Solving Quadratic Equations via PhaseLift when There Are About As Many Equations As Unknowns

Abstract: This note shows that we can recover a complex vector x in C^n exactly from on the order of n quadratic equations of the form |<a_i, x>|^2 = b_i, i = 1, ..., m, by using a semidefinite program known as PhaseLift. This improves upon earlier bounds in [3], which required the number of equations to be at least on the order of n log n. We also demonstrate optimal recovery results from noisy quadratic measurements; these results are much sharper than previously known results.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Suppose we wish to solve quadratic equations of the form
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:quadratic}
  |\<\vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|^2 = b_i, \quad i = 1, \ldots, m,
\end{equation}
where $\vct{x}_0 \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is unknown and $\vct{a}_i \in
\mathbb{C}^n$ and $b_i \in \mathbb{R}$ are given. This is a fundamental
problem which includes all phase retrieval problems in which one
cannot measure the phase of the linear measurements $\<\vct{a}_i,
\vct{x}\>$, only their magnitude. Recently,
\cite{PhaseLift1,PhaseLift2} proposed finding solutions to
\eqref{eq:quadratic} by convex programming techniques. The idea can be
explained rather simply: lift the problem in higher dimensions and
write $\mtx{X} = \vct{x}\vct{x}^*$ so that \eqref{eq:quadratic} can be
formulated as
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:NP}
  \begin{array}{ll}
    \text{find}   & \quad \mtx{X}\\
    \text{subject to} & \quad  \mtx{X} \succeq 0, \, \, \operatorname{rank}(\mtx{X}) = 1,\\
& \quad \operatorname{tr}(\vct{a}_i \vct{a}_i^* \mtx{X}) = b_i, \, \, i = 1, \ldots m.
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
Then approximate this combinatorially hard problem by using a convex
surrogate for the nonconvex rank functional: {\em PhaseLift}
\cite{PhaseLift1,PhaseLift2} is the relaxation
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:PL}
 \begin{array}{ll}
   \text{minimize}   & \quad \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{X})\\
   \text{subject to} & \quad  \mtx{X} \succeq 0,\\
   & \quad \operatorname{tr}(\vct{a}_i \vct{a}_i^* \mtx{X}) = b_i, \, \, i = 1, \ldots, m.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The main result in \cite{PhaseLift2} states that if the equations are
sufficiently randomized and their number $m$ is at least on the order
of $n \log n$, then the solution to the convex relaxation
\eqref{eq:PL} is exact.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{PhaseLift2}]
\label{teo:PL}
Fix $\vct{x}_0 \in \mathbb{C}^n$ arbitrarily and
suppose that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PL}
m \ge c_0 \, n \log n,
\end{equation}
where $c_0$ is a sufficiently large constant. Then in all models
introduced below, PhaseLift is exact with probability at least $1 -
3e^{-\gamma \frac{m}{n}}$ ($\gamma$ is a positive numerical constant)
in the sense that \eqref{eq:PL} has a unique solution equal to
$\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*$.\footnote{Upon retrieving $\hat{\mtx{X}} =
  \vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*$, a simple factorization recovers $\vct{x}_0$
  up to global phase, i.e.~multiplication by a complex scalar of unit
  magnitude.}
\end{theorem}
The models above are either complex or real depending upon whether
$\vct{x}_0$ is complex or real valued. In all cases the $\vct{a}_i$'s
are independently and identically distributed with the following
distributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Complex models.} The uniform distribution on the complex
  sphere of radius $\sqrt{n}$, or the complex normal distribution
  $\mathcal{N}(0, \mtx{I_n}/2) + i\mathcal{N}(0, \mtx{I_n}/2)$.
\item {\em Real models.} The uniform distribution on the sphere of
  radius $\sqrt{n}$, or the normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,
  \mtx{I_n})$.
\end{itemize}

Clearly, one needs at least on the order of $n$ equations to have a
well posed problem, namely, a unique solution to
\eqref{eq:quadratic}.\footnote{The work in \cite{Edidin} shows that
  with probability one, $m = 4n-2$ randomized equations as in Theorem
  \ref{teo:PL} are sufficient for the intractable phase retrieval
  problem \eqref{eq:quadratic} to have a unique solution.} This raises
natural questions:
\begin{description}
\item {\em Does the convex relaxation \eqref{eq:PL} with a number of
    equations on the order of the number of unknowns succeed?  Or is
    the lower bound \eqref{eq:PL} sharp?
  \item Is it possible to improve the guaranteed probability of
    success?
\item Can we hope for a universal result stating that once
  the vectors $\vct{a}_i$ have been selected, \underline{all} input signals
  $\vct{x}_0$ can be recovered?}
\end{description}
This paper answers these questions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{teo:main}
Consider the setup of Theorem \ref{teo:PL}. Then for all $\vct{x}_0$
in $\C^n$ or $\mathbb{R}^n$, the solution to PhaseLift is exact with
probability at least $1 - O(e^{-\gamma m})$ if the number of equations
obeys
  \begin{equation}
\label{eq:main}
m \ge c_0 \,  n,
\end{equation}
where $c_0$ is a sufficiently large constant. Thus, exact recovery
holds simultaneously over all input signals.
\end{theorem}
In words, (1) the solution to most systems of quadratic equations can
be obtained by semidefinite programming as long as the number of
equations is at least a constant times the number of unknowns; (2) the
probability of failure is {\em exponentially} small in the number of
measurements, a significant sharpening of Theorem \ref{teo:PL}; (3)
these properties hold universally as explained above.

Letting $\mathcal{A}: \C^{n \times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be the linear map
$\mathcal{A}(\mtx{X}) = \{\operatorname{tr}(\vct{a}_i \vct{a}_i^* \mtx{X})\}_{1 \le i \le
  m}$, Theorem \ref{teo:PL} states that with high probability, the
null space of $\mathcal{A}$ is tangent to the positive semidefinite (PSD) cone
$\{\mtx{X}: \mtx{X} \succeq \mtx{0}\}$ at a {\em fixed} $\vct{x}_0 \in
\C^n$. In constrast, Theorem \ref{teo:main} asserts that this
nullspace is tangent to the PSD cone at {\em all} rank-one
elements. Mathematically, what makes this possible is the sharpening
of the probability bounds; that is to say, the fact that for a fixed
$\vct{x}_0$, recovery holds with probability at least $1 -
O(e^{-\gamma m})$. Importantly, this improvement cannot be obtained
from the proof of Theorem \ref{teo:PL}. For instance, the argument in
\cite{PhaseLift2} does not allow removing the logarithmic factor in
the number of equations; consequently, although the general
organization of our proof is similar to that in \cite{PhaseLift2}, a
different argument is needed.

