
spectrum for ν, which is defined
by βν B τν with approximations βν,n B τν,n ,
n ∈ N. We will assume ν Q̊ > 0, implying that there exists a sub-cube Q ∈ D with
Q ⊂ Q̊, ν(Q) > 0 and hence −∞ < βν|NQ ≤ βνD .
Since, ν is almost locally almost subadditive and limq βν (q)/q = − dim∞ (ν), we
obtain from Lemma 3.7 the following lemma.
Lemma 3.9. The definition of βνD/N and dim∞ (ν) does not depend on the particular
choice of the dyadic partition.
Fact 3.10. We make the following elementary observations:
(1) βνN (0) = dim M (ν) .
(2) dim∞ (ν) ≤ d.
(3) βνN (1) = 0 and if ν Q̊ > 0 , then also βνD (1) = 0.
(4) For the Dirichlet Lq -spectrum we have βνD = βν|D .
Q̊
(5) For q ≥ 0, we have −qd ≤ βνN (q) and if ν Q̊ > 0, also −qd ≤ βνD (q).
(6) If supp(ν) ⊂ Q̊, then we have βνD = βνN .
(7) If ν is absolutely continuous with density h ∈ LΛ t for some t > d/2, then
βν (q) = βν (q) = d (1 − q), for all q ∈ [0, t].

D N
(8) The condition dim∞ (ν) > d −2 requires that the upper Minkowski dimension
dim M (ν) and the Hausdorff dimension dimH (ν) must also lie in (d − 2, d].
This in particular rules out the possibility of atomic parts of ν, if d ≥ 2; for
d = 1, atomic examples have been studied extensively in [KN22].
Remark 3.11. It is worth noting that the situation is much simpler in the one-
dimensional case, which follows from the fact that the boundary contains only two
points. Suppose ν is a non-zero Borel probability measure on (0, 1). Then for all
q ∈ [0, 1], βνD (q) = βνN (q).
3.3. The spectral partition function and connections to the Lq -spectrum. This
section is devoted to the special case J = Jν,a,b , where for b ≥ 0 and a ∈ R,
 b
supQ∈D(Q) ν Qe log Λ Q e , a = 0,



Jν,a,b (Q) B 
e
eb Λ Q e a,

sup ν Q a , 0,

 e Q∈D(Q)
Recall that τJD/N

ν,t
= τJD/N
ν,(2/d−1),2/t
, τJD/N
ν
= τJD/N
ν,(2/d−1),1
. We call τJD/N
ν,a,b
the spectral partition

function of ν with parameter a, b. For the Dirichlet case we always assume ν Q̊ > 0.
We first investigate under which condition the Definition 3.6 for Jν,a,b is fulfilled.
Lemma 3.12. The set function Jν,a,b with b ∈ R>0 , a ∈ R is non-negative, monotone,
uniformly vanishing and locally almost subadditive, provided b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0.
In particular, if dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, then Definition 3.6 is fulfilled for Jν,t with
t ∈ (0, 2 dim∞ (ν)/(d − 2)) and C = 22ad 6d .
Proof. We only consider the case a , 0. The case a = 0 follows in a similar way.
Let s ∈ R such that −ad/b < s < dim∞ (ν). Hence, we have for n sufficiently large
ν(Q) ≤ 2−sn , Q ∈ DnN .
This gives
sup Jν,a,b (Q) ≤ 2(−ad−bs)n .
Q∈ k≥n DkN
S
Hence, we have that J is non-negative and monotone uniformly vanishing and for
every Q ∈ DnN we have supQ0 ∈D(Q) ν(Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a = ν (Qmax )b Λ (Qmax )a for some
N with m ≥ n. Hence,
Qmax ∈ D(Q) ∩ Dm
X b
Jν,a,b (Q) = ν (Qmax )b Λ (Qmax )a ≤ 2adm ν Q0
e N :Q0 ∩Qmax ,∅
Q 0 ∈D m+2
≤ 2−2ad 6d ν Q0 b Λ(Q0 )a

max
Q 0 ∈D m+2
≤ 2−2ad 6d Jν,a,b Q0

max
Q 0 ∈D m+2
≤ 2−2ad 6d Jν,a,b Q0

max
e N :Q0 ∩Q,∅
Q 0 ∈D n+2
X
≤ 2−2ad 6d Jν,a,b Q0 .

e N :Q0 ∩Q,∅
Q 0 ∈D n+2

We now elaborate some connections between the Lq -spectrum and the spectral
partition function.
Proposition 3.13. Let a < 0 and assume b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0, then for all q ≥ 0, we
have
βνD/N (bq) − adq ≤ τJD/N
ν.a,b
(q) ≤ βνD/N (q (b + ad/ dim∞ (ν))) andτJD/N
ν,a,b
(0) = βνD/N (0) .
If a > 0, then βνD/N (bq) − adq = τJD/N

ν.a,b
(q).
Proof. We only consider the case a < 0. Let q ≥ 0. We have for every −ad/b < s <
dim∞ (ν) and n large enough
ν(C) ≤ 2−sn ,
with C ∈ DnN . This leads to n ≤ − log2 (ν(C)) /s. Hence, we obtain
ν(C)bq Λ(C)qa = ν(C)2bq 2−adqn ≤ ν(C)bq 2adq log2 (ν(C))/s = ν(C)q(b+ad/s) .
We get ν(C)bq Λ(C)qa ≤ Jν,a,b (C)q ≤ ν(C)q(b+ad/s) and
τJD/N
ν.a,b
(q) ≤ βνD/N (q(b + ad/s)).
Finally, the continuity of βνD/N gives

τJD/N
ν.a,b
(q) ≤ βνD/N (q (b + ad/ dim∞ (ν))) .

Corollary 3.14. Let a , 0. Assume b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0 and βνN is linear on [0, ∞).
Then, for all q ≥ 0, we have
τJNν.a,b (q) = βνN (bq) − adq = dim M (ν) − q(bdim M (ν) + ad).
Proposition 3.15. Let d = 2 and assume dim∞ (ν) > d − 2. Then for all b > 0 and
q ≥ 0, we have
βνD/N (bq) = τJD/N
ν,0,b
(q) .
Furthermore, if βνD/N (bq) exists as limit, then βνD/N (bq) = lim inf n→∞ τJD/N
ν,0,b ,n
(q).
Proof. Let q > 0. For dim∞ (ν) > ε > 0, we have for n large enough and all
C ∈ DnD/N
ν(C) ≤ 2−εn
or, alternatively, ν(C)d/ ≤ Λ (C). Since, ν(C) becomes uniformly small for all
C ∈ DnD/N and n large, for every 0 < δ < b, we obtain
log (1/ν(C)) q ≤ ν(C)−qδ .

This leads to
X X
log(2)d ν(C)bq ≤ Jν,0,b (C)q
C∈DnD/N C∈DnD/N
d X
sup log(1/ν(Q) q ν(Q)bq .

≤
ε D/N Q∈D(C)
C∈Dn
d X
≤ ν(C)q(b−δ)
ε D/N
C∈Dn
Hence,
βνD/N (qb) ≤ τJD/N
ν,0,b
(q) ≤ βνD/N (q(b − δ))
and for δ & 0, the continuity of βνD/N gives βνD/N (qb) = τJD/N
ν,0,b
(q). In the same way we
obtain under assumption that βνD/N exists as limit that βνD/N (bq) = lim inf n→∞ τJD/N
ν,0,b ,n
(q).

Corollary 3.16. If d = 2 and dim∞ (ν) > 0, then τJNν (1) = βνN (1) = 0, or equiva-

lently, qJNν = 1. If additionally ν Q̊ > 0, then τJDν (1) = βνD (1) = 0, or equivalently,
qJDν = 1.
By virtue of Proposition 3.13 and Proposition 3.15 we arrive at the following list
of facts.
Fact 3.17. Assuming b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0, the following list of properties of the
spectral partition function applies:
(1) supp Jν,a,b = supp (ν).

(2) dim∞ (Jν,a,b ) = b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0.
(3) We have that qJNν,a,b is the unique zero of τa,b
N and
dim∞ (ν)
qJNν,a,b ≤ .
b dim∞ (ν) + ad
(4) We have dim∞ (ν) ≤ dim M (ν) and
d dim M (ν)
(2/d−1) ≤ qJν .
N N
≤ ≤ qνΛ
2 dim M (ν) − d + 2
If additionally, dim∞ (ν) = dim M (ν), then
dim M (ν)
(2/d−1) = qJν = .
N N
qνΛ
dim M (ν) − d + 2
(5) If ν is absolutely continuous with density h ∈ LΛ r for some r > d/2, then
τJDν (q) = τJNν (q) = βνN (q) + (d − 2)q, for all q ∈ [0, r].
(6) For the Dirichlet spectral partition function we have τJDν,a,b = τJDν| ,a,b .
Q̊
(7) For c > 0, we have τJD/N cν,a,b
= τJD/N
ν,a,b
and we can assume without loss of
generality that ν is a probability measure.
3.4. Special cases. In this section we show that for some particular cases (abso-
lutely continuous measures, Ahlfors–David regular measures, and self-conformal
measures) the spectral partitions function is completely determined by the Lq -
spectrum assuming dim∞ (ν) > d − 2. Furthermore, for these classes of measures
we investigate under which conditions the Dirichlet and the Neumann Lq -spectra
coincide. Later, we will use the results to calculate the spectral dimension for these
classes of measures.
3.4.1. Absolutely continuous measures.

Proposition 3.18. Let d > 2 and ν be an non-zero absolutely continuous measure
r for some r ≥ d/2. Then, for all q ∈ [0, r],
with Lebesgue density f ∈ LΛ
lim inf τJD/N
ν ,n
(q) = τJD/N
ν
(q) = βνD/N (q) − (2 − d)q = d − 2q.
n→∞
Proof. By Jensen’s Inequality, for d/2 ≤ q ≤ r and Q ∈ DD/N , we have

Z !q Z !
ν (Q) =
q
f Λ (Q) dΛ Λ (Q) ≤
−1 q
f dΛ Λ (Q)q−1 .
q
Q Q
R
This shows that ν (Q)q Λ (Q)2q/d−q ≤ Q f q dΛ Λ (Q)2q/d−1 , and since 0 ≤ 2q/d−1,
we notice that the right-hand side is monotonic in Q. Therefore we get the following
upper bound
Z !
e 2q/d−1
X X
sup ν (Q) Λ (Q)

q 2q/d−q
≤ f dΛ Λ Q
q
e nD/N Q∈Dn Q e nD/N Q

Q∈D Q∈D
e
q
≤ 2−n(2q−d) k f kLq .
Λ
This proves the claim for d/2 ≤ q ≤ r. For the remaining case, we use the convexity
of τJD/N
ν
, the lower bound obtained above and the fact that τJD/N
ν
(0) ≤ d, to obtain for
q ∈ [0, r],
d − 2q ≥ τJD/N
ν
(q) ≥ βνD/N (q) − (2 − d)q = d − 2q.

3.4.2. Ahlfors–David regular measures. In this example we assume that ν is an

a-Ahlfors–David regular probability measure with α ∈ (d − 2, d] and ν Q̊ > 0.
Then for appropriate C > 0 and every Q ∈ D with ν (Q) > 0 we have
C −1 Λ (Q)α/d ≤ ν Q̊ and ν (Q) ≤ CΛ (Q)α/d .
D E
(3.2)
2
This implies
n o
log card Q ∈ DnN : ν (Q) > 0
dim M (ν) = lim
n→∞ log 2n
n o
log card Q ∈ DnD : ν (Q) > 0
= lim = α = dim∞ (ν) .
n→∞ log 2n

Indeed, since ν Q̊ > 0 we find an element E ∈ D with E ⊂ Q̊ and ν (E) = ε > 0.
Then, on the one hand, for large n ∈ N we have
n o
n o log card Q0 ∈ DnD : ν (Q0 ) > 0
card Q0 ∈ DnD : ν Q0 > 0 C2−nα ≥ ε =⇒ lim inf ≥ α.

n log 2n
On the other hand,
n o
n o log card Q0 ∈ DnN : ν (Q0 ) > 0
card Q0 ∈ DnN : ν Q0 > 0 C −1 2−nα 3−d ≤ 1 =⇒ lim sup ≤ α.

n log 2n
Next we prove that for all q ≥ 0
τJD/N
ν
(q) = βνD/N (q) + (2 − d) q = (α + 2 − d) q − α
exists as a limit. Indeed,
X X n o
Jν (Q)q ≤ C 2−n(α+2−d)q ≤ C card Q ∈ DnN : ν (Q) > 0 2−n(α+2−d)q
Q∈DnN Q∈DnN
and
X X
Jν (Q)q ≥ ν (Q)q 2(d−2)nq
D
Q∈Dn+1 D
Q∈Dn+1
X D E q
≥ 2(d−2)nq 4−dq−d ν Q̊
2
Q∈DnD ,ν(Q)>0
n o
≥ C −1 4−dq−d card Q ∈ DnD : ν (Q) > 0 2−n(α+2−d)q ,
giving the claim.
3.4.3. Conformal iterated function systems. Let U ⊂ Rd be an open set. We say a
C 1 -map S : U → Rd is conformal if for every x ∈ U the matrix S 0 (x), giving the
total derivative of S in x, satisfies |S 0 (x) · y| = kS 0 (x)k |y| for all y ∈ Rd .
Let us assume that Q is closed. A family of mappings {S i : Q → Q}i=1,...,` , ` ≥ 2
is a conformal iterated function system if each S i extends to an injective conformal
map S i : U → U on an open set U and the following conditions are satisfied:
n o
sup S 0 (x) : x ∈ U < 1
i
and there exists a constant D ≥ 1 such that for all n ∈ N and u ∈ {1, . . . , `}n

−1
S u0 (x)
D ≤ ≤D
kS u0 (y)k
for x, y ∈ U with S u = S 1 ◦ · · · ◦ S u|u| , where |u| denotes the length of u. Further,

we suppose that the contraction S i , i ∈ {1, . . . , `}, do not share the same fixed point.
For a conformal iterated function system {S i : Q → Q}i=1,...,` there exists a unique
compact set K ⊂ Q such that
`
[
K= S i (K).
i=1
Let (pi )i∈I be the associated positive probability vector and define pu = |u|
Q
i=1 pui .
Then there is a unique Borel probability measure ν with support K such that
`
X
ν(A) = pi ν S −1 (A)
i=1

for A ∈ B Rd . We refer to ν as the self-conformal measure.
We need the following result from [PS00, Theorem 1.1]:
For a self-conformal measure ν, the Lq -spectrum βνN exists as a
limit on R>0 .
Proposition 3.19. For d > 2 let ν denote a self-conformal measure on the closed
cube Q such that (♠) holds. Then for q ≥ 0,
βνN (q) + (d − 2)q = lim inf βν,n

N
(q) + (d − 2)q = τJNν (q) = lim inf τJNν ,n (q).
n→∞ n→∞
Proof of Proposition 3.19. Note that a B 2 − d > − dim∞ (ν) implies
sup ν (Q) Λ (Q)a/d C K < ∞.