In most applications of interest, we do not have noiseless data but
rather observations of the form
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:quadratic-noise}
  b_i = |\<\vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|^2 + w_i, \quad i = 1, \ldots, m,
\end{equation}
where $w_i$ is a noise term. Here, we suggest recovering the signal by
solving
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:PLn}
 \begin{array}{ll}
   \text{minimize}   &
   \quad \sum_{1\le i \le m} |\operatorname{tr}(\vct{a}_i \vct{a}_i^* \mtx{X}) - b_i|\\
   \text{subject to} & \quad  \mtx{X} \succeq 0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The proposal cannot be simpler: find the positive semidefinite matrix
$\mtx{X}$ that best fits the observed data in an $\ell_1$ sense. One
can then extract the best-rank one approximation to recover the
signal. Our second result states that this procedure is accurate.
\begin{theorem}
\label{teo:stability}
Consider the setup of Theorem \ref{teo:main}. Then for all $\vct{x}_0
\in \C^n$, the solution to \eqref{eq:PLn} obeys
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:stability}
  \|\hat{\mtx{X}} - \vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^*\|_F \le C_0 \frac{\|\vct{w}\|_1}{m}
\end{equation}
for some numerical constant $C_0$. For the Gaussian models, this holds
with the same probability as in the noiseless case whereas the
probability of failure is exponentially small in $n$ in the uniform
model. By finding the largest eigenvector with largest eigenvalue of
$\hat{\mtx{X}}$, one can also construct an estimate obeying
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:stability2}
  \|\hat{\vct{x}} - e^{i\phi} \vct{x}_0\|_2 \le C_0 \min\Bigl(\|\vct{x_0}\|_2, \frac{\|\vct{w}\|_1}{m \|\vct{x}_0\|_2}\Bigr)
\end{equation}
for some $\phi \in [0, 2\pi]$.
\end{theorem}
In Section \ref{sec:stability}, we shall explain that these results
are optimal and cannot possibly be improved. For now, we would like to
stress that the bounds \eqref{eq:stability}--\eqref{eq:stability2}
considerably strengthen those found in \cite{PhaseLift2}. To be sure,
this reference shows that if the noise $\vct{w}$ is known to be
bounded, i.e.~$\|\vct{w}\|_2 \le \varepsilon$, then a relaxed version
of \eqref{eq:PL} yields an estimate $\tilde{\mtx{X}}$ obeying
\[
\|\tilde{\mtx{X}} - \vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^*\|_F^2 \le C_0 \, \varepsilon^2.
\]
In contrast, since $\|\vct{w}\|_1 \le \sqrt{m} \|\vct{w}\|_2 \le
\sqrt{m} \varepsilon$, the new Theorem \ref{teo:stability} gives
\[
\|\tilde{\mtx{X}} - \vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^*\|_F^2 \le C_0 \,
\frac{\varepsilon^2}{m};
\]
this represents a substantial improvement.

\section{Proofs}
\label{sec:proofs}

We prove Theorems \ref{teo:main} and \ref{teo:stability} in the
real-valued case, the complex case being similar, see
\cite{PhaseLift2} for details. Next, the Gaussian and uniform models
are nearly equivalent: indeed, suppose $\vct{a}_i$ is uniformly
sampled on the sphere; if $n \rho_i^2 \sim \chi^2_n$ and is
independent of $\vct{a}_i$, then $\vct{z}_i = \rho_i \vct{a}_i$ is
normally distributed. Hence,
\[
b_i = |\<\vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|^2 + w_i \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
b'_i = |\<\vct{z}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|^2 + \rho_i^2 w_i.
\]
In the noiseless case, we have full equivalence. In the noisy case, we
can transfer a bound for Gaussian measurements into the same bound for
uniform measurements by changing the probability of success ever so
slightly---as noted in Theorem \ref{teo:stability}. Thus, it suffices
to study the real-valued Gaussian case.

We introduce some notation and with $[m] = \{1, \ldots, m\}$, we let
$\mathcal{A}: \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be the linear map $\mathcal{A}(\mtx{X}) =
\{\operatorname{tr}(\vct{a}_i \vct{a}_i^* \mtx{X})\}_{i \in [m]}$ whose adjoint is
given by $\mathcal{A}^*(\vct{y}) = \sum_{i \in [m]} y_i \vct{a}_i
\vct{a}_i^*$. Note that vectors and matrices are boldfaced whereas
scalars are not. In the sequel, we let $T$ be the subspace of
symmetric matrices of the form $\{\mtx{X} = \vct{x} \vct{x}_0^* +
\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}^* : \vct{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n\}$ and $T^\perp$ be its
orthogonal complement. For a symmetric matrix $\mtx{X}$, we put
$\mtx{X}_T$ for the orthogonal projection of $\mtx{X}$ onto $T$ and
likewise for $\mtx{X}_{T^\perp}$. Hence, $\mtx{X} = \mtx{X}_T +
\mtx{X}_{T^\perp}$. Finally, $\|\vct{y}\|_p$ is the $\ell_p$ norm of a
vector $\vct{y}$ and $\|\mtx{X}\|$ (resp.~$\|\mtx{X}\|_F$) is the
spectral (resp.~Frobenius) norm of a matrix $\mtx{X}$.