Q∈D
For n ∈ N, as in [PS00], we let
Wn B ω ∈ I ∗ : diam(S ω (Q)) ≤ 2−n , diam(S ω− (Q)) > 2−n ,

which defines a partition of I N if we identify finite words with cylinder sets in I N .

Now fix Q ∈ DnN . For any Q0 ⊂ D (Q) we set
0
I Q B u ∈ Wn : S u (Q) ∩ Q0 , ∅ .

0

If Q0 ∈ Dn+m
N ∩ D (Q), m ∈ N and u ∈ I Q we have diam S u−1 (Q0 ) ≤ L2−m
for some L > 0 and hence it is contained in at most 3d cubes from Dm−kN with

−1 0
k B log(L)/ log(2) (this gives diam S u (Q ) ≤ 2 −m+k ). Also, by definition of
Q 0
I and Wn , we have
[ [ [
S u (Q) ⊂ Q00 ⊂ Q03 B Q00 .
0
u∈I Q Q00 ∈DnN ,Q00 ∩Q0 ,∅ Q00 ∈DnN ,Q00 ∩Q,∅
Then we have
X
ν Q0 Λ Q0 a/d = 2−a(n+m) pu ν S u−1 Q0

u∈Wn
X
=2 −an
pu 2−am ν S u−1 Q0
0
u∈I Q
X X
≤ 2−an pu 2−ak 2−a(m−k) ν(C)
u∈I Q0 N ,S −1 (Q0 )∩C,∅
C∈Dm−k u
n o X
≤ 2−ak 3d max ν (C) Λ (C)a/d 2−an pu
N
C∈Dm−k 0
u∈I Q
 
n o  [ 
= 2−ak 3d max ν (C) Λ (C)a/d 2−an ν  S u (Q)
N
C∈Dm−k 0
u∈I Q

≤ 2−ak 3d Kν Q03 2−an .
Since in the above inequality Q0 ∈ D (Q) was arbitrary, we deduce for q > 0,
X X q
Jν (Q)q ≤ 2(d−2)kq 3dq K q 2−naq ν Q03
Q∈DnN Q∈DnN
 q
X  X 
≤ 2(d−2)kq 3dq K q 2−naq ν(Q )
0 
 
 
Q∈DnN Q0 ∈Dn ,Q0 ∩Q,∅
X
≤ 2(d−2)kq 3dq K q 2−naq 3dq max ν(Q0 )q
Q0 ∈DnN ,Q0 ∩Q,∅
Q∈DnN
X
≤ 2(d−2)kq 3dq K q 2−naq 3dq+d ν(Q)q .
Q∈DnN
This gives βνN (q) − adq ≥ τJNν (q). Furthermore, observe that βJNν (0) = dim M (ν) =
βνN (0). To complete the proof, observe that
X X
ν (Q)q Λ (Q)a ≤ Jν (Q)q .
Q∈DnN Q∈DnN
Finally, [PS00, Theorem 1.1] gives βνN (q)−adq ≤ lim inf n→∞ τJNν ,n (q) for q > 0.
Proposition 3.20. Let ν denote a self-conformal measure on Q̊ and dim∞ (ν) > d−2
. Then
βνN (q) = βνD (q) = lim inf βν,n
D
(q) = lim inf βν,n
N
(q)
n→∞ n→∞
for all q > 0.
Proof. We use the same notation as in the proof of Proposition 3.19. By our
assumption there exists n ∈ N such that S u (Q) ⊂ Q̊ for some u ∈ Wn . Indeed
assume for all n ∈ N and u ∈ Wn , we have
S u (Q) ∩ ∂Q , ∅.
Further, using supu∈Wn diam (S u (Q)) ≤ 2−n → 0 for n → ∞ and K ⊂ u∈Wn S u (Q),
S
we deduce that K ⊂ ∂Q. This gives ν(∂Q) > 0 contradicting our assumption.
Let us√assume that the distance of S u (Q) to the boundary of Q is at least
2 −n−m 0 +2 d for some m0 ∈ N. Then all cubes Q ∈ Dn+m N intersecting S u (Q)
lie in Dn+m for all m > m0 . Therefore, using the self-similarity and [PS00, Lemma
D
2.2 \{}& 2.4] (with constant C1 from there) we have for q > 0
 q
X X  X 
ν (Q) =
q  pv ν S v Q 
−1
D
Q∈Dn+m D
Q∈Dn+m v∈Wn
q
X q q
X
≥ pu ν S u−1 Q ≥ C1−1 pu ν (Q)q .
N
Q∈Dn+m N
Q∈Dm
This gives βνN (q) ≤ βνD (q) and lim inf n→∞ βν,n
N (q) ≤ lim inf
n→∞ βν,n (q) for q > 0.
D
The reverse inequalities are obvious. Hence, the claim follows from [PS00, Theorem
1.1].
Corollary 3.21. Let ν denote a self-conformal measure on Q̊ and dim∞ (ν) > d − 2.
Then we have
βνN (q) + (d − 2)q = τJNν (q) = lim inf τJNν ,n (q) = τJDν (q) = lim inf τJDν ,n (q).
n→∞ n→∞
Proof. The case d = 2 follows immediately from Proposition 3.15 and Proposi-
tion 3.20. For d > 2, we obtain from Proposition 3.20 and Proposition 3.19 the
following chain of inequalities
βνN (q) + (d − 2)q = lim inf βν,n
D
(q) + (d − 2)q
n→∞
≤ lim inf τJDν ,n (q) ≤ lim inf τJNν ,n (q)
n→∞ n→∞
= τJNν (q) = βνN (q) + (d − 2)q.

4. Optimal partitions and partition entropy

4.1. Bounds for the partition entropy. We start with a general observation. Through-
out this section let J be a non-negative, locally non-vanishing, monotone and
uniformly vanishing set function on the dyadic cubes D with J (Q) > 0. For
x > 1/J(Q), we define MJ (x) as in Section 1.2 and recall the definition of ex-
ponential growth rate hJ and hJ referred to as the upper, resp. lower, J-partition
entropy.
Proposition 4.1. For 0 < t < J(Q), we have that

Pt B Q ∈ D : J(Q) < t & ∃Q ∈ D log Λ(Q) /d−1 : Q ⊃ Q &J(Q ) ≥ t
0 N 0 0
| 2 |
is a finite partition of dyadic cubes of Q, and we have
N log (card(Pt )) D
F J ≤ hJ ≤ lim sup ≤ κJ ≤ qJN and F J ≤ qJD .
t↓0 − log(t)
Proof. The fourth inequality is always true. We only have to consider the case κJ <
∞. The first statement follows from the monotonicity of J, limn→∞ supi≥n,C∈DN J(C) =
i
0 and the definition of D. Further, Lemma 3.3 gives κJ ≤ qJN (where equality holds
if dim∞ (J) > 0, otherwise qJN = ∞). Let 0 < t < J(Q). Setting
Rt B {Q ∈ D : J(Q) ≥ t} ,
we note that for Q ∈ Pt there is exactly one Q0 ∈ Rt ∩DNlog Λ(Q) /d−1 with Q ⊂ Q0 and
| 2 |
for each Q0 ∈ Rt ∩ DNlog Λ(Q) /d−1 there are at most 2d elements of Pt ∩ DNlog Λ(Q) /d
| 2 | | 2 |
such that they are subsets of Q0 . Hence,
card Pt ≤ 2d card Rt .
For q > κJ we obtain
∞
X X ∞
X X
tq card Pt = tq 1 ≤ 2d tq
n=1 Q∈Pt ∩DnN n=0 Q∈Rt ∩DnN
∞
X X ∞ X
X
≤ 2d q
J(Q) ≤ 2 d
J(Q)q < ∞.
n=0 Q∈Rt ∩DnN n=0 Q∈DnN
This implies
card Pt
lim sup ≤ q.
t↓0 − log(t)
Now, q tending to κJ proves the third inequality. The second inequality follows
immediately form the observation that MJ (x) ≤ card P1/x . The first inequality
follows from the following observation. For α > 0, n ∈ N and P ∈ ΠJ such that
maxC∈P J (C) < 2−nα , we have
n o
N
Nα,J (n) = card Q ∈ DnN : J(Q) ≥ 2−αn ≤ card (P) ,
where we used the fact that for each Q with J(Q) ≥ 2−αn there exists at least one
Q0 ⊂ D (Q) ∩ P and the this assignment is injective. The last claim follows from
the fact that for every α > 0 and q = qJD , we have
(n) ≤ 2αnq
X
D
Nα,J J(Q)q .
Q∈DnD

Remark 4.2. Alternatively, the algorithm stated in Proposition 4.1 can be also
formulated as follows (here we follow [HKY00]):
Let 0 < t < J(Q). We say Q ∈ D is bad, if J(Q) ≥ t, otherwise we call Q
good. We generate a partition of Q of elements of D into good intervals which will
be denoted by Gt . Since by the choice of t, we see that Q is bad. Hence, we put
B0 B {Q}. Now, we divide each element of B0 into 2d cubes of D of equal size and
check whether they are good, in which case we move these cubes to Gt , or they are
bad, in which case they are put into B1 .We repeat this procedure until the set of bad
cubes is empty. The process terminates, which is ensured by the assumption that J
decreases uniformly. The resulting partition Gt coincides with Pt in Proposition 4.1.

See also [DeV87] and the recent publication [DKS20; DR14; KS16] for related
results.
In the next section (Proposition 5.8) we will show equality in the above chain of
inequalities using the coarse multifractal formalism.
Proposition 4.3. Assume there exists a subsequence (nk ) and K > 0 such that for
all k ∈ N,
K X
max J(Q)qnk ≤ J(Q)qnk ,
Q∈DnNk nk τnNk (0)
2 Q∈DnN k
where qnk is the unique zero of τnNk . Further, suppose lim inf qnk > 0. Then we have
hJ ≤ lim inf qnk .
k→∞
Proof. First of all note that we have Q∈DnN J(Q)qnk = 1. Further, since J is
P
k
uniformly decreasing, we choose k large enough such that J(Q) < 1 for all Q ∈ DnNk .
This ensures that τnNk has a unique zero. Hence, we obtain
K 1/qnk
max J(Q) ≤ .
2nk τnk (0)/qnk
N
Q∈DnNk
This implies
log 2nk τnk (0)
N
2τnk (0)nk /qnk

!
MJ ≤ τ (0)n /q ,
2K 1/qnk nk k n
log 2 1/qnk k
2K
which proves the claim.
4.2. Application to subadditive set functions. Let J be a non-negative, finite,
monotone, locally non-vanishing set function on D such that dim∞ (J) > 0. This
section is devoted to study the following quantity
γJ,n B min max J(Q).
P∈ΠJ ,card(P)≤n Q∈P
In particular, we are interested in the special choice J J,a (Q) B J(Q)Λ(Q)a , a > 0,
Q ∈ D, where J is a non-negative, finite, locally non-vanishing, subadditive function

on D, that is, if Q ∈ D is decomposed into a finite number of disjoint cubes Q j of
j
D, then J(Q j ) ≤ J(Q). We are interested now in the growth properties of γJJ,a ,n .
P
Upper estimates for γJJ,a ,n have been first obtained in [BS67; Bor71]. Here, we
proceed as follows: First we present an adaptive partition algorithm (in the sense
of [DeV87]) going back to Birman/Solomyak [BS67; Bor71] to obtain well-known
upper bounds on γJJ,a ,n . After that we employ the estimates in Proposition 4.1 to
partially improve and extend the results in [BS67; Bor71].
In following we use the terminology as in [DKS20]. Let Ξ0 be a finite partition
of Q of dyadic cubes from D. We say a partition Ξ0 of Q is an elementary extension
of Ξ0 , if it can be obtained from by uniformly splitting some of its cubes into 2d
equal sized disjoint cubes lying in D with half side length. We call a partition Ξ
dyadic subdivision of an initial partition Ξ0 if it is obtained from the partition Ξ0

with the help of a finite number of elementary extensions.
Proposition 4.4. Let Ξ0 be a finite partition of Q with dyadic cubes from D and
0
suppose there exists ε > 0 and a subset Ξ0 ⊂ Ξ0 such that
X X
Λ(Q) ≤ ε and J(Q) ≤ ε.
0 0
Q∈Ξ0 \Ξ0 Q∈Ξ0
Let (Pk )k∈N denote a sequence of dyadic partitions obtained recursively as follows:
set P0 B Ξ0 and, for k ∈ N, construct an elementary extension Pk of Pk−1 by
subdividing all cubes Q ∈ Pk−1 , for which
J J,a (Q) ≥ 2−daGa (Pk−1 ),
into 2d equal sized cubes. Then, for k ∈ N, we have
Ga (Pk ) B max J J,a (Q) ≤ Cεmin(1,a) (Nk − N0 )−(1+a) J(Q)
Q∈Pk
with Nk B card(Pk ), k ∈ N0 , and the constant C > 0 depends only on a and d. In

particular, there exists C 0 > 0 such that for all n > N0 ,
γJJ,a ,n ≤ C 0 εmin(1,a) n−(1+a) J(Q).
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume J(Q) ≤ 1. Fix k ∈ N and let
S k denote the set of all cubes from Pk−1 that are subdivided to obtain Pk , and let
0
S k1 , S k2 ⊂ S k with S k = S k1 ∪ S k2 and S k1 ⊂ Ξ0 \ Ξ0 and S k2 ⊂ Ξ00 . Further,
S S S S
2 B card(S ). By the definition of P ,
define tk B card(S k ), t1,k B card(S k1 ) and t2.k 2,k k
−da
we have minQ∈S i J J,a (Q) ≥ 2 Ga (Pk−1 ) and we obtain
k
1
1+a 1 1 X a 1
2−daGa (Pk−1 ≤ min J J,a (Q) 1+a ≤ Λ(Q) 1+a J(Q) 1+a .
Q∈S ki ti,k i
Q∈S k
By the Hölder inequality and the subadditivity of J, we obtain for i = 1,2,