\subsection{Dual certificates}

We begin by specializing Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 from \cite{PhaseLift2}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{PhaseLift2}]
\label{lem:PL}
There is an event $E$ of probability at least $1 - 5e^{-\gamma_0 m}$
such that on $E$, any positive symmetric matrix obeys
\[
m^{-1} \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{X})\|_1 \le (1 + 1/8) \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{X}),
\]
and any symmetric rank-2 matrix obeys
\[
m^{-1} \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{X})\|_1 \ge 0.94 (1 - 1/8) \|\mtx{X}\|.
\]
\end{lemma}
The following intermediate result is novel, although we became aware
of a similar argument in \cite{DemanetHand} as we finished this paper.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:inexact}
Suppose there is a matrix $\mtx{Y}$ in the range of $\mathcal{A}^*$ obeying
$\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}\preceq -\mtx{I}_{T^\perp}$ and $\|\mtx{Y}_T\|_F\leq
{1 \over {2}}$. Then on the event $E$ from Lemma \ref{lem:PL},
$\mtx{X}_0 = \vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*$ is PhaseLift's unique feasible
point.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Suppose $\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^* + \mtx{H}$ is feasible, which implies
  that (1) $\mtx{H}_{T^\perp} \succeq \mtx{0}$ and (2) $\mtx{H}$ is in
  the null space of $\mathcal{A}$ so that $\<\mtx{H}, \mtx{Y}\> = 0 =
  \<\mtx{H}_T, \mtx{Y}_T\> + \<\mtx{H}_{T^\perp},
  \mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}\>$. On the one hand,
\[
\langle \mtx{H}_T, \mtx{Y}_T \rangle=-\langle \mtx{H}_{T^\perp},
\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}\rangle\geq \langle \mtx{H}_{T^\perp},
\mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\rangle= \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}).
\]
Lemma \ref{lem:PL} asserts that $m^{-1} \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})\|_1
\le (1 + 1/8) \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})$ and $m^{-1}
\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T})\|_1 \ge 0.94 (1 - 1/8) \|\mtx{H}_T\|$. Since
$\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T}) = -\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})$, this gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:one}
\operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})\geq {1\over
  {(1+1/8)m}}\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})\|_1 \geq 0.73
\|\mtx{H}_T\|\geq{0.73 \over {\sqrt{2}}}\|\mtx{H}_T\|_F,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality is a consequence of the fact that $\mtx{H}_T$ has
rank at most 2.  On the other hand,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:two}
|\langle \mtx{H}_T, \mtx{Y}_T \rangle|\leq
\|\mtx{H}_T\|_F\|\mtx{Y}_T\|_F\leq \frac12 \|\mtx{H}_{T}\|_F.
\end{equation}
Since $0.73/\sqrt{2} > 1/2$, \eqref{eq:one} and \eqref{eq:two} give
that $\mtx{H}_T = 0$, which in turns implies that
$\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}=\mtx{0}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

To prove Theorem \ref{teo:main}, it remains to construct a matrix
$\mtx{Y}$ obeying the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:inexact} for all
$\vct{x}_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$. We proceed in two steps: we first show that for
a fixed $\vct{x}_0$, one can find $\mtx{Y}$ with high probability, and
then use this property to show that one can find $\mtx{Y}$ for all
$\vct{x}_0$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:core}
Fix $\vct{x}_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Then with probability at least $1 -
O(e^{-\gamma m})$, there exists $\mtx{Y}$ obeying $\|\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp} +{{17}\over {10}}\mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\|\leq{1\over {10}}$ and $\|\mtx{Y}_T\|_F\leq
{3 \over {20}}$. In addition, one can take $\mtx{Y} =
\mathcal{A}^*(\vct{\lambda})$ with $\|\vct{\lambda}\|_\infty \le 7/m$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  We assume that $\|\vct{x}_0\|_2 = 1$ without loss of generality.
  Our strategy is to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Y}
\mtx{Y} = \sum_{i \in [m]} \lambda_i  \vct{a}_i\vct{a}_i^T :=
\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i \in [m]} [|\< \vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|^2 \mathbbm{1}(|\< \vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|\leq 3) - \beta_0]  \, \vct{a}_i\vct{a}_i^T := \mtx{Y}^{(0)} - \mtx{Y}^{(1)},
\end{equation}
where $\beta_0 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} z^4 \mathbbm{1}(|z| \le 3) \approx 2.6728$ with $z
\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$, is a valid certificate. As claimed,
$\|\vct{\lambda}\|_\infty \le 7/m$.

We begin by checking the condition $\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}\preceq
-\mtx{I}_{T^\perp}$. First, the matrix $\mtx{Y}^{(1)}$ is Wishart and
standard results in random matrix theory---e.g.~Corollary 5.35 in
\cite{VershyninRMT}---assert that
\begin{equation*}
\|\mtx{Y}^{(1)} - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} \mtx{Y}^{(1)} \| = \|\mtx{Y}^{(1)} - \beta_0 \mtx{I}\| \le \beta_0/40
\end{equation*}
with probability at least $1 - 2 e^{-\gamma m}$ provided that $m \ge c n$, where $c$ is sufficiently large. In particular, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:YoneTp}
\|\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}^{(1)} - \beta_0 \mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\| \le \beta_0/40.
\end{equation}
Second, letting $\vct{x}'$ be the projection of $\vct{x}$ onto the
orthogonal complement of $\lspan(\vct{x}_0)$, we have
\[
\mtx{Y}^{(0)}_{T^\perp} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i \in [m]} \vct{\xi}_i
\vct{\xi}_i^T, \quad \vct{\xi}_i = \< \vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>  \mathbbm{1}(|\< \vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>|\leq 3)
\, \vct{a}'_i.
\]
It is immediate to check that the $\vct{\xi}_i$'s are iid copies of a
zero-mean, isotropic and sub-Gaussian random vector $\vct{\xi}$. In
particular, with $z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$,
\[
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}} \vct{\xi} \vct{\xi}^T = \alpha_0 \, \mtx{I}_{T^\perp}, \quad
\alpha_0 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} z^2 \mathbbm{1}(|z|\leq 3) \approx 0.9707.
\]
Again, standard results about random matrix with sub-gaussian
rows---e.g.~Theorem 5.39 in \cite{VershyninRMT}---give
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:YzeroTp}
\|\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}^{(0)} - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} \mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}^{(0)} \| =
\|\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}^{(0)} - \alpha_0 \, \mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\| \le
\alpha_0/40
\end{equation}
with probability at least $1 - 2 e^{-\gamma m}$ provided that $m \ge c
n$, where $c$ is sufficiently large. Clearly, \eqref{eq:YoneTp} together with \eqref{eq:YzeroTp} yield the
first condition $\|\mtx{Y}_{T^\perp} +{{17}\over {10}}\mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\|\leq{1\over {10}}$ .

We now establish $\|\mtx{Y}_{T}\|_F \le 3/20$. To begin with, set
$\vct{y} = \mtx{Y} \vct{x}_0$ and observe that since
$\|\mtx{Y}_{T}\|^2_F = |\<\vct{y} , \vct{x}_0\>|^2 +
2\|\vct{y}'\|^2_2$, it suffices to verify that
\[
|\<\vct{y} , \vct{x}_0\>|^2 \le 1/20 \text{ and }  \|\vct{y}'\|^2_2 \le 1/10.
\]
Write $\<\vct{y} , \vct{x}_0\> = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i \in [m]} \xi_i$,
where $\xi_i$ are iid copies of $\xi = z^4 \mathbbm{1}(|z| \le 3) -
\beta_0 z^2$, $z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Note that $\xi$ is a
mean-zero sub-exponential random variable since the first term is
bounded and the second is a squared Gaussian variable. Thus,
Bernstein's inequality---e.g.~Corollary 5.17 in
\cite{VershyninRMT}---gives
\[
\P(|\<\vct{y} , \vct{x}_0\>| \ge 1/\sqrt{20}) \le 2 \exp(-\gamma m)
\]
for some numerical constant $\gamma$. Finally, write $\vct{y}'$ as
\[
\vct{y}' = \frac{1}{m} \mtx{Z'} \vct{c}, \quad \mtx{Z}' = [\vct{a}'_1,
\ldots, \vct{a}'_m], \quad c_i = \<\vct{a}_i , \vct{x}_0\>^3
\mathbbm{1}(|\<\vct{a}_i, \vct{x}_0\>| \le 3) - \beta_0 \<\vct{a}_i,
\vct{x}_0\>, \, i \in [m].
\]
Note that $\mtx{Z}'$ and $\vct{c}$ are independent. On the one hand,
the $c_i^2$'s are iid sub-exponential variables and Corollary 5.17 in
\cite{VershyninRMT}---gives
\[
\P(\|\vct{c}\|_2^2 - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} \|\vct{c}\|_2^2 \ge m) \le 2 e^{-\gamma m}
\]
for some numerical constant $\gamma > 0$. This shows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bernstein}
\|\vct{c}\|_2^2 \le (\delta_0 + 1)m, \quad
\delta_0 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}} (z^3 \mathbbm{1}(|z| \le 3)
- \beta_0 z)^2 \approx 4.0663, \, z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1),
\end{equation}
with probability at least $1 - 2 e^{-\gamma m}$.  On the other hand,
for a fixed $\vct{x}$ obeying $\|\vct{x}\|_2 = 1$, $\|\mtx{Z'}
\vct{x}\|_2^2$ is distributed as a $\chi^2$-random variable with $n-1$
degrees of freedom and it follows that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:chi-sq}
  \P(\|\mtx{Z'} \vct{x}\|_2^2 \ge m/52) \le e^{-\gamma m}
\end{equation}
for some numerical constant $\gamma > 0$ with the proviso that $m \ge
cn$ and $c$ is sufficiently large. We omit the details. To conclude,
\eqref{eq:bernstein} and \eqref{eq:chi-sq} give that with probability
at least $1 - 3e^{-\gamma m}$,
\[
\|\vct{y}'\|_2^2 = \frac{1}{m^2} \|\mtx{Z'} \vct{c}\|^2_2 \le
(1+\delta_0)/52 < 1/10.
\]
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{teo:main}}

The proof of Theorem \ref{teo:main} is now a consequence of the
corollary below.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:core}
With probability at least $1 - O(e^{-\gamma m})$, for all $\vct{x}_0
\in \mathbb{R}^n$, there exists $\mtx{Y}$ obeying the conditions of Lemma
\ref{lem:inexact}. In addition, one can take $\mtx{Y} =
\mathcal{A}^*(\vct{\lambda})$ with $\|\vct{\lambda}\|_\infty \le 7/m$.
\end{corollary}
The reason why this corollary holds is straightforward: Lemma
\ref{lem:core} holds true for exponentially points and a sort of
continuity argument allows to extend it to all points. Again it
suffices to establish the property for unit-normed vectors.

\begin{proof}
  Let $\mathcal{N}_\epsilon$ be an $\epsilon$-net for the unit sphere with
  cardinality obeying $|\mathcal{N}_\epsilon|\leq (1+ 2/\epsilon)^n$ by
  Lemma 2 in \cite{VershyninRMT}.\footnote{For any unit-normed vector
    $\vct{x}$, there is $\vct{x}_0 \in \mathcal{N}_\epsilon$ with
    $\|\vct{x}_0\|_2 = 1$ and $\|\vct{x} - \vct{x}_0\|_2 \le
    \epsilon$, where $\epsilon > 0$.} If $c_0$ is sufficiently large,
  Lemma \ref{lem:core} implies that with probability at least
  $1-O(e^{-\gamma m}(1+ 2/\epsilon)^n)\geq 1-O(e^{-\gamma' m})$,
  for all $\vct{x}_0 \in \mathcal{N}_\epsilon$, there exists $\mtx{Y} =
  \mathcal{A}^*(\vct{\lambda})$ obeying
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:Y}
\begin{align}
\|\mtx{Y}_{T_0^\perp} + 1.7 \mtx{I}_{T_0^\perp}\| & \le 0.1\label{eq:YTp}\\
\|\mtx{Y}_{T_0}\|_F & \le 0.15\label{eq:YT}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and $\|\vct{\lambda}\|_\infty \le 7/m$ (we wrote $T_0$ in place of $T$
for convenience). Note that this gives
\begin{equation*}
 \label{eq:Yopnorm}
 \|\mtx{Y}\|\leq  \|\mtx{Y}_{T_0}\| + \|\mtx{Y}_{T_0^\perp}\| \le 0.15 + 1.8 < 2.
\end{equation*}