  1+a a   1+a 1
1
 X   X 
1+a 1  ≤ 1 ε min(1,a)
2−daGa (Pk−1 ) ≤  Λ(Q)   J(Q) 1+a .
ti,k  i  
 
i
 ti,k
Q∈S k Q∈S k
This is equivalent to
ad min(1,a) 1
ti,k ≤ 2 1+a ε 1+a (Ga (Pk−1 ))− 1+a .
ad min(1,a) 1
Since tk = t1,k + t2,k , we have tk ≤ 21+ 1+a ε 1+a (Ga (Pk−1 ))− 1+a . By the definition of
the dyadic subdivision P j , j ∈ N,
Ga (P j ) ≤ 2−ad Ga (P j−1 ). (4.1)
Now, applying (4.1) recursively, for all integers j ≤ k we obtain Ga (Pk−1 ) ≤
2−ad(k− j)Ga (P j−1 ). Since for all j ∈ N we have N j − N j−1 = (2d − 1)t j . Hence, for
all k ∈ N , we deduce
k
X
Nk − N0 = (2 − 1)
d
tj
l=1
k
ad min(1,a) X 1
≤ 21+ 1+a ε 1+a (2d − 1) Ga (P j−1 )− 1+a
j=1
k
ad min(1,a) 1
X ad
≤ 21+ 1+a ε 1+a (2d − 1)Ga (Pk−1 )− 1+a 2− 1+a (k− j)
j=1
ad −1
ad min(1,a) 1
≤ 1 − 2− 1+a 21+ 1+a ε 1+a (2d − 1)Ga (Pk−1 )− 1+a
ad −1
ad min(1,a) ad 1
≤ 1 − 2− 1+a 21+ 1+a ε 1+a (2d − 1)2− 1+a Ga (Pk )− 1+a .
This proves our first claim. For second claim note that Nk−1 ≤ Nk ≤ 2d Nk−1 . Hence,
for n ∈ N with Nk−1 ≤ n ≤ Nk and using n2−d ≤ Nk−1 , we obtain
γJJ,a ,n ≤ γJJ,a ,Nk−1
≤ Cεmin(1,a) (Nk−1 − N0 )−(1+a)
−(1+a)
≤ Cεmin(1,a) 2−d n − N0 .

Definition 4.5. We call J singular function with respect to Λ, if for every ε > 0
there exist two partitions Ξ00 ⊂ Ξ0 ⊂ D of Q such that
X X
Λ(Q) ≤ ε and J(Q) ≤ ε.
0 0
Q∈Ξ0 \Ξ0 Q∈Ξ0
Remark 4.6. Since D is a semiring of sets, it follows that a measure ν which is

singular with respect to Lebesgue is also singular as a function J = ν in the sense of
Definition 4.5.
As an immediate corollary of Proposition 4.4, we obtain the following statement
due to [Bor71].
Corollary 4.7. We always have

γJJ,a ,n = O n−(1+a) and MJJ,a (x) = O x1/(1+a) .
If additionally J is singular, then

γJJ,a ,n = o n−(1+a) and MJJ,a (x) = o x1/(1+a) .
Using Proposition 4.1, we are able to extend the class of set functions considered
in [BS67, Theorem 2.1.] (i. e. we allow set functions J for which J is only assumed
to be non-negative, monotone and dim∞ (J) > 0). We obtain the following estimate
for the upper exponent of divergence of γJ,n given by
log γJ,n

αJ B lim sup .
n→∞ log(n)
Proposition 4.8. Let J be a non-negative monotone function on D such that
dim∞ (J) > 0. Then
1 1 dim∞ (J)
− = αJ ≤ − N ≤ − .
hJ qJ dim M (J)
In particular, for J = J J,a , we have
1 1 dim M (J) + ad
− = αJJ,a ≤ − ≤− ≤ −(1 + a).
hJJ,a qJNJ,a dim M (J)
Remark 4.9. If τJNJ,a (q) < d(1 − q(1 + a)) for some q ∈ (0, 1), then this estimate
improves the corresponding results of [Bor71; BS67, Theorem 2.1.], where only
αJJ,a ≤ −(1 + a) has been shown.
Proof. For all ε > 0, we have for n large

1/(hJ +ε)
MJ n ≤ n,
this gives minP∈ΠJ ,card(P)≤n maxQ∈P J(Q) ≤ n−1/(hJ +ε) . Thus, in tandem with Propo-
sition 4.1 and Fact 3.8, we see that αJ ≤ −1/hJ ≤ −1/qJN ≤ − dim∞ (J)/dim M (J).
To prove the equality, it is left to show αJ ≥ −1/hJ . First, assume αJ > −∞, then
for all ε > 0 with αJ + ε < 0, for n large, we have
min max J(Q) ≤ nαJ +ε .
P∈ΠJ ,card(P)≤n Q∈P
This implies MJ n−(αJ +ε) /2 ≤ n which shows hJ ≤ −1/αJ or αJ ≥ −1/hJ . In the

case αJ = −∞ it is follows in a similar way that hJ = 0. Now, we consider the

special case J = J J,a . Observe that τJNJ,a (q) = τNJ (q) − adq for q ≥ 0 and τNJ (0) ≤ d.
From the fact that J is sub-additive, it follows that τNJ (1) ≤ 0 and q 7→ τNJ (q), q ≥ 0
is decreasing. We only have to consider the case τNJ (1) > −∞. Since τNJ is convex,
we deduce
τJNJ,a (q) = τNJ (q) − adq ≤ τNJ (0)(1 − q) − adq ≤ d(1 − q) − adq.
This implies qJNJ,a ≤ τNJ (0)/(τNJ (0) + ad) ≤ 1/(1 + a). From Proposition 4.1 we
deduce
1 1 dim M (J) + ad
− ≤− N ≤− ≤ −(1 + a).
hJ qJJ,a dim M (J)

5. Coarse multifractal analysis

Throughout this section let J be a non-negative monotone, locally non-vanishing
set function defined on the set of dyadic cubes D satisfying Definition 3.6. We
additionally assume that
D/N
• there exists a > 0 and b ∈ R such that τJ,n (a) ≥ b for all n ∈ N large
enough (excluding trivial cases),
• the maximal asymptotic direction of τJN is negative, i. e. dim∞ (J) > 0 (this
generalises our standing assumption (♠)).
Lemma 5.1. Under the above assumption with a and b as determined there and
L B (b − d)/a < 0, for all n large enough and q ≥ 0, we have
D/N
b + qL ≤ τJ,n (q).
D/N
In particular, −∞ < lim inf n→∞ τJ,n (q) and dim∞ (J) ≤ −L.
D/N
Proof. By our assumption we have dim∞ (J) > 0, therefore, for n large, τJ,n is
D/N D/N
monotone decreasing and also b ≤ τJ,n (a). By definition we have τJ,n (0) ≤ d for
D/N
all n ∈ N and the convexity of τJ,n implies for all q ∈ [0, a]
D/N D/N

D/N D/N
q τJ,n (a) − τJ,n (0)
τJ,n (q) ≤ τJ,n (0) + .
a
D/N
In particular, the convexity of τJ,n implies for q > a
D/N D/N
D/N D/N

τJ,n (a) − τJ,n (0) τJ,n (q) − τJ,n (0)
≤ .
a q
Implying
D/N D/N

D/N
q τJ,n (a) − τJ,n (0)
b + q(b − d)/a ≤ τJ,n (0) +
D/N a D/N
D/N
q τJ,n (q) − τJ,n (0) D/N
≤ τJ,n (0) + = τJ,n (q).
q
D/N D/N D/N
Since τJ,n is decreasing with 0 ≤ τJ,n (0) ≤ d and τJ,n (a) ≥ b, we obtain for all
q ∈ [0, a]
D/N D/N
b + q(b − d)/a ≤ b ≤ τJ,n (a) ≤ τJ,n (q).

Remark 5.2. If dim∞ (ν) > d − 2 and ν Q̊ > 0, then the assumptions of Lemma 5.1
are satisfied for τJD/N
ν ,n
. This follows from τJD/N
ν ,n
D/N
(1) ≥ d − 2 + βν,n (1) ≥ (d − 2) − δ

for δ > 0 and n sufficiently large, where we used ν Q̊ > 0 for the Dirichlet case.
Consequently, βν,nD (1) → 0, for n → ∞.
D/N D/N
Recall the definition of Nα,J and F J , F JD/N from the introduction. Since the
following arguments do not depend on the particular choice DD/N , we omit the
dependence on D/N and write τ B τJD/N and τn B τJ,n D/N
.
Lemma 5.3. For α ∈ (0, dim∞ (J)) and n large, we have
D/N
Nα,J (n) = 0.
In particular,
D/N D/N
D/N log Nα,J (n) log Nα,J (n)
FJ = sup lim sup , F JD/N = sup lim inf .
α≥dim∞ (J) k→∞ log 2n α α≥dim∞ (J) k→∞ log 2n α
Proof. For fixed α > 0 with 0 < α < dim∞ (J) we have, by the definition of
dim∞ (J), we have for n large maxQ∈DnN J(Q) ≤ 2−αn . Hence, for all Q ∈ DnN we
have J(Q) ≤ 2−nα . For every 0 < α0 < α, it follows that NαD/N
0 ,J (n) = 0. This proves
the claim.
We need the following elementary observation from large deviation theory which
seems not to be standard in the relevant literature.
Lemma 5.4. Suppose (Xn )n∈N are real-valued random variables on some proba-
bility spaces (Ωn , An , µn ) such that the rate function
R c (t) B lim supn→∞ cn (t) is a
proper convex function with cn (t) B a−1 n log exp tX n dµn , t ∈ R, an → ∞ and
such that 0 belongs to the interior of the domain of finiteness {t ∈ R : c (t) < ∞}. Let
I = (a, d) be an open interval containing the subdifferential ∂c (0) = [b, c] of c in 0.
Then there exists r > 0 such that for all n sufficiently large,

µn a−1
n Xn < I ≤ 2 exp (−ran ) .
Proof. We assume that ∂c (0) = [b, c] and I = (a, d) with with a < b ≤ c < d. First
note that the assumptions ensure that −∞ < b ≤ c < ∞. We have by Chebychev
inequality for all q > 0,
Z
µn a−1n X n ≥ d = µn (qX n ≥ qan d) ≤ exp (−qan d) exp (qXn ) dµn
implying

n log µn an Xn ≥ d ≤ inf c (q) − qd = inf c (q) − qd,
lim sup a−1 −1
q>0 q∈R
where the equality follows from the assumption d < ∂c (0) and c (q)−qd ≥ (c−d)q ≥
0 for all q ≤ 0. Similarly, we find

n log µn an Xn ≤ a ≤ inf c (q) − qa = inf c (q) − qa.
lim sup a−1 −1
q<0 q∈R
We are left to show that both upper bounds are negative. We show the first case
by contradiction – the other case follows in exactly the same way. Assuming
inf q∈R c (q) − qd = 0 implies for all q ∈ R that c (q) − qd ≥ 0, or after rearranging,
c (q) − c (0) ≥ dq. This means, according to the definition of the sub-differential,
that d ∈ ∂c (0), contradicting our assumptions.
Proposition 5.5. For a subsequence (nk ) define the convex function on R≥0 by
B B lim sup τnD/N
k
and for some q ≥ 0 we assume B(q) = lim τnD/Nk
(q) and set
[a , b ] B −∂B (q). Then we have a ≥ dim∞ (J) and
0 0 0
D/N
a0 q + B(q) log Nα,J (nk )
≤ sup lim inf
b0
α>b0 k→∞ α log 2 k
n
D/N D/N
log Nα,J (nk ) log Nα,J (nk )
≤ sup lim inf = sup lim inf .
α≥dim∞ (J) k→∞ α log 2nk α>0 k→∞ α log 2nk
Moreover, if B(q) = τD/N (q), then [a, b] = −∂τD/N (q) ⊃ −∂B (q). Further, if
additionally 0 ≤ q ≤ qJD/N , then
aq + τD/N (q) a0 q + B(q)