Consider now an arbitrary unit-normed vector $\vct{x}$ and let
$\vct{x}_0 \in \mathcal{N}_\epsilon$ be any element such that $\|\vct{x} -
\vct{x}_0\|_2\leq \epsilon$. Set $\mtx{\Delta}
=\mtx{x}\mtx{x}^T-\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^T$, which obeys
 \begin{equation*}
 \label{ineq:diff}
 \|\mtx{\Delta}\|_F \leq \|(\vct{x}(\vct{x} -\vct{x}_0)^T)\|_F +
 \|(\vct{x}-\vct{x}_0) \vct{x}_0^T\|_F =  \|\vct{x}\|_2\|\vct{x}-\vct{x}_0\|_2 + \|\vct{x} - \vct{x}_0\|_2
 \|\vct{x}_0\|_2 \leq 2\epsilon.
\end{equation*}
Suppose $\mtx{Y}$ is as in \eqref{eq:Y} and let $T$ be $\{\mtx{X} =
\vct{y} \vct{x}^T + \vct{x} \vct{y}^T : \vct{y} \in \mathbb{R}^n\}$. We have
\[
  \mtx{Y}_{T^\perp} + 1.7 \mtx{I}_{T^\perp}  = (\mtx{I} -
  \vct{x}\vct{x}^T) \mtx{Y} (\mtx{I} - \vct{x}\vct{x}^T) + 1.7(\mtx{I}
  -  \vct{x} \vct{x}^T)
   = \mtx{Y}_{T_0^\perp} + 1.7 \mtx{I}_{T_0^\perp} - \mtx{R},
\]
where
\[
\mtx{R} = \mtx{\Delta}\mtx{Y}(\mtx{I}-\vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^T) +
(\mtx{I}-\vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^T)\mtx{Y}\mtx{\Delta} -
\mtx{\Delta}\mtx{Y}\mtx{\Delta} + 1.7 \mtx{\Delta}.
\]
Since
\[
\|\mtx{R}\|_2 \le 2 \|\mtx{Y}\| \|\mtx{\Delta}\| \|\mtx{I} - \vct{x}_0
\vct{x}_0^T\| + \|\mtx{Y}\| \|\mtx{\Delta}\|^2 + 1.7 \|\mtx{\Delta}\| \le
11.4 \epsilon + 8 \epsilon^2,
\]
we see that the first condition of Lemma \ref{lem:inexact} holds
whenever $\epsilon$ is small enough. For the first condition,
\[
\mtx{Y}_T = \vct{x}\vct{x}^T \mtx{Y} +(\mtx{I}-\vct{x}\vct{x}^T)
\mtx{Y} \vct{x}\vct{x}^T = \mtx{Y}_{T_0} + \mtx{R},
\]
where
\[
\mtx{R} = \mtx{\Delta}\mtx{Y}(\mtx{I}-\vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^T) +
(\mtx{I}-\vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^T) \mtx{\Delta}\mtx{Y} -
\mtx{\Delta}\mtx{Y}\mtx{\Delta}.
\]
Since $\mtx{\Delta}$ has rank at most 2, $\operatorname{rank}(\mtx{R}) \le 2$, and
\[
\|\mtx{R}\|_F \le \sqrt{2} \|\mtx{R}\| \le \sqrt{2}\Bigl(2\|\mtx{Y}\|
\|\mtx{\Delta}\| \|\mtx{I} - \vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^T\| + \|\mtx{Y}\|
\|\mtx{\Delta}\|^2\Bigr) \le 8\sqrt{2} (\epsilon + \epsilon^2).
\]
Choosing $\epsilon$ sufficiently small concludes the proof of the
corollary.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Stability}
\label{sec:stability}

To see why the stability result \eqref{eq:stability} is optimal,
suppose without loss of generality that $\|\vct{x}_0\|_2 = 1$.
Further, imagine that we are informed that $\|\vct{w}\|_1 \le \delta
m$ for some known $\delta$. Since $\|\mathcal{A}(\vct{x}_0\vct{x}_0^*)\|_1
\approx m$, it would not be possible to distinguish between solutions
of the form $(1+\lambda) \vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*$ for $\max(0,1-\delta)
\lesssim 1 + \lambda \lesssim 1 + \delta$. Hence, the error in the
Frobenius norm may be as large as $\delta \|\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*\|_F
= \delta$, which is what the theorem gives.

We now turn to the proof of Theorem \ref{teo:stability}. We do not
need to show the second part as the perturbation argument is exactly
the same as in \cite[Theorem 1.2]{PhaseLift2}. The argument for the
first part follows that of the earlier Lemma \ref{lem:inexact}, and
makes use of the existence of a dual certificate $\mtx{Y} =
\mathcal{A}^*(\vct{\lambda})$ obeying the conditions of this lemma.

Set $\hat{\mtx{X}} = \vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^* + \mtx{H}$.  Since
$\hat{\mtx{X}}$ is feasible, $\mtx{H}_{T^\perp} \succeq \mtx{0}$ and
$\langle \mtx{H}, \mtx{Y} \rangle = \<\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}),
\vct{\lambda}\>$.  First,
\begin{align*}
  \langle \mtx{H}_T, \mtx{Y}_T \rangle
  & = \<\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}), \vct{\lambda}\> - \langle \mtx{H}_{T^\perp}, \mtx{Y}_{T^\perp}\rangle \\
  & \ge - \|\vct{\lambda}\|_\infty \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1 +
  \<\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}, \mtx{I}_{T^\perp}\> = -\frac{7}{m}
  \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1 + \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}).
\end{align*}
Second, we also have
\[
\operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})\geq {1\over
  {(1+1/8)m}}\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp})\|_1 \geq  {1\over
  {(1+1/8)m}}(\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H}_{T})\|_1 - \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1),
\]
which by the same argument as before, yields
\[
\operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}) \geq {0.73 \over {\sqrt{2}}}\|\mtx{H}_T\|_F -
{1\over {(1+1/8)m}}\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1.
\]
Since $|\langle \mtx{H}_T, \mtx{Y}_T \rangle| \leq \frac12
\|\mtx{H}_{T}\|_F$, we have established that\footnote{The careful
  reader will note that we can get a far better constant by observing
  that the proof of Theorem \ref{teo:main} also yields $\|\mtx{Y}_T\|_F \le
  1/4$. Hence, we have $\|\mtx{H}_T\|_F \le 4(8/9 + 7) {\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1}/{m}$.}
\[
\Bigl(\frac{0.73}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{2}\Bigr) \|\mtx{H}_T\|_F \le
  \Bigl(\frac{8}{9} + 7\Bigr)
    \frac{\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1}{m}.
\]
Also, since $\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}$ is positive semidefinite
\[
\|\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}\|_F \le \operatorname{tr}(\mtx{H}_{T^\perp}) \le \frac12 \|\mtx{H}_T\|_F +
\frac{7}{m} \|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1
\]
so that
\[
\|\mtx{H}\|_F \le C'_0 \frac{\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1}{m} \le 2C'_0 \frac{\|\vct{w}\|_1}{m} .
\]
To see why the second inequality is true, observe that
\[
\|\vct{b} - \mathcal{A}(\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^* + \mtx{H})\|_1 = \|\vct{w} -
\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1 \le \|\vct{b} - \mathcal{A}(\vct{x}_0 \vct{x}_0^*)\|_1 =
\|\vct{w}\|_1,
\]
which gives $\|\mathcal{A}(\mtx{H})\|_1 \le 2 \|\vct{w}\|_1$ by the triangle
inequality. The proof is complete.