≤ .
b b0
Proof. Without of loss of generality we can assume b0 < ∞. Moreover, (♠) implies
b0 ≥ a0 ≥ dim∞ (J). Indeed, observe that B is again a convex function on R. Thus,
by the definition of the sub-differential, we have for all x > 0
B(q) − a0 (x − q) ≤ B(x) ≤ τD/N (x) ≤ τN (x) ≤ −x dim∞ (J) + d,
which gives a0 ≥ dim∞ (J) > 0. Let q ≥ 0. Now, for all k ∈ N and s < a0 ≤ b0 < t,
we have
D/N
n o
Nt,J (nk ) ≥ card C ∈ DnD/N
k
: 2−snk
> J (C) > 2−tnk
| {z }
BLns,tk
J (C)q 2 snk q ≥ 2 snk q+nk τnk (q) 1Lns,t (C)J (C)q 2−nk τnk (q)
X X
≥
k
C∈Lns,tk C∈DnD/N
k
 
 
snk q+nk τnk (q) 
1 s,t { (C)J (C) 2 k  .
τ
X
=2 q −n (q) 
1 − k n

L nk 
 D/N
C∈Dnk
We use the lower large deviation principle for the process Xk (C) B log J (C) with
probability measure on DnD/N
k
given by µk ({C}) B J (C)q 2−nk τnk (q) . We find for the
free energy function
1
c (x) B lim sup n
log Eµk exp xXk
nk log 2 k
 
 X 
1 τ
= lim sup J (C) /2 k 
x+q n (q)
 
n
log  k n
nk log 2 k  D/N

C∈Dnk
= lim sup τnk (q + x) − B (q) = B(x + q) − B(q),

nk
with −∂c (0) = [a0 , b0 ] ⊂ (s, t) and hence there exists a constant r > 0 depending on
s, t and q such that for k large by Lemma 5.4
!
Xk
1 s,t { (C)J (C) /2 τ
X
q nk n k
(q)
= µk < (−t, −s) ≤ 2 exp (−rnk ) .
D/N
L nk log (2nk )
C∈Dnk
Therefore,
D/N
log Nt,J (nk )
lim inf ≥ sq + B(q)
k→∞ log 2nk
for all s < a0 and t > b0 and hence
D/N
log Nt,J (nk ) a0 q + B(q) a0 q + B(q)
sup lim inf ≥ sup = .
t>b0 k→∞ t log 2nk t>b0 t b0
The fact that −∂τ (q) ⊃ −∂B (q) if τ(q) = B(q) follows immediately from lim supk τnk ≤
τ.
The following corollary shows that our result in Proposition 5.5 covers the
corresponding statement for the one-dimensional case in [KN22, Prop. 4.17].
Corollary 5.6. Let J(Q) B ν(Q)Λγ (Q), Q ∈ D with γ > 0 and d ≥ 1. Then
τJD/N (q) = βνD/N (q) − γdq, q ≥ 0 and dim∞ (J) = dim∞ (ν) + dγ > 0. Suppose there
exists a subsequence (nk ) and q ∈ [0, 1] such that τJD/N (q) = limk τJ,n
D/N
k
(q). Then for
D/N
B B lim sup τJ,nk
, we have −∂B (q) B [a0 , b0 ] ⊂ ∂τJD/N (q) B [a, b] and
aq + τJD/N (q) a0 q + τJD/N (q) D/N

log Nα,J (nk )
≤ ≤ sup lim inf .
b b0 α≥dim∞ (ν)+dγ k→∞ α log 2nk
Proof. The first claim is obvious since γ > 0. The second inequality follows
immediately from Proposition 5.5 and dim∞ (J) = dim∞ (ν) + dγ. To prove the first
inequality observe that −∂τJD/N (q) = [a1 + γd, b1 + γd] with −∂βνD/N (q) = [a1 , b1 ].
Using [a0 , b0 ] ⊂ [a1 + γd, b1 + γd], τJD/N (q) = βνD/N (q) − dγq and βνD/N (q) ≥ 0, we
obtain
(a1 + dγ) q + τJD/N (q) a1 q + βνD/N (q)
=
b1 + γd b1 + γd
(a1 + dγ) q + βνD/N (q) − γd,
≤
b0
D/N
a0 q + τJ (q)
≤ .
b0

Proposition 5.7. If ν is Neumann/Dirichlet PF-regular, then
F JD/N = qJD/N .
Proof. Due to Proposition 4.1, we can restrict our attention to the case qJD/N > 0.

First, assume τ (q) = lim inf n τn (q) for q ∈ qJD/N − ε, qJD/N , for some ε > 0 and

set [a, b] = −∂τ qJD/N . Then by the convexity of τ we find for every ∈ 0, qJD/N

an element q ∈ qJD/N − , qJD/N such that τ is differentiable in q with − (τ)0 (q) ∈
(b−, b] since the points where τ is differentiable on (0, ∞) lie dense in (0, ∞) which
follows from the fact that τ is a decreasing function and the left-hand continuity of
left-hand derivative of the convex function τ. Then we have by Proposition 5.5
log+ Nα,J
D/N D/N
(n) log Nα,J (n)
sup lim inf ≥ sup lim inf
α≥τ+ n→∞ α log 2n
α>−(τ)0 (q) n→∞ α log 2 n
J
− (τ)0 (q) q + τ (q) (b − ε)q + τ (q)

≥ ≥ .
− (τ)0 (q) b
Taking the limit → 0 and using the continuity of J gives
log+ Nα,J
D/N
(n) bqJD/N
sup lim inf ≥ = qJD/N .
α≥dim∞ (J) n→∞ α log 2n b
The case τ exists as a limit in qJD/N and is differentiable in qJD/N is covered by
Proposition 5.5.
Proposition 5.8. We have
D/N
FJ = qJD/N .
Proof.
h D/NFirst note
i that, for n large, the
h family
D/N of convex function
i (τn ) restricted
to 0, qJ + 1 only takes values in − qJ + 1 L + b, d and on any compact

interval [c, e] ⊂ 0, qJD/N + 1 we have for all c ≤ x ≤ y ≤ e
D/N
τn (x) − τn (0) τn (y) − τn (x) τn qJ + 1 − τn (y)
≤ ≤ .
x−0 y−x qD/N + 1 − y
We obtain by Lemma 5.1 and the fact τnD/N (0) ≤ d
D/N
qJ + 1 L + b − d τn (x) − τn (0)
≤
c x−0
and
τn qJD/N + 1 − τn (y) d − qJD/N + 1 L − b
≤ ,
qJD/N + 1 − y qJD/N + 1 − e
which implies
 D/N D/N 

 |b| − q J
+ 1 L + d d − qJ
+ 1 L + |b| 

|τn (y) − τn (x)| ≤ max  ,
 
d |x − y|
 
D/N
c qJ + 1 − e

 


 
and hence τn |[c,e] is uniformly bounded and uniformly Lipschitz and thus by

Arzelà–Ascoli relatively compact. Using this fact, we find a subsequence (nk ) such

that limk τnk qJD/N = lim sup τn qJD/N = 0 and τnk converges uniformly to the
convex function B on
h D/N i
qJ − δ, qJD/N + δ ⊂ 0, qJD/N + 1 ,

for δ sufficiently small. We put [a, b] B −∂B qJD/N . Since the points where B is
differentiable
D/N are D/N and since B is convex, we find for every δ > > 0 an element
dense
q ∈ qJ − , qJ such that B is differentiable in q with −B0 (q) ∈ (b − , b].
Noting B ≤ τ, we have −B0 (q) ≥ dim∞ (J). Hence, from Proposition 5.5 we deduce
D/N D/N
log Nα,J (n) log Nα,J (nk )
sup lim sup ≥ sup lim sup
α≥dim∞ (J) n→∞ α log 2n α>−B0 (q) k→∞ α log 2nk
(b − ) q + B (q) (b − ) q + B (q)
≥ ≥ .
B0 (q) b
Taking the limits → 0 and using the continuity of B gives
D/N
D/N FJ (α)
FJ = sup ≥ qJD/N .
α≥dim∞ (J) α

N D N
Corollary 5.9. We have FJ = hJ = −1/αJ = qJN . Further, if FJ = FJ , then
D
FJ = hJ = qJD = qJN .
6. Upper bounds
6.1. Upper bound for spectral dimension. This section establishes a relation
between embedding constants on sub-cubes and the spectral dimension.
Proposition 6.1. Suppose there exist a non-negative, uniformly vanishing,
mono-
∞
tone set function J on D such that for all Q ∈ D and all u ∈ Cb Q with
u dΛ = 0, we have
R
Q
kuk2L2 (Q) ≤ J(Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) .
ν Λ
Then we have
sD ≤ sN ≤ hJ and sD ≤ sN ≤ hJ .
Proof. For a partition Ξ of Q into elements of D, let us define the following closed
linear subspace of H 1
( Z )
FΞ = u ∈ H : 1
u dΛ = 0, Q ∈ Ξ .
Q
We define a equivalence relation ∼ on H 1 inducedby FΞ as follows u ∼ v if and

only if u − v ∈ FΞ . Note that we have dim H 1 /FΞ = card(Ξ). Using Lemma 2.1
and Lemma 2.2, we obtain for all u ∈ Cb∞ (Q) ∩ FΞ

Z XZ XZ
u2 dν = u2 dν = u2 dν|Q
Q∈Ξ Q Q∈Ξ Q
 Z !2 
X  1
J(Q) EQ |NΛ (Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) +

≤ u dΛ 
Q∈Ξ
Λ Λ(Q) Q
X 2
≤ max J(Q) E |
Q NΛ (Q) k∇ukL2 (Q)
Q∈Ξ Λ
Q∈Ξ
kEQ k
≤ max J(Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) .
DQ Q∈Ξ Λ
Next we show that Cb∞ (Q) ∩ FΞ lies dense in FΞ with respect to H 1 . Since Q
has the extension property we readily see that Cb∞ (Q) lies dense in H 1 . Hence for
every u ∈ FΞ , there exists a sequence un in Cb∞ (Q) such that un → u in H 1 . The
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives for all Q ∈ Ξ
Z Z Z
un dΛ = un − u dΛ ≤ (un − u) dΛ → 0.
2
Q Q
It follows that Q un dΛ → 0. Furthermore, for every Q ∈ Ξ there exists uQ ∈ Cc∞ (Q)

R
such that uQ |Q{ = 0 and Q uQ dΛ = 1. Then for u0n B un − Q∈Ξ 1Q εQ,n uQ ∈

R P
Cb∞ (Q) ∩ FΞ with εQ,n B Q un dΛ we have u0n → u in H 1 . Thus, for u ∈ FΞ , we

R
obtain Z
kEQ k
ι(u)2 dν ≤ max J(Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) .
DQ Q∈Ξ Λ
Define for i ∈ N
λiν,FΞ B inf sup RH 1 (ψ) : ψ ∈ G? : G <i FΞ , h·, ·i H 1
n n o o
n o
RH 1 (ψ) B hψ, ψiH 1 /hιψ, ιψiν and N N (y, FΞ ) B card i ∈ N : λiν,FΞ ≤ y ,y > 0.
Hence, maxQ∈Ξ J(Q) < DQ /(kEQ k x), implies
λ1ν,FΞ > x.
In view of the min-max principle as stated in Proposition 2.9, we deduce
N N (x) ≤ N N (x, FΞ ) + card(Ξ) = card(Ξ),
implying N N (x) ≤ MJ (kEQ k x/DQ ) and hence sN ≤ hJ and sN ≤ hJ .
Remark 6.2. Note that in the one dimensional case the assumption of Proposition 6.1
is always valid. Indeed, R exists C > 0 such that for all intervals I contained in
there
[0, 1] and u ∈ C∞
b I with I
u dΛ = 0, we have
kuk2L2 (I) ≤ Cν(I)Λ(I) k∇uk2L2 (I) = CJν,1,1 (I) k∇uk2L2 (I) ,
ν Λ Λ
(see for instance the proof of [BS67, Theorem 3.3.]). With this observation our
general results reproduce the upper bounds for spectral dimension in d = 1 in terms
of the fixed point of the Lq -spectrum ([KN22]).
Remark 6.3. The ideas underlying in Proposition 6.1 correspond to some extent to
those developed in[NS95; Sol94],[NS01, Chapter 5], that is, reducing the problem
of estimating the spectral dimension to an auxiliary counting problem. To illustrate
the parallel, we present an alternative proof of the upper estimate of the eigenvalue
counting function for self-similar measures under OSC ([Sol94, Theorem 1]). As
in the setting in [Sol94] we let ν denote a self-similar measure under OSC with
contractive similitudes S 1 , . . . , S m and corresponding contraction ratios
hi ∈ (0, 1)
and probability weights pi ∈ (0, 1), for i = 1, · · · , m . We assume ν Q̊ > 0 and
dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, which is in this case equivalent to maxi pi h2−d
i < 1. For simplicity
we assume the feasible set is given by Q̊, i. e. S j (Q̊) ⊂n Q̊. Instead
of D
o we will
consider a symbolic partition by the cylinder sets D e B T ω Q̊ : ω ∈ I ∗ with I B

{1, . . . , m}. Then J will be replaced by e J:D e → R≥0 with e J T ω Q̊ B pω h2−d ω ,
ω ∈ I ∗ . Now, observe that for 0 < t < mini=1,...,m pi h2−d
i , we have
n o
et B ω ∈ I ∗ : pω h2−d
P ω < t ≤ pω− hω− ,
2−d
P (2−d) δ
where δ is the unique solution of m i=1 pi hi = 1. Then there exists K > 0 such
that for all u ∈ H 1 with T (Q̊) u dΛ = 0, ω ∈ P
R
et
ω
Z Z Z
ι(u) dν ≤ K max J T ω Q̊
2 e |∇u| dΛ < tK
2
|∇u|2 dΛ
ω∈P
et Q Q
(see [NS01, p. 502]). Then a simple computation gives the two-sided estimate
t−δ
t−δ ≤ card P
et ≤ .
mini=1,...,m pi h2−d
i
The variational principle gives

t−δ
N N (tK)−1 ≤ card P
et ≤ ,
mini=1,...,m pi h2−d
i
hence the results of [NS01; NS95, Theorem 1.] follow from this simple counting
argument without any use of renewal theory. The drawback of the ideas [NS95;
Sol94; NS01, Chapter 5] is that they rely heavily on the specific structure of the
self-similar measures, whereas our approach via dyadic cubes avoids the use of
specific properties of the underlying measure.
6.2. Upper bounds for the Jν,a,b -partition entropy. This section is devoted to
the study of the Jν,a,b -partition entropy, which is ultimately associated with the
spectral dimension for a certain choice of parameters a, b. Let us introduce the
following notation: Ma,b (x) B MJν,a,b (x). x > 0 as well as
ha,b B hJν,a,b , ha,b B hJν,a,b and ha B ha,1 , ha B ha,1 .
The following proposition also addresses the case a = 0.

Proposition 6.4. If dim∞ (ν) > 0, then

 
 X 
h0,b ≤ qJNν,0,b = inf  q
< = 1/b,
 
q ≥ 0 : J (C) ∞
 
 ν,0,b 

 
C∈D
Proof. First, note that Proposition 3.15 implies dim∞ (Jν,0,b ) = b dim∞ (ν) > 0.
Therefore, we deduce that Jν,a,b is uniformly vanishing by Lemma 3.1. An applica-
tion of Proposition 4.1 with J =Jν,0,b gives h0,b ≤ qJNν,0,b . Furthermore, we have by
Proposition 6.4 that βνN (qb) = τJNν,0,b (q). Thus, we obtain by Lemma 3.3
 
 X 
q
< = qJNν,0,b = 1/b.
 
inf  q ≥ 0 : J (C) ∞
 
 ν,0,b 

 
C∈D

The rest of this section deals with the case a , 0. Recalling the definition of
qJN , N ≤ qN
we find qνΛ a Jν,a,1
with equality for the case a > 0. We need the following
elementary lemma.
Lemma 6.5. For a, b ∈ R with a < b, let ( fn : [a, b] → R)nN be a sequence of
decreasing functions converging pointwise to a function f . We assume that fn has a
unique zero in xn , for all n ∈ N and f has a unique zero in x. Then x = limn→∞ xn .
Proposition 6.6. If b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0 and a , 0, then
qJNν,a/b,1 dim∞ (ν)
ha,b ≤ ≤ .
b b dim∞ (ν) + ad
In the case a > 0, we have
n o dim M (ν) 1
ha,b ≤ qJNν,a,b = inf q > 0 : βνN (bq) < adq ≤ ≤ .
bdim M (ν) + ad b+a
In particular, if dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, then for all t ∈ (0, 2 dim∞ (ν) /(d − 2)) we have
t dim∞ (ν)
h2/d−1,2/t ≤ qJNν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 ≤ .
2 2 dim∞ (ν)/t + 2 − d
Moreover, limt↓2 qJNν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 = qJNν .
Proof. Since b dim∞ (ν) + ad > 0, we obtain from Fact 3.8 that dim∞ (Jν,a/b,1 ) =
∞ (ν)
dim∞ (ν) + ad/b > 0. This is equivalent to qJNν,a/b,1 ≤ dimdim
∞ (ν)+ad/b
due to Fact 3.8.
Using the definition of Ma,b (x), Proposition 4.1 applied to J = Jν,a/b,1 , we obtain

log Ma,b (x)
log Ma/b,1 x1/b qJNν,a/b,1
lim sup = lim sup ≤ .
x→∞ log(x) x→∞ b log(x1/b ) b
The estimate of qJNν,a,b for the case a > 0 follows from βν (bq) ≤ dim M (ν) (1 − qb)
for all 0 ≤ q ≤ 1/b. Now, let dim∞ (ν) > d − 2 and t ∈ (0, 2 dim∞ (ν) /(d − 2)).
Thus we obtain dim∞ Jν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 = dim∞ (ν) + dt(2/d − 1)/2 > 0. Hence, the

third claim follows from the first part. The rest of the proof is devoted to prove
limt↓2 qJNν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 = qJNν,(2/d−1),1 . First, observe that, using 0 < t(d − 2)/2 < s <
dim∞ (ν), we have for n large
ν(C) ≤ 2−sn , C ∈ DnN .
Set a B 2/d − 1 and consider for fixed q ≥ 0,
P
D/N ν(QC ) (Λ(QC ) )
log q qa t/2
C∈D
t 7→ τJD/N (q) = lim sup n
,
ν,at/2,1
n→∞ log(2n )
where QC ∈ D(C) such that Jν,at/2,1 (C)q = ν(QC )q Λ(QC )qat/2 (the existence of
those cubes is ensured by Jν,at/2,1 (C) ≤ 2n(−s+(d−2)t/2 for C ∈ DnN ) . It follows that
t 7→ τJD/N
ν,at/2,1
(q) is an increasing, convex function on (0, 2 dim∞ (ν)/(d − 2)) as lim sup
of convex functions. In particular, we have for each q ≥ 0 that limt→2 τJD/N
ν,at/2,1
(q) =
τJD/N
ν,a,1
(q). By Lemma 3.5 we deduce that qJNν,at/2,1 is the unique zero of q 7→ τJD/N
ν,at/2,1
(q).
Hence, for fixed t ∈ (0, 2 dim∞ (ν)/(d−2)), we have that q 7→ τJD/N
ν,at/2,1
(q) is decreasing
and has a unique zero given by qJNν,at/2,1 . Now, Lemma 6.5 implies limt↓2 qJNν,at/2,1 =
qJNν,a,1 .
6.3. Upper bounds on the embedding constants . In this section, up to multi-

plicative uniform
constants,
we make use of best embedding constants for the
embedding Cc∞ Rd into Lνt , t > 2, to estimate the spectral dimension from above.
More precisely, for d > 2, the best constant C in

||u||Lt (Rd ) ≤ C||u||H 1 (Rd ) , u ∈ Cc∞ Rd , Q ∈ D (6.1)
ν|Q
is equivalent to sup x∈Rd ,%>0 %(2−d)/2 ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))1/t in the sense that there exist
c1 , c2 > 0 only depending on d and t such that
c1C ≤ sup %(2−d)/2 ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))1/t ≤ c2C.
x∈Rd ,%>0
For d = 2, the best constant C in (6.1) is equivalent to

1/2
sup log(%) ν(B(x, %)1/t .
x∈Rd ,0<%<1/2
The result for the case d > 2 is a corollary of Adams’ Theorem on Riesz potentials
(see e. g. [Maz11, p. 67]) and the case d = 2 is due to Maz’ya and Preobrazenskii
and can be found in [Maz11, p. 83] or [MP84]. The following lemma establishes an
alternative representation of the best equivalent constant in terms of dyadic cubes.
Lemma 6.7. Let Q ∈ D and v a finite Borel measure on Q. Then, for a < 0 and
√ a √ db
b > 0 and C1 B 2 d , C2 B 3 d 2−a ,
C1 Jν,a/d,b (Q) ≤ sup %a ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))b ≤ C2 Jν,a/d,b (Q) .

x∈Rd ,%>0
For a = 0, C3 B d−1 and C4 B 3bd ,

C3 Jν,0,b (Q) ≤ sup log(%) ν(Q ∩ B(x, %))b ≤ C4 Jν,0,b (Q) .
x∈Rd ,0<%<1/2
√ Let
Proof. Q ∈ DnN . Since a < 0 we√assume with out√loss of generality that
% < d2−n+1 . Then for m ≥ n − 1 with d2−(m+1) < % ≤ d2−m , and x ∈ Rd ,
 b
 X 
% ν (Q ∩ B(x, %)) ≤ 2 
a b −a 
ν(Q ∩ Q ) 2−ma
0 
 
 N ,Q0 ∩Q∩B(x,%),∅

Q0 ∈Dm
√ db
≤ 3 d 2−a max ν(Q ∩ Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a/d
N
Q0 ∈Dm
≤ C2 sup ν(Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a/d = C2 Jν,a/d,b (Q)

Q0 ∈D(Q)
√ d
where we used the fact that B (x, %) ∩ Q can be covered by at most 3 d elements
N and if Q0 ∩ Q , ∅, then Q0 ⊂ Q for m ≥ n, and
of Dm
max ν(Q ∩ Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a/d ≤ ν(Q)b Λ(Q)a/d = max ν(Q ∩ Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a/d .
N
Q0 ∈Dn−1 Q0 ∈DnN
Since x ∈ Rd and % > 0 were arbitrary, the second inequality

√ follows.
On the other hand, for Q ∈ Dm with Q ⊂ Q and % B d2−m+1 we find x ∈ Rd
0 N 0
such that Q0 ⊂ B (x, %). Then
ν(Q0 )b Λ(Q0 )a/d ≤ ν (Q ∩ B (x, %))b 2−ma

√ −a
≤ d2 ν (Q ∩ B (x, %))b %a
≤ C1−1 sup %a ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))b .
x∈Rd ,%>0
For case a = 0, we have for any 2−(m+1) ≤ % < 2−m , m ∈ N and x ∈ Rd ,

log(%) ν(Q ∩ B(x, %))b ≤ log (2) (m + 1) ν(Q ∩ B(x, 2−m ))b
 b
 X 
≤ log 2−dm  ν(Q ∩ Q0 )

 0 N 0 
Q ∈Dm ,Q ∩Q∩B(x,2−m ),∅

≤ 3db max ν(Q ∩ Q0 )b log Λ(Q0 )
N
Q0 ∈Dm

≤3 db
max
0
ν(Q ∩ Q 0 b
) log Λ(Q 0
) .
Q ∈D(Q)
N with Q0 ⊂ Q and % B
√ −m+1
On the other hand, for Q0 ∈ Dm d2 we find x ∈ Rd
such that Q ⊂ B (x, %). Then
0

ν(Q0 )b log Λ(Q0 ) ≤ ν (Q ∩ B (x, %))b dm log(2)
√
≤ dν (Q ∩ B (x, %))b (m + 1) log(2) + log d

= dν (Q ∩ B (x, %))b log(%)

≤ d sup log(%) ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))b .
x∈Rd ,%>0
Corollary
6.8.
For d ≥ 2, t > 2 there exists a constant Ct,d > 0 such that for all
u ∈ C∞ R d and for every Borel measure ν on Q and Q ∈ D, we have
c
kukL2 (Rd ) ≤ Ct,d J1/2

ν,2/d−1,2/t (Q) kukH 1 (Rd ) .
ν|Q
Proof. Using [Maz85, Corollary, p. 54] or [Maz85, Theorem, p. 381-382] for

d > 2,[Maz85, Corollary 1, p. 382] (note there is a typo, the constant C5 has to be
1/p
replaced by C5 , see also for the correct version in [Maz11, p. 83]) for d = 2, for
fixed t > 2,wefind a constanst c1 , c2 > 0 independent of Q ∈ D and ν such that for
all u ∈ Cc∞ Rd
 1/2

log(r) ν(Q ∩ B(x, r))  kukH 1 (Rd ) , d = 2,
 2/t

kukL2 (Rd ) ≤ kukLt (Rd ) ≤ c1  sup
ν|Q ν|Q
x∈Rd ,0<r<1/2
and
 1/2
kukL2 (Rd ) ≤ kukLt (Rd ) ≤ c2  sup %(2−d) ν (Q ∩ B(x, %))2/t  kukH 1 (Rd ) , d > 2.
 
ν|Q ν|Q d x∈R ,%>0
Therefore, Lemma 6.7 (with a = 2 − d and b = 2/t) proves the claim.
ForR every t > 2 there exists T t > 0 such that for all Q ∈ D and
Lemma 6.9.
u ∈ Cb Q with Q u dΛ = 0 we have
∞
kukL2 (Q) ≤ T t Jν,2/d−1,2/t (Q)1/2 kEQ k · k∇ukL2 (Q) .

ν|Q Λ
Proof. Combining Lemma 2.1 and Corollary 6.8, we have for all u ∈ Cb∞ (Q)

kukL2 (Q) = EQ (u) L2 (Rd )
ν|Q ν|Q

= ιRd ,ν (EQ (u)) L2 (Rd )
ν|Q

≤ Ct,d Jν,2/d−1,2/t (Q)1/2 EQ (u) H 1 (Rd )
 Z 2 1/2
Ct,d 1/2 kEQ k  1
· k∇ukL2 (Q) +
 2 
≤ Jν,2/d−1,2/t (Q) u dΛ 
DQ DQ Λ Λ(Q) Q 
|{z}
CT t
kEQ k
= T t Jν,2/d−1,2/t (Q)1/2 · k∇uk2L2 (Q) .
DQ Λ

Corollary 6.10. If (♠) holds, i. e. dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, then
sD ≤ sN ≤ hJν ≤ qJNν .
In particular, in the case d = 2, we have sN ≤ 1.
Proof. Note that dim∞ (ν) > d − 2 implies that for all t ∈ (2, dim∞ (ν) /(d − 2)),
Jν,2/d−1,2/t is non-negative, monotone and uniformly vanishing on D. Combining
Lemma 6.9, Proposition 6.1 and Proposition 6.6 we obtain sN ≤ hJν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 ≤
2 qJν,t(2/d−1)/2,1 , for all t ∈ (2, dim∞ (ν) /(d − 2)). The claim follows by letting t & 2
t N
and Proposition 6.6.
7. Lower bounds
7.1. Lower bound on the spectral dimension. Recall, for n ∈ N and α > 0,
D/N
D/N D/N
n o
Nα,J (n) = card Mα,J (n) with Mα,J (n) B C ∈ DnD/N : J(C) ≥ 2−αn .
As before, for s > 0, we let hQi s denote the cube centred and parallel with respect
to Q such that Λ(Q) = s−d Λ hQi s , s > 0. In the following we always assume

dim∞ (ν) > d − 2.
Proposition 7.1. Assume the conditions of Theorem 1.2 are fulfilled. Then for fixed
α > 0 and for x > 0 large, we have
D n N n
Nα,J
Nα,J α,x α,x x
!
D
− 1 ≤ N (x) and −1≤ N N
,
5d 2 · 5d DQ
with nα,x B log2 (x) /α .