\small
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
E.~C.~is partially supported by AFOSR under grant FA9550-09-1-0643 and
by ONR under grant N00014-09-1-0258.  This work was partially
presented at the University of California at Berkeley in January 2012,
and at the University of British Columbia in February 2012.

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Information Theory (cs.IT); Numerical Analysis (math.NA)


Convex hulls of polynomial Julia sets

Abstract: We prove P. Alexandersson's conjecture that for every complex polynomial $p$ of degree $d \geq 2$ the convex hull $H_p$ of the Julia set $J_p$ of $p$ satisfies $p^{-1}(H_p) \subset H_p$. We further prove that the equality $p^{-1}(H_p) = H_p$ is achieved only if $p$ is affinely conjugated to the Chebyshev polynomial $T_d$ of degree $d$, to $-T_d$ or a monomial $c z^d$ with $|c|=1$.

\section{Introduction}

Let $d$ be a positive integer greater than or equal to $2$ and let $a_0,a_1,...,a_d$ be complex numbers such that $a_d \neq 0$. Then $p(z)=a_dz^d+...+a_1z+a_0, z \in \mathbb{C}$  is a polynomial of degree $d$. In particular,

 \[
 \lim_{|z| \to \infty} \frac{|p(z)|}{|z|^d} >0.
 \]

  This  property  influences dynamics of $p$ in the complex plane. It implies that there exists an $R >0$ such that $p^{-1}(D_R) \subset D_R$, where $D_R:=\{z: |z|\leq R\}$.  Furthermore (cf. \cite{Kl}, Corollary 6), for any such  $R$ and for each positive integer $k_0$ we have
  \[
 \emptyset \neq  K_p= \bigcap_{k \geq k_0} p^{-k}(D_R),
\]

where $K_p:=\{z \in \mathbb{C}: \{p^{\circ n}(z)\}\  \text{is bounded}\}$. We use the notation $p^{\circ n}$ to denote  the composition $p \circ ... \circ p$, $n$ times.\\

Considering $p$ as a holomorphic map of the Riemann sphere $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ onto itself (with $p(\infty)=\infty)$, we  define the Fatou set $F_p$ of $p$ and the Julia set $J_p$ of $p$ as follows (cf. Definition 3.1.3, \cite{Be}): $F_p$ is the maximal open subset of  $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ on which the sequence $\{p^{\circ n}, n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ is equicontinuous, and $J_p$ is the complement of $F_p$ in $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$.  By Theorem 4.2.1 in \cite{Be} $J_p$ is infinite. For a general holomorphic (hence rational) map $r$ of  $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ Theorem 4.2.3 in \cite{Be} gives an alternative that either $\mathcal{J}_r=\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$  or $\mathcal{J}_r$ has empty interior. However, by Theorem 3.2.5 in \cite{Be}, for any polynomial  $p$ the fixed point $\infty$ belongs to the Fatou set, so $J_p$ always has empty interior. By $F_\infty$ we denote the connected component of  $F_p$ containing $\infty$.\\

It follows from the above definitions that $K_p$ is the complement of $F_\infty$ in $\mathbb{C}$ or, equivalently, the union of $J_p$ with bounded components of $F_p$. We call $K_p$ the filled-in Julia set of $p$. Using Montel's theorem it is easy to deduce from the above definitions that $J_p=\partial F_\infty =\partial K_p$.\\

By Theorem 3.2.4 in \cite{Be}, the Fatou set and the Julia set are completely invariant under $p$. That is, $p^{-1}(F_p)=F_p=p(F_p)$ and similarly $p^{-1}(J_p)=J_p=p(J_p)$. The above representation of $K_p$ shows that  $p^{-1}(K_p)=K_p=p(K_p)$. In view of these equalities, as well as the inclusion $p^{-1}(D_R) \subset D_R$, on which they rely, it is natural to ask about existence of   closed sets $E \subset \mathbb{C}$ (other than $J_p$, $K_p$ or $D_R$) containing $J_p$ such that $p^{-1}(E) \subset E$. In \cite{Al} P.~Alexandersson conjectured that $p^{-1}(H_p) \subset H_p$ for every complex polynomial $p$ of degree $d \geq 2$, where $H_p={\rm conv}J_p$ is the convex hull of the Julia set of $p$. He presented graphical evidence in support of this conjecture in some cases of quadratic and cubic polynomials. We settled his conjecture positively; see \cite{St} for a preliminary version.\\

In this article we present a detailed proof of  Alexandersson's conjecture that $p^{-1}(H_p) \subset H_p$ for every complex polynomial $p$ of degree $d \geq 2$ (Theorem \ref{theorem: main}). In addition we characterize the polynomials $p$ for which  the equality $p^{-1}(H_p) = H_p$ is achieved (Theorem \ref{theorem: conjcheb} and Theorem \ref{theorem: conjpower}).\\

Let us first mention some simple  examples of polynomials $p$ with $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$.  For $p(z)=T_2(z)=2z^2-1$, the Julia set $J_p$ is the real axis segment $[-1,1]$, so  $H_p=J_p$ and of course $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$. The same holds  for any $d > 2$ and the Chebyshev polynomial $T_d$ of degree $d$,  $T_d(\cos z)=\cos (dz)$. It is also possible to give an example with $J_p \subsetneq H_p$: for any $d \geq 2$, $|\alpha|=1$ and  $p(z)=\alpha z^d$, we have $J_p=\{|z|=1\}$, $H_p=\{|z|\leq 1\}$ and $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$. We will show that, up to a conjugacy by an affine map $g(z)=az+b$, these are the only examples achieving the equality $p^{-1}(H_p) = H_p$. \\

We will use the following:

\begin{proposition} (Theorem 1.4.1, \cite{Be})  \label{prop: cheb} Let $p$ be a polynomial of degree $d \geq2$. Then the real interval $[-1,1]$ is both forward and backward invariant under $p$ if and only if $p$ is $T_d$ or $-T_d$, where $T_d$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of degree $d$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proposition}  (Theorem 1.3.1, \cite{Be}) \label{prop: powers} Let $p$ be a polynomial of degree $d \geq2$ and suppose that the unit circle $\{|z|=1\}$ is both forward and backward invariant under $p$. Then $p(z)=c  z^d$, where $|c|=1$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proposition} (\cite{Be}, Theorem 3.1.4): \label{prop: moebius} Let $r$ be a non-constant rational map, let $g$ be a M\"obius map,  $g(z)=\frac{\alpha z+\beta}{\gamma z+ \delta}$, and let $s=g\circ r \circ g^{-1}$. Then $\mathcal{F}_s=g(\mathcal{F}_r)$ and  $\mathcal{J}_s=g(\mathcal{J}_r)$.
\end{proposition}

  %

  \section{A primer on convex sets}

  Let us recall some basic definitions and theorems about convexity in vector spaces over $\mathbb{R}$. We will use these in $\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{R}+i\mathbb{R}$.

\begin{definition}  (\cite{Ho2}, Definition 2.1.1; \cite{Ba}, p. 5): Let $V$ be a vector space over $\mathbb{R}$. A subset $X$ of $V$ is
called convex if $tx_1 + (1-t)x_2 \in X$ whenever $0\leq t \leq 1$ and $x_1,x_2 \in X$.
\end{definition}

    \begin{definition} (cf. Proposition 2.1.3, \cite{Ho2} or \cite{Ba}, Theorem (I.2.1)) Let $V$ be a vector space over $\mathbb{R}$.  For every subset $X \subset V$ the intersection ${\rm conv} X$
of all convex sets containing $X$ is  a convex set, called the convex
hull of $X$.
 \end{definition}

 It follows that for any two sets $X_1$, $X_2$ in $V$, if  $X_1 \subset X_2$, then ${\rm conv} X_1 \subset {\rm conv} X_2$. Furthermore, a set is convex if and only if it equals its convex hull.\\

 Convexity is invariant under affine maps:

\begin{proposition} (\cite{Ho2}, Proposition 2.1.2): If $T$ is an affine map $V_1 \to  V_2$ where $V_j$ are vector
spaces, and $X_j$ is a convex subset of $V_j$, then $TX_1 = \{Tx: x \in X_1\}$ and
$T^{-1}X_2 = \{x \in V_1: Tx \in X_2\}$ are convex subsets of $V_2$ and $V_1$, respectively.
\end{proposition}

 We will use the following version of the hyperplane separation theorem:

\begin{proposition} ( \cite{Ho2},  Corollary 2.1.11; \cite{Ba}, Theorem (III.1.3)) \label{lemma: separation}: Let $X$ be a convex and closed subset of a finite-dimensional
vector space $V$. If $x_0 \not \in X$, then  there is an affine half-space containing $x_0$ which does not intersect $X$; that is, there is an affine  function $f: V \to \mathbb{R}$ with $f(x_0) < 0 \leq f(x), \ x \in X$.
  \end{proposition}

 Some other useful properties  of convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$   are the following:

\begin{proposition} (\cite{Ba}, Theorem (III.2.5): If $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is convex, then the interior of $X$ is also convex.
 \end{proposition}

 \begin{proposition}
(\cite{Ho2}, Theorem 2.15; \cite{Ba}, Corollary (I.2.4)): If $K \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is compact, then ${\rm conv } K$ is also compact.
 \end{proposition}

 The following topological property of convex sets will also play an important role.

 \begin{proposition} \label{prop: boundary}The boundary of a convex set $X$ with nonempty interior in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is homeomorphic to the unit sphere.
 \end{proposition}

 \begin{proof} It can be assumed that the origin $0$ is in the interior of $X$. The map $\varphi: \partial X \ni x \mapsto x/\|x\| \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ is a homeomorphism.
 For further details, see Theorem 2.1, \cite{nlab}.
 \end{proof}

 A relation between convex sets and behavior of complex polynomials in $\mathbb{C}$ is given by the classical Gauss-Lucas theorem:

  \begin{theorem} (\cite{RS}, Theorem 2.1.1; \cite{CGOT}, Theorem 1.1; \cite{Ba}, problem 5, p.8; \cite{Ho2}, Exercise 2.1.14): Every convex set in the complex plane containing all the zeros of a complex polynomial $p$ also contains all critical points of $p$.
  \end{theorem}

We will also use the following version of Gauss-Lucas theorem, due to W.~P.~Thurston:

\begin{lemma} (\cite{CGOT}, Proposition 1.1) \label{lemma: Thurston}: Let $p$ be any polynomial of degree at least two. Denote by $\mathcal{C}$ the convex hull of the critical points of $p$. Then $p: E \to \mathbb{C}$ is surjective for any closed half-plane $E$ intersecting $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{lemma}

The following consequence of Gauss-Lucas theorem is a modification of Exercise 2.1.15 in \cite{Ho2}:

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: convexity}
Let  $p(z)=\sum_{j=0}^d a_jz^j$ be a polynomial in $z \in \mathbb{C}$ of degree $d$.  Let $B$ be a closed convex subset of $\mathbb{C}$ containing zeros of $p'$. Then the set $C_B$ of all $w \in \mathbb{C}$ such that all the zeros of $p(\cdot)-w$ are contained in $B$ is a convex set.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Note that by continuity of roots (see e.g. \cite{Lo}, Section B.5.3)  $C_B$ is closed when $B$ is. Let $w_1,w_2 \in C_B$ and $n_1,n_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ and consider the polynomial (in one complex variable $z$) $P(z):=(p(z)-w_1)^{n_1}(p(z)-w_2)^{n_2}$. Then all zeros of $P$ lie in $B$ (by definition of $C_B$), so the convex hull of zeros of $P$ is contained in $B$. By Gauss-Lucas theorem, all zeros of $P'$ are contained in $B$. The zeros of $P'$ are respectively all the zeros of $p(z)-w_1$, all the zeros of  $p(z)-w_2$ (if $n_1,n_2 >1$), all the zeros  of $p'$ and all the zeros of $p(\cdot)-\left (\frac{n_2}{n_1+n_2}w_1 + \frac{n_1}{n_1+n_2}w_2\right)$. By the definition of $C_B$,  $\frac{n_2}{n_1+n_2}w_1 + \frac{n_1}{n_1+n_2}w_2 \in C_B$. Varying $n_1,n_2$ and using the property that $C_B$ is closed, we get that $tw_1+(1-t)w_2 \in B$ for all $0 \leq t \leq 1$.
\end{proof}

The following simple observation will be also useful:

 \begin{lemma} \label{lemma: triangle} Let $K \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a convex set containing more than one point. Then $K$ has an empty interior if and only if it is a subset of a line $\{(x,y): ax+by+c=0\}$, where $a^2+b^2\neq 0$.
 \end{lemma}

 \begin{proof} The ``if'' part is obvious. For the ``only if'', assume that $K$ contains three non-collinear points $z_1, z_2, z_3$. Then it also contains the convex hull of $\{z_1, z_2, z_3\}$. This convex hull is the triangle with vertices $z_1, z_2, z_3$, which has non-empty interior.
 \end{proof}