D/N
Proof. For n ∈ N large enough, i. e. Mα,J (n) , ∅, we construct by a finite
D/N
j D/N k
induction a subset En of Mα,J (n) of cardinality en B card (En ) ≥ Nα,J (n) /5d
D E D E
such that for all cubes Q, Q0 ∈ En with Q , Q0 we have Q̊ ∩ Q̊0 = ∅. At the
3 3
D/N
initial step of the induction we set D(0) B Mα,J (n). Assume we have constructed
D E
D(0) ⊃ D(1) ⊃ · · · ⊃ D( j−1) such that the following condition holds Q̊ j ∩ Q̊ , ∅,
5
for some Q, Q j ∈ D( j−1) with Q , Q j . Then we set
n D E o n o
D( j) B C ∈ D( j−1) : C̊ ∩ Q̊ j = ∅ ∪ Q j .
5
D E
By this construction, we have card D < card D( j−1) , since Q̊ ∩ Q̊ j , ∅. If
( j)
D E 5
Q̊ ∩ Q̊0 = ∅, for all Q, Q0 ∈ D( j−1) with Q , Q0 , then we set En = D( j−1) . In each
5
( j−1)
inductive step, we remove at most 5d − 1 elements j D/N of D k , while one element,
namely Q j , is kept. This implies card (En ) ≥ Nα,J (n) /5d .
Let us now first consider the Dirichlet case. Since for each Q ∈ DnD , we have
∂Q ∩ Q = ∅, it follows that hQi ˚ 3 ⊂ Q and therefore ψQ ∈ Cc∞ (Q̊). Now, with
nα,x B log2 (x) /α we have for each Q ∈ Enα,x that

R 2
∇ψQ dΛ 1
≤ ≤ 2αnα,x ≤ x.
ψQ dν
R
2 J(Q)

Hence, the ψQ : Q ∈ Enα,x C fi : i = 1, . . . , enα,x are mutually orthogonal both in
Lν2 and in H01 , and we obtain that span fi : i = 1, . . . , eα,x is an enα,x -dimensional

Pen ?
subspace of H01 . For every (c1 , . . . , cenα,x ) ∈ Renα,x with i=1α,x ci fi ∈ H01 , we
obtain
enα,x  Penα,x R
 X 
i=1 ci
2
|∇ fi |2 dΛ
RH 1  ci fi  ≤ P enα,x 2 R ≤ x.
0
i=1 i=1 ci fi2 dν
Hence, we deduce from the min-max principle from Proposition 2.9
D
nα,x /5d − 1 ≤ enα,x ≤ N D (x) .

Nα,J
In the Neumann case, we proceed similarly. For fixed α > 0 set nα,x = log2 (x) /α

and write En = E1 , · · · , Ecard(En ) . For each i = 1, . . . , ben /2c C N we define

fi B RQ̊ a2i−1 ψE2i−1 + a2i ψE2i ∈ C∞ b Q ,

D E
where we choose (a2i−1 , a2i ) ∈ R2 \ {(0, 0)} such that Q fi dΛ = 0. Since E̊ j ∩
R
D E 3
E˚k = ∅ for j , k and the properties of mediants, we obtain
3
|∇ fi |2 dΛ a21 ∇ψE2i−1 2 dΛ + a22 ∇ψE2i 2 dΛ

R R R
=
a21 ψ2E2i−1 dν + a22 ψ2E2i dν
R R R
fi dν
2 R
∇ψE2i−1 2 
R 
 ∇ψE2i

,
 
≤ max 

 ψ2 dν ψE2i−1 dν 
R R
 2 

E2i
( )
1 1
≤ max , ≤ x.
J(E2i−1 ) J(E2i )
Hence, the fi mutually orthogonal in H 1 and hence also in Lν2 , we obtain that
span ( f1 , . . . , fN ) is a N dimensional subspace of H 1 . Now, an application of Lemma
?
2.13 and Lemma 2.1 gives for every (c1 , . . . , cN ) ∈ RN with i=1 ci fi ∈ H 1 ,
PN
 N  PN 2 R 2
X  1 i=1 ci |∇ fi | dΛ
RH 1  ci fi  ≤
  PN 2 R
i=1
DQ i=1 ci fi2 dν
PN 2 R 2
1 i=1 ci |∇ fi | dΛ
≤ PN 2 R
DQ i=1 ci fi2 dν
n o
1 i=1 ci fi dν max J(E2i−1 ) , J(E2i )
PN 2 R 1 1
2
x
≤ PN 2 R 2 ≤ .
DQ i=1 ci fi dν DQ
Again, an application of Proposition 2.9 gives

N
Nα,J (nα,x )/ 2 · 5d − 1 ≤ N N (x/DQ ) .

Proof of Theorem 1.2. From the above lemma, we have
D
nα,x /5d − 1 ≤ N D (x) .

Nα,J
Consequently, we conclude
log+ Nα,J

log N D (x) D (n) F JN (α)
lim inf ≥ lim inf = ,
x→∞ log(x) n→∞ α log (2n ) α
taking the supremum over all α > 0 gives F JN ≤ sD . Furthermore, for xα,n B 2αn
with n ∈ N, we see that
+

D (x ) log N D (n)
log N α,n α.J
sD ≥ lim sup ≥ lim sup .
n→∞ log(xα,n ) n→∞ log(2n )α

In the Neumann case, using Nα,JN (n )/ 2 · 5d − 1 ≤ N N (x/D ), we obtain in the
α,x Q
N
same ways as in the Dirichlet case that F JN ≤ sN and F J ≤ sN .
7.2. Lower bound on the embedding constant. In the following we assume (♠),
that is dim∞ (ν) > d − 2. We need a slight modification of Jν for the case d = 2.
We define Jν (Q) = supQ∈D(Q) ν(Q)Λ(Q)2/d−1 for Q ∈ D. Hence, in the case d = 2,
we have Jν (Q) = ν(Q). Clearly, we again have dim∞ (Jν ) > d − 2, τJD/N
ν
= τJD/N by
ν
D/N D/N
Proposition 3.15 and for d > 2, F JD/N = F JD/N
ν
and FJ = F Jν . The case d = 2 is
ν ν
covered by the following lemma.
Lemma 7.2. In the case d = 2, we have
D/N D/N
F JD/N = F JD/N
ν
and F J = F Jν .
ν ν
Proof. We have always

 
D/N  n D/N
o
ν(Q 0 0 −αn 
ν(C) −αn

C ∈ D : sup )| log(Λ(Q) )| ≥ 2 ⊃ C ∈ D : ≥ 2


 n 
 n
0 Q ∈D(C)
and, using dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, we obtain for every δ > 1 and n ∈ N large enough
ν(Q)| log(Q)| ≤ ν(Q)1/δ , Q ∈ DnD/N .
This leads to
 
D/N  n D/N
o
ν(Q 0 0 −αn 
ν(C) −αδn
.

C ∈ D : sup )| log(Λ(Q ))| ≥ 2 ⊂ C ∈ D : ≥ 2


 n 
 n
Q0 ∈D(C)
Hence, the claim follows.
Proposition 7.3. There exists a constant K > 0 such that every Q ∈D DE with
Jν (Q) > 0 there exists a function ψQ ∈ C∞ d
c (R ) with support contained in Q̊ 3 and

ϕQ L2 > 0 such that
ν
2 2
ψQ L2 ≥ KJ (Q) ∇ψQ L2 Rd .
ν ν ( )Λ
Proof. Since dim∞ (Jν ) > 0, it follows that for each Q ∈ D there exists C Q ∈ D(Q)
such that Jν (Q) = ν(C Q )Λ(C Q )2/d−1 . Now, choose ψQ B ϕhC Q i ,3 as in Lemma
3
2.13. Then ψQ · 1C Q = 1C Q , supp(ψQ ) ⊂ C˚Q ⊂ Q̊ and
D E D E
3 3
D
E 1−2/d
Λ
2
CQ 3
R
∇ψQ dΛ −2 1−2/d 1/3
R 2 ≤ C2 3 D
E
ψQ dν ν CQ 3
1/3
1−2/d
Λ CQ
= C2−2 31−2/d = C2−2 31−2/d Jν (Q).
ν CQ

Proposition 7.4. For fixed α > 0 and for x > 0 large, we have
D (n )
Nα,J α,x
ν
− 1 ≤ N D (xK)
5d
D
with nα,x B log2 (x) /α . In particular, F JDν ≤ sD and F Jν ≤ sD .

Proof. This follows from Proposition 7.3, Lemma 7.1 and Lemma 7.2.
In the same way we obtain the following proposition for the Neumann case.
Proposition 7.5. For fixed α > 0, we have for x > 0 large

N (n )
Nα,J α,x
ν
− 1 ≤ N N (xK/DQ )
2 · 5d
N
with nα,x B log2 (x) /α . In particular, F JNν ≤ sN and F Jν ≤ sN .

8. Proof of main results

This chapter is devoted to the proofs of our main results. To break up the results
of Theorem 1.3, we start with the following proposition.
N
Proposition 8.1. We have sD ≤ qJNν = F Jν = sN .
Proof of Proposition 8.1. From Proposition 7.5 and Proposition 5.8 applied J = Jν
gives
N
qJNν = F Jν ≤ sN .
and Corollary 6.10 gives sN ≤ hJν ≤ qJNν which proves the claimed equalities.
Proof of Theorem 1.3. The first inequalities follow from Proposition 8.1, Proposi-
tion 7.5 and Proposition 7.4. Furthermore, by Proposition 3.15, we always in the
case d = 2 that qJNν = 1. For the last claim note that ν(Q̊) > 0, implies that there
exists an open cube Q ⊂ Q̊ with ν(Q) > 0 and dim∞ (ν|Q ) > d − 2 = 0. Hence, we
obtain
N D D
1 = qJNν| ≤ F Jν| = F Jν| ≤ F Jν ≤ sD ≤ sN = 1.
Q Q Q
To see (4), we show that τJDν = τJNν .

We only have to consider the case d > 2. Then
the first assertion is obvious. For the second note that
X X X X
Jν (Q)q ≤ Jν (Q)q = Jν (Q)q + Jν (Q)q .
Q∈DnD Q∈DnN Q∈DnD Q∈DnN \DnD
Set τN\D (q) B lim supn 1/ log 2n log Jν (Q)q . Then for q ≥ 0
P
Q∈DnN \DnD
τJDν (q) ≤ τJNν (q) = τN\D (q) ∨ τJDν (q) .

Further, we always have
log maxQ∈DnN \DnD Jν (Q) τN\D (q)
0 < dim∞ (ν) − d + 2 ≤ A B lim inf = lim .
n→∞ −n log 2 q→∞ −q
By the definition of τN\D , we have
τN\D (q) ≤ dim M (supp(ν) ∩ ∂Q) − qA.

Hence, by our assumption dim M (supp(ν) ∩ ∂Q)/A < qN , we obtain τN\D qN < 0.
This gives

τN\D qN < 0 = τJNν qN = τN\D qN ∨ τJDν qN = τJDν qN ,
N\D
implying qN = qD . Finally, we are left to show that dim∞ (ν) − d + 2 = A. Clearly,
N\D N\D
by definition of Jν we have dim∞ (ν) − d + 2 ≥ A and dim∞ (ν) − d − 2 ≥
N\D
dim∞ (ν) − d + 2 > 0. Fix 0 < s < dim∞ (ν), then we obtain for all n large and
Q ∈ DnN \ DnD ,
ν(Q)Λ(Q)2/d−1 ≤ 2n(d−2−s) .
Therefore, A ≥ s − d + 2, which yields the assertion.
Figure 9.1. Support of the densities fi of νi , i = 1, 2, 3 with peak

singularity concentrated in one corner for the examples discussed
in Section 9.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.7. We obtain from Proposition 5.7 applied to J = Jν , Proposi-

tion 7.5 and Proposition 7.4
sD/N ≥ F JD/N
ν
≥ qJD/N
ν
.
Together with Proposition 5.8 and Lemma 2.10 the claim follows.
Proof of Proposition 1.8. This follows from Proposition 7.5, Proposition 7.4 and
Proposition 5.5.
Proof of Corollary 1.11. Theorem 1.3 gives sN = qJNν , hence the claim follows from
the estimates qJNν obtained in Fact 3.17.
Proof of Theorem 1.16. Let ν be a self-conformal measure with dim∞ (ν) > d − 2.
Then it follows from Corollary 3.21 that ν is D/N-PF-regular and

τJDν qJDν = τJNν qJDν = 0.
Now, Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.3 gives sD = sN = qN .
Proof of Proposition 1.15. We immediately obtain from Theorem 1.7 and the prop-
erties of the partition function provided in Section 3.4.2 that sD = sN = α/ (α − d + 2) .

9. Examples
In this last section we present some example illuminating the critical case with
dim∞ (ν) = d − 2 and the possibility of non-existing spectral dimension.
9.1. Critical cases. We give three examples of measures νi in dimension d = 3 for
the critical case, i. e. dim∞ (νi ) = d − 2 = 1, i = 1, 2, 3. In the first example the
Kreı̆n–Feller operator exists but has no compact resolvent and we therefore have
no orthonormal basis of eigenvectors. In the second example the operator we has a
compact resolvent and we are able to determine the spectral dimension sD/N = 3/2.
In the third example the operator cannot be defined via our form approach as there
is no continuous embedding of the Sobolev space into Lν2 .
For the following three examples we assume that Q ⊂ R3 is aligned to the

coordinate axis and the left front lower corner is the origin. For each example
we consider the density functions on Q given by f1 (x, y, z) = z−2 , f2 (x, y, z) =
z−2 log (1/z) −4/3 and f3 (x, y, z) = z−2 log (1/z), respectively, for x, y ∈ [0, z], 0 <

z < 1/2 and 0 otherwise (see Figure 9.1 on page 57). Then for dνi B fi dΛ|Q ,
h i3
i = 1, 2, 3, we have for Q` B 0, 2−`
R 2−`
log νi (Q` ) log 0 fi dz
dim∞ (νi ) = lim inf = lim inf = 1.
` − log 2` ` − log 2`
r if and only if r ≤ 3/2, it follows that
Since fi ∈ LΛ

3 (1 − q) 0 ≤ q ≤ 3/2,

βνNi (q) = 

−q
 q ≥ 3/2.
By Proposition 3.18 τνNi is determined by βνNi .

To determine in which case one have continuous or even compact embedding, we
make the following observation which is crucial in the concrete calculation below.
For a rectangular domain R ⊂ Q, by Hölder’s Inequality, we have
Z
kukLν2 (R) = f |u|2 dΛ ≤ k f |R kL3/2 |u|R |2 L3 = k f kL3/2 (R) kuk2L6 (R) . (9.1)
i
R Λ Λ Λ Λ
According to the Sobolev-Poincaré inequality, if the corresponding norms are finite,

this leads to the following continuous embeddings
H 1 (R) ,→ LΛ
6
(R) ,→ Lν2i (R) , (9.2)
where the embedding constant C1 of the first embedding is independent of R (see
[Ada75, Lemma 5.10]).
Example 9.1. For i = 1 the embedding is continuous but not compact. We ob-
R −n 2/3
2
Rn L3/2 =
−1 = log 2 2/3 . This observation and (9.1)

serve that f |
2−n−1
z dΛ
Λ
combined give
Z XZ
f | u| 2 = log 22/3 u| 2
X X
|u|2 dν1 = |u|2 dν1 ≤ Rn L3/2 Rn L 6 Rn L6
Rn Λ Λ Λ
n n n
u| 2 = log 22/3 C kuk2
X
≤ log 2 2/3 C1

Rn H 1 1 H1
n
showing that we have a continuous embedding H 1 ,→ Lν21 and the self-adjoint

Kreı̆n–Feller operator is well defined. Nevertheless, in this case the embedding
−2n 2 × 2−2n , 2−2n+1 , let us
h i h i
b ,→ Lν1 is not compact. Indeed, for Qn B 0, 2
C∞ 2
consider the smooth functions

un B Λ (Qn )−1/6 ϕhQn i3/2 ,3/2 , n ∈ N.
Then the sequence (un ) is bounded in H 1 , since by Lemma 2.12, we have

Z Z
un dΛ +
2
|∇un |2 dΛ
hQn i3/2 hQn i3/2
C
≤ Λ (Qn )−1/3 Λ hQn i3/2 + (3/2)1/3 Λ (Qn )1/3
4
C
≤ 1 + (3/2)1−2/d .
4
Further,
Z 2−2n+1 Z zZ z
ν1 (Qn ) = 1[0,2−2n ] (x)1[0,2−2n ] (y)z−2 dx dy dz
2−2n 0 0
1
≥ 24n−2 Λ (Qn ) = 24n−2−6n = Λ (Qn )1/3 .
4
Since for n , m, hQn i3/2 ∩ hQm i3/2 = ∅ we deduce
Z Z
|un − um | dν1 =
2
|un |2 + |um |2 dν1
≥ Λ (Qn )−1/3 ν1 (Qn ) + Λ (Qm )−1/3 ν1 (Qn )

1 1
≥ Λ (Qn )−1/3 Λ (Qn )1/3 + Λ (Qm )−1/3 Λ (Qm )1/3 =
4 2
and convergence in Lν21 is therefore excluded for any subsequence.
Example 9.2. For i = 2, we prove compact embedding. Using (9.1), we have
continuous embeddings H (Q) ,→ Lν2 (Q) with em-
for Q ∈ D the following 1 2
bedding constant C1 f |Q L3/2 , with C1 independent of Q. To show that B1 B

n o Λ
u ∈ Cb∞ (Q) : kuk2H 1 ≤ 1 is precompact in Lν22 , we first observe that with Q` B
h i3
0, 2−`
3/2 3/2 Z 2−`

−2
sup f |Q L3/2 ≤ f |Q` L3/2 = z−1 − log z dz
Λ Λ
Q∈DnN 0
1
= → 0 for ` → ∞. (9.3)
log 2`
For u ∈ B1 we have
Z Z Z Z
1 ≥ kuk2H 1 = k∇uk2 dΛ + u2 dΛ ≥ k∇uk2 dΛ + u2 dΛ
Q Q Q` Q`
Z Z
−1
≥ C1−1 u6 dΛ ≥ C1−1 f |Q` L3/2 |u|2 dν2 .
Q` Λ Q`
For every sequence (un )n in B1 we find by the Poincaré Inequality applied to Q \ Q`

and a diagonal argument a subsequence that is Cauchy with respect to Lν22 |Q\Q for
`
every `. Accordingly, for every n, m > `,

Z Z Z
|un − um | dν2 =
2
|un − um | dν2 +
2
|un − um |2 dν2
Q\Q Q`
Z `
≤ |un − um |2 dν2 + 4C1 f |Q` L3/2 .
Q\Q` Λ
Now consider the limes superior as m, n are tending to infinity and then let ` → ∞.
This proves that (un ) is Cauchy in Lν22 and convergent there as well. This shows
that the embedding H 1 ,→ Lν22 is compact. To finally determine the spectral
dimension in this case, in view of Theorem 1.1 we choose J (Q) B f |Q L3/2
Λ
with Q ∈ D and prove κJ ≤ 3/2: For every cube Q ∈ DnN for n > 1 lying
in Rn,k B (x, y, z) ∈ Q : k2−n < z < (k + 1) 2−n with 2n−1 ≥ k ≥ 1 (these are

(k + 1)2 k2 many with ν(Q) > 0), we have
3/2 Z −3 Z (k+1)2−n
−2
f |Q 3/2 = −2n
z−3 − log z −2 dz

L
z − log z dΛ ≤ 2
Λ Q k2−n
Z (k+1)2−n
−2
≤ 2−2n k2−n z−1 − log z −2 dz

k2−n
!
1 1 1
= 2 −
k − log(k) + log(2n ) − log(k + 1) + log(2n )
1
≤ 3 .
k log(2 /(k + 1))2
n
Using this estimate together with (9.3),

X q 2q
! X 2n−1
X −1 card Q ∈ DN : Q ∩ R
n n,k , ∅, ν(Q) > 0 k−2q
f |
Q L3/2 ≤ ζ +
Q∈D
Λ 3 n∈N k=1
log(2n /(k + 1))4q/3
2q
!
1 X 2n−1 X−1 k−2q+2
≤ζ + +
3 log(2n /(2))q4/3 n∈N k=1 log(2n /(k + 1))4q/3
>1
! X
2q X 1
=ζ + k−2q+2
3 (n log(2) − log(k + 1))4q/3
k∈N n≥dlog2 (k)+1e+1
! X
2q X 1
≤ζ + k−2q+2
3 (n − log2 (k) + 1 )4q/3 log 2 4q/3

k∈N n≥dlog2 (k)+1e+1
k−2q+2 X 1 ζ (2q − 2) ζ (4q/3)

! X !
2q 2q
≤ζ + 4q/3 =ζ + ,
3 n q4/3 3 log 2 4q/3

k∈N log 2 n∈N
where we used log2 (k + 1) ≤ log2 (k) + 1 for all k ≥ 1 and ζ denotes the Riemann
ζ-function. Since for all q > 3/2 the right-hand side is finite, we find sD ≤ sN ≤
sN ≤ κJ ≤ 3/2 as a consequence of Theorem 1.1 with regard to (9.3). Moreover,
note that there exists an open sub-cube Q ⊂ Q such that Q ⊂ Q̊ with ν(Q) > 0. Since
f |Q is bounded, Lemma 2.11 gives 3/2 = sνD2 |Q ≤ sD and we have 3/2 = sD = sN .
Example 9.3. In the case i = 3, the embedding C∞ b ,→ Lν3 is not continuous.

2
h i2 h i
Indeed, for Qn B 2−n , 2−n+1 × 2−n , 2−n+1 , let us consider the smooth functions
un B Λ hQn i2 −1/6 ϕhQn i2 ,2 . Then on the one hand, with C > 0 as given in Lemma

2.12, we have for every n ∈ N
Z Z !
−1/3 2 2
kun kH 1 = Λ hQn i2
2 ∇ϕhQn i2 ,2 dΛ +
ϕhQn i2 ,2 dΛ

Q Q

≤ Λ hQn i2 −1/3 CΛ hQn i2 1/3 + Λ hQn i2 ≤ C + 1

and on the other hand, the claim follows from

Z 2−n+1
−1/3 −1/3 n log(2)
kun k2L2 ≥ Λ hQn i2 ν3 (Qn ) ≥ Λ hQn i2 .

log 1/z dz ≥
ν3
2−n 2
9.2. Non-existence of the spectral dimension. Here, we present an example for
which upper and lower spectral dimension differ.
Example 9.4. Let us consider the homogeneous Cantor measure µ on (0, 1) form
[KN22, Example 5.5 with probability (1/2, 1/2)] with non-converging Lq -spectrum,
for which we have sµ = 3/13 < 3/11 = sµ ,

 83 (1 − q) , q ∈ [0, 1] ,

βµ (q) = 

 3 (1 − q) , q > 1

10
and 
 3
(1 − q) for q ∈ [0, 1] ,
β (q) B lim inf βµ,n (q) = 

 10
µ  (1 − q) for q > 1.
 3
8
Take the one-dimensional Lebesgue-measure Λ1 restricted to [0, 1] and define the
product measure on Q by ν B µ ⊗ Λ1 ⊗ Λ1 . Due to the product structure, we have
for the Lq -spectrum of ν
βν (q) = βµ (q) + βΛ2 (q) = βµ (q) + 2 (1 − q)
and hence dim∞ (ν) = 2 + 3/10 > 1. Let π1 denote the projection onto the first
coordinate. Then
1 X q
τν,n
N
(q) = sup ν Q0 Λ Q0 −1/3

n
log
log 2 0
N Q ∈D(Q)
Q∈Dn
1 X
= log µ (π1 Q)q 2−qn 22n = βµ,n (q) − q + 2
log 2n N Q∈Dn
and the spectral partition function τJν is given by τJν (q) = βµ (q)+2 (1 − q)+(3−2)q
and therefore τν (q) , lim inf τν,n (q) for q ∈ R≥0 \ {1}. This gives for the upper
spectral dimension sN = qN = 23/13. On the other hand, using Proposition 4.3,
a similar calculation as in [KN22, Example 5.5] shows sN ≤ 19/11 < sN where
19/11 is the unique zero of lim inf τν,n
N .
References
[Ada75] R. A. Adams. Sobolev spaces. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 65.
Academic Press [A subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publish-
ers], New York-London, 1975, pp. xviii+268.
[Arz14] P. Arzt. Eigenvalues of Measure Theoretic Laplacians on Cantor-like
Sets. PhD thesis, Universität Siegen, 2014.
[Arz15] P. Arzt. Measure theoretic trigonometric functions. J. Fractal Geom. 2.2
(2015), 115–169. doi: 10.4171/JFG/18.
[BC86] J. Brossard and R. Carmona. Can one hear the dimension of a fractal?
Comm. Math. Phys. 104.1 (1986), 103–122.
[Ber79] M. V. Berry. Distribution of modes in fractal resonators. Structural
stability in physics (Proc. Internat. Symposia Appl. Catastrophe Theory
and Topological Concepts in Phys., Inst. Inform. Sci., Univ. Tübingen,
Tübingen, 1978). Vol. 4. Springer Ser. Synergetics. Springer, Berlin,
1979, pp. 51–53. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-67363-4_7.
[Ber80] M. V. Berry. Some geometric aspects of wave motion: wavefront dislo-
cations, diffraction catastrophes, diffractals. Geometry of the Laplace
operator (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii,
1979). Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXVI. Amer. Math. Soc., Provi-
dence, R.I., 1980, pp. 13–28.
[Bor71] V. V. Borzov. “Quantitative characteristics of singular measures”. Spec-
tral Theory and Wave Processes. Ed. by M. S. Birman. Boston, MA:
Springer US, 1971, pp. 37–42. doi: 10.1007/978- 1- 4684- 8926-
2_5.
[BS67] M. v. Birman and M. Z. Solomjak. Piecewise polynomial approxima-
tions of functions of classes W p α . Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 73 (115) (1967), 331–
355.
[BS70] M. v. Birman and M. Z. Solomjak. The principal term of the spectral
asymptotics for ”non-smooth” elliptic problems. Funkcional. Anal. i
Priložen. 4.4 (1970), 1–13.
[Dav95] E. B. Davies. Spectral Theory and Differential Operators. Cambridge
Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511623721.
[DeV87] R. A. DeVore. “A note on adaptive approximation”. Proceedings of
China-U.S. Joint Conference on Approximation Theory (Hangzhou,
1985). Vol. 3. 4. 1987, pp. 74–78.
[DKS20] O. Davydov, O. Kozynenko, and D. Skorokhodov. Optimal approxima-
tion order of piecewise constants on convex partitions. J. Complexity 58
(2020), 101444, 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jco.2019.101444.
[DN15] D.-W. Deng and S.-M. Ngai. Eigenvalue estimates for Laplacians on
measure spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 268.8 (2015), 2231–2260. doi: 10 .
1016/j.jfa.2014.12.019.
REFERENCES 63
[DR14] O. Davydov and F. Rabarison. Approximation by sums of piecewise

linear polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 185 (2014), 107–123. doi: 10.
1016/j.jat.2014.06.008.
[Fal14] K. Falconer. Fractal geometry. Third. Mathematical foundations and
applications. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2014, pp. xxx+368.
[Fel57] W. Feller. Generalized second order differential operators and their
lateral conditions. Illinois J. Math. 1 (1957), 459–504.
[FM20] U. Freiberg and L. Minorics. “Eigenvalue Approximation for Krein–
Feller-Operators”. Analysis, Probability and Mathematical Physics on
Fractals. Ed. by P. A. R. et al. Vol. 5. World Scientific, 2020. Chap. 11,
pp. 363–384. doi: 10.1142/9789811215537_0011.
[Fuj87] T. Fujita. A fractional dimension, self-similarity and a generalized diffu-
sion operator. Probabilistic methods in mathematical physics (Katata/Kyoto,
1985). Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1987, pp. 83–90.
[FW17] A. Fleige and H. Winkler. An indefinite inverse spectral problem of
Stieltjes type. Integral Equations Operator Theory 87.4 (2017), 491–
514. doi: 10.1007/s00020-017-2358-x.
[HKY00] Y. Hu, K. A. Kopotun, and X. M. Yu. Modified adaptive algorithms.
SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 38.3 (2000), 1013–1033. doi: 10.1137/S0036142999353569.
[HLN06] J. Hu, K.-S. Lau, and S.-M. Ngai. Laplace operators related to self-
similar measures on Rd . J. Funct. Anal. 239.2 (2006), 542–565. doi:
10.1016/j.jfa.2006.07.005.
[Kac59] I. S. Kac. Density of the spectrum of a string. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR
126 (1959), 1180–1182.
[Kac66] M. Kac. Can one hear the shape of a drum? Amer. Math. Monthly 73.4,
part II (1966), 1–23. doi: 10.2307/2313748.
[Kig01] J. Kigami. Analysis on Fractals. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics.
Cambridge University Press, 2001. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511470943.
[KK58] I. S. Kac and M. G. Kreı̆n. Criteria for the discreteness of the spectrum
of a singular string. Izv. Vysš. Učebn. Zaved. Matematika 1958.2 (3)
(1958), 136–153.
[KL93] J. Kigami and M. L. Lapidus. Weyl’s problem for the spectral distri-
bution of Laplacians on p.c.f. self-similar fractals. Comm. Math. Phys.
158.1 (1993), 93–125.
[KN21a] M. Kesseböhmer and A. Niemann. Approximation order of Kolmogorov
diameters via Lq -spectra and applications to polyharmonic operators.
arXiv: 2107.07932 (2021).
[KN21b] M. Kesseböhmer and A. Niemann. Spectral asymptotics of Kreı̆n-Feller
operators for weak Gibbs measures on self-conformal fractals with
overlaps. arXiv: 2107.02616 (2021).
[KN22] M. Kesseböhmer and A. Niemann. Spectral dimensions of Kreı̆n-Feller
operators and Lq -spectra. to appear in: Adv. Math. (2022).
[Kre51] M. G. Kreı̆n. Determination of the density of a nonhomogeneous sym-
metric cord by its frequency spectrum. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.)
76 (1951), 345–348.
64 REFERENCES
[KS16] D. Kuzmenko and D. Skorokhodov. Optimization of transfinite interpo-

lation of functions with bounded Laplacian by harmonic splines on box
partitions. J. Approx. Theory 209 (2016), 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jat.
2016.05.002.
[KW82] S. Kotani and S. Watanabe. Kreı̆n’s spectral theory of strings and gen-
eralized diffusion processes. Functional analysis in Markov processes
(Katata/Kyoto, 1981). Vol. 923. Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin-
New York, 1982, pp. 235–259.
[Lap91] M. L. Lapidus. Fractal drum, inverse spectral problems for elliptic
operators and a partial resolution of the Weyl-Berry conjecture. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 325.2 (1991), 465–529. doi: 10.2307/2001638.
[Maz11] V. Maz’ya. Sobolev spaces with applications to elliptic partial differen-
tial equations. augmented. Vol. 342. Grundlehren der mathematischen
Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences].
Springer, Heidelberg, 2011, pp. xxviii+866. doi: 10.1007/978- 3-
642-15564-2.
[Maz85] V. G. Maz’ja. Sobolev spaces. Springer Series in Soviet Mathematics.
Translated from the Russian by T. O. Shaposhnikova. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1985, pp. xix+486. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-09922-3.
[Min20] L. A. Minorics. Spectral asymptotics for Krein-Feller operators with
respect to V-variable Cantor measures. Forum Math. 32.1 (2020), 121–
138. doi: 10.1515/forum-2018-0188.
[MP84] V. G. Maz’ja and S. P. Preobrazenskii. Estimates for capacities and
traces of potentials. Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 7.1 (1984), 41–63. doi:
10.1155/S0161171284000053.
[MR62] H. P. McKean Jr. and D. B. Ray. Spectral distribution of a differential
operator. Duke Math. J. 29 (1962), 281–292.
[Nga11] S.-M. Ngai. Spectral asymptotics of Laplacians associated with one-
dimensional iterated function systems with overlaps. Canad. J. Math.
63.3 (2011), 648–688. doi: 10.4153/CJM-2011-011-3.
[NS01] K. Naimark and M. Solomyak. Eigenvalue distribution of some fractal
semi-elliptic differential operators: combinatorial approach. Integral
Equations Operator Theory 40.4 (2001), 495–506. doi: 10 . 1007 /
BF01198143.
[NS95] K. Naimark and M. Solomyak. The eigenvalue behaviour for the bound-
ary value problems related to self-similar measures on Rd . Math. Res.
Lett. 2.3 (1995), 279–298. doi: 10.4310/MRL.1995.v2.n3.a5.
[NTX18] S.-M. Ngai, W. Tang, and Y. Xie. Spectral asymptotics of one-dimensional
fractal Laplacians in the absence of second-order identities. Discrete
Contin. Dyn. Syst. 38.4 (2018), 1849–1887. doi: 10 . 3934 / dcds .
2018076.
[NX20] S.-M. Ngai and Y. Xie. Spectral asymptotics of Laplacians related to one-
dimensional graph-directed self-similar measures with overlaps. Ark.
Mat. 58.2 (2020), 393–435. doi: 10.4310/arkiv.2020.v58.n2.a9.
REFERENCES 65
[NX21] S.-M. Ngai and Y. Xie. Spectral asymptotics of Laplacians associated

with a class of higher-dimensional graph-directed self-similar measures.
Nonlinearity 34.8 (2021), 5375–5398. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6544 /
ac0642.
[PS00] Y. Peres and B. Solomyak. Existence of Lq dimensions and entropy
dimension for self-conformal measures. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 49.4
(2000), 1603–1621. doi: 10.1512/iumj.2000.49.1851.
[PS21] J. P. Pinasco and C. Scarola. A nodal inverse problem for measure
geometric Laplacians. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 94 (2021),
Paper No. 105542, 9. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2020.105542.
[Rie95] R. Riedi. An improved multifractal formalism and self-similar measures.
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 189.2 (1995), 462–490. doi: 10.1006/jmaa.1995.
1030.
[Rui12] D. Ruiz. On the Uniformity of the Constant in the Poincare Inequality.
Advanced Nonlinear Studies 12 (Aug. 2012). doi: 10.1515/ans-2012-
0413.
[Sol94] M. Solomyak. Eigenvalue estimates for a class of operators related to
self-similar measures. Journées “Équations aux Dérivées Partielles”
(Saint-Jean-de-Monts, 1994). École Polytech., Palaiseau, 1994, Exp.
No. XI, 6.
[Ste70] E. M. Stein. Singular integrals and differentiability properties of func-
tions. Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970, pp. xiv+290.
[Str93] R. S. Strichartz. Self-similar measures and their Fourier transforms. III.
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 42.2 (1993), 367–411. doi: 10.1512/iumj.
1993.42.42018.
[SV95] M. Solomyak and E. Verbitsky. On a spectral problem related to self-
similar measures. Bull. London Math. Soc. 27.3 (1995), 242–248. doi:
10.1112/blms/27.3.242.
[Tri03] H. Triebel. Fractal characteristics of measures; an approach via function
spaces. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 9.4 (2003), 411–430. doi: 10 . 1007 /
s00041-003-0020-2.
[Tri04] H. Triebel. The fractal Laplacian and multifractal quantities. Fractal
geometry and stochastics III. Vol. 57. Progr. Probab. Birkhäuser, Basel,
2004, pp. 173–192.
[Tri97] H. Triebel. Fractals and spectra. Vol. 91. Monographs in Mathematics.
Related to Fourier analysis and function spaces. Birkhäuser Verlag,
Basel, 1997, pp. viii+271. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-0034-1.
[UH59] T. Uno and I. Hong. Some consideration of asymptotic distribution of
eigenvalues for the equation d2 u/dx2 + λ%(x)u = 0. Jpn. J. Math. 29
(1959), 152–164. doi: 10.4099/jjm1924.29.0_152.
[Vol05] H. Volkmer. Eigenvalue problems of Atkinson, Feller and Krein, and
their mutual relationship. Electronic Journal of Differential Equations
2005 (Apr. 2005).

2202 05247

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2202 05247

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECTRAL DIMENSIONS OF KREĬN–FELLER OPERATORS IN

MARC KESSEBÖHMER AND ALJOSCHA NIEMANN

Abstract. We study the spectral dimensions of Kreı̆n–Feller operators for finite

2.3. Form approach 15

1. Introduction and statement of main results

metric given by the inner product

which is continuous if and only if we find a constant K > 0 such that

We set Dn B n∈N DnN , which

dim∞ (ν) > d − 2, (♠)

MJ (x) B inf card (P) : P ∈ ΠJ , J (Q) < 1/x .

kuk2L2 (Q) ≤ J(Q) k∇uk2L2 (Q) .

If J is uniformly vanishing and

Neumann spectral dimensions have the common value sD = sN = qN . This

(2) ν given by the d-dimensional Lebesgue measure Λ|Q restricted to Q (then

d dim M (ν) dim∞ (ν)

Figure 1.1. Partition function τN in dimension d = 3 for the

1.4.1. Absolutely continuous measures. As a first application of our results, we

ω 7→ log pω1 and ϕ : {1, . . . , `} → R : ω 7→ (d − 2) log S ω1 (σω) .

2. Form approach for Kreı̆n–Feller operators

and by (PWI), we have respectively

2.2. Stein extension. We say a bounded domain Ω ⊂ Rd permits a Stein   extension,

Hence, using h < 1, we obtain

R prove the second claim. Fix T : x 7→ x0 + hx such that T (Q) = Q

u ◦ T dΛ = 0, hd < hd−2 and

kEQ (u)kH 1 (Rd ) ≤ kEQ k kukH 1 (Q) ,

is, as a subset of a continuous image of a relatively compact set, relative

resolvent and there exists a complete set of eigenvectors fk with eigenvalues

Using ED (g, g) > 0, we get in this case

  f j,1 ∈ N̊ν and f j,2 ∈ N̊ν and particularly ι( f j,2 ) = 0,

we have for every vector a j ∈ Ri \ {0}

Proof. Using (PWI), we obtain for all u ∈ H01 that

2.5. Smoothing methods.

(1) 0 ≤ ϕQ,m (x) ≤ 1, x ∈ Rd ,

 ball with radius r > 0 and centre x in

For x ∈ Q0 and since 2ε + r = (m + 2)r/3, we have x − Bε (0) ⊂ Q00 . Hence, we have

Figure 2.1. Illustration of the construction of ϕQ,m for the case

Proof. First note that

On the other hand we have for n tending to infinity

kun k2L2 ≥ Λ hQn i2 2/d−1 ν (Qn ) = 22−d Λ (Qn )2/d−1 ν (Qn )

≥ 22−d Λ (Qn )(a+2−d)/d → ∞.

This proves the claim.

3. Partition functions and Lq -spectra

In the following lemma we use the convention −∞ · 0 = 0 and as for measure we

Proof. Let DnD/N and D

e D/N intersects at most 2d cubes

(5) If qJN > 1, then

Furthermore, for each Q ∈ DnN , we have card Q00 ∈ DnN : Q00 ∩ Q , ∅ ≤ 3d .

implying τJN (0) ≥ dim M (J).

βν (q) = βν (q) = d (1 − q), for all q ∈ [0, t].

Recall that τJD/N

If a > 0, then βνD/N (bq) − adq = τJD/N

Finally, the continuity of βνD/N gives

3.4.1. Absolutely continuous measures.

Proof. By Jensen’s Inequality, for d/2 ≤ q ≤ r and Q ∈ DD/N , we have

e nD/N Q∈Dn Q e nD/N Q

3.4.2. Ahlfors–David regular measures. In this example we assume that ν is an

for x, y ∈ U with S u = S 1 ◦ · · · ◦ S u|u| , where |u| denotes the length of u. Further,

βνN (q) + (d − 2)q = lim inf βν,n

Proof of Proposition 3.19. Note that a B 2 − d > − dim∞ (ν) implies

sup ν (Q) Λ (Q)a/d C K < ∞.

For n ∈ N, as in [PS00], we let

Wn B ω ∈ I ∗ : diam(S ω (Q)) ≤ 2−n , diam(S ω− (Q)) > 2−n ,

which defines a partition of I N if we identify finite words with cylinder sets in I N .

2.2. Stein extension. We say a bounded domain Ω ⊂ Rd permits a Stein extension,

f j,1 ∈ N̊ν and f j,2 ∈ N̊ν and particularly ι( f j,2 ) = 0,

ball with radius r > 0 and centre x in

3.4.2. Ahlfors–David regular measures. In this example we assume that ν is an

We define a equivalence relation ∼ on H 1 inducedby FΞ as follows u ∼ v if and