In addition to the above  notion of a convex hull, we will use the notion of a holomorphically convex hull of a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$ and some of its properties.

  \begin{definition} (\cite{Ho1}, p. 8) Let $\Omega$ be an open set in $\mathbb{C}$. Let $A(\Omega)$ denote the class of holomorphic functions  in $\Omega$. Let $Z$ be an arbitrary compact subset of $\Omega$. Then the holomorphically convex hull $\widehat{Z}$ of $Z$ in $\Omega$ is defined as
  \[
  \widehat{Z}=\widehat{Z}_\Omega=\{z \in \Omega: |f(z)| \leq \sup_Z |f| \ \forall f \in A(\Omega)\}.
  \]
  \end{definition}

\begin{proposition} \label{prop: hulls} (\cite{Ho1}, p. 8) For $Z$ as above we  have
\[
\widehat{Z} \subset {\rm conv} Z.
\]
\end{proposition}

\begin{proposition} \label{prop: Runge} (\cite{Ho1}, Theorem 1.3.3) $\widehat{Z}_\Omega$
is
the
union
of
$Z$
and
the  connected components
of
$\Omega \setminus
Z$
which
are
relatively  compact
in
$\Omega$.
\end{proposition}

\section{Proof of the Theorem}

Our main result is the following:

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem: main} Let $p$ be a complex polynomial of degree $d \geq 2$. Then $p^{-1}(H_p) \subset H_p$.
 \end{theorem}

 We will use the Lemma below, a consequence of Lemma \ref{lemma: Thurston}:

\begin{lemma} \label{lemma: allcritpoints} Let $p$ be any polynomial of degree at least two. Then all zeros of $p'$ belong to $H_p={\rm conv}J_p$, the convex hull of the Julia set $J_p$ of $p$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Suppose there is an $x_0 \not \in H_p$ such that $p'(x_0)=0$. By Proposition \ref{lemma: separation} (applied twice if necessary), there exists a closed half-plane $E$ such that $x_0 \in E$ and $E \cap J_p = \emptyset$. By Lemma \ref{lemma: Thurston}, $p: E \to \mathbb{C}$ is surjective. Take a $z_0 \in J_p$. Then on one hand $p^{-1}(z_0) \subset J_p$, while on the other hand $p^{-1}(z_0) \cap E \neq \emptyset$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} For the quadratic family $p_c(z)=z^2+c, \ c \in \mathbb{C}$, which gave motivation for \cite{Al},    it is easy to check directly (without appealing to Lemma \ref{lemma: allcritpoints}) that the critical point $0$ is the center of symmetry of the Julia set $J_c$, so it is a convex combination of two points in $J_c$.
\end{remark}

 \begin{proof} (of Theorem \ref{theorem: main})
  By Lemma \ref{lemma: allcritpoints} $B=H_p$ satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \ref{lemma: convexity}. Applying  Lemma \ref{lemma: convexity} to   $H_p$  we get that the set $C_p=\{ w \in \mathbb{C}: p^{-1}(w) \in H_p\}$ is convex. Furthermore, for $w \in J_p$ we have $p^{-1}(w) \in J_p \subset H_p$, so $J_p \subset C_p$. Hence $H_p \subset C_p$, which implies $p^{-1}(H_p) \subset H_p$.
\end{proof}

To characterize polynomials $p$ with $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$, we first prove the following two lemmas:

\begin{lemma} For every complex polynomial $p$ of degree $d \geq 2$, $K_p \subset H_p$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Note that by Proposition \ref{prop: Runge} $K_p$ is the holomorphically convex hull of $J_p$ in $\Omega=\mathbb{C}$. By Proposition \ref{prop: hulls}, the holomorphically convex hull  of a compact set in $\mathbb{C}$ is a subset of the  convex hull of this compact, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} Let $p$ be a complex polynomial of degree $d \geq 2$. If $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$, then $H_p \subset  K_p$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} If $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)$, then $H_p = \bigcap_{n \geq 0} p^{-n}(H_p)$. It follows that for every $z \in H_p$ the orbit $\{p^{\circ n}(z): n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ is contained in $H_p$, and hence bounded. Therefore $H_p \subset  K_p$.
\end{proof}

Now we consider two cases: $J_p = K_p$ or $J_p \subsetneq K_p$.

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem: conjcheb}  Let $p$ be a complex polynomial of degree $d \geq 2$ such that $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)=J_p$. Then $p$ is affinely conjugated to the Chebyshev polynomial $T_d$ or to $-T_d$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} Recall that for any polynomial $p$ the Julia set $J_p$ has empty interior. If $J_p=H_p$, then $J_p$ is an infinite closed convex set in $\mathbb{C}$ with empty interior, and hence, by Lemma \ref{lemma: triangle}, is a subset of a line.  Being connected and compact, $J_p$ must be a (closed) segment. An affine map $g(z)=az+b$  transforms $J_p$ into $[-1,1]$, which is the Julia set of $g\circ p \circ g^{-1}$. By Proposition \ref{prop: cheb}, $g\circ p \circ g^{-1}$ is equal to the Chebyshev polynomial $T_d$ or to $-T_d$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem: conjpower}  Let $p$ be a complex polynomial of degree $d \geq 2$ such that $H_p=p^{-1}(H_p)=K_p$ has nonempty interior. Then $p$ is affinely conjugated to a monomial  $c z^d$ with $|c|=1$.
\end{theorem}

The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: conjpower} relies on properties of  Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff dimension (henceforth denoted by ${\rm dim}$). We will not define these notions here. For detailed account we refer to \cite{Fa}. Applications to Julia sets can be also found in Chapter 10 in \cite{Be}. The following result is key:

\begin{proposition} \label{prop: rect} (Theorem 1, \cite{Ha}): Let $f :\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \to \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ be a rational function. Suppose
that the Julia set $J_f$ is a Jordan curve. Then ${\rm dim} (J_f) > 1$ or $J_f$ is a circle/line.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} (of Theorem \ref{theorem: conjpower}) By Proposition \ref{prop: boundary}, $J_p=\partial K_p = \partial H_p$ is a (closed) Jordan curve and the (only) connected boundary component of the convex domain ${\rm int} \ K_p$.
By Problem 1.5.1 in \cite{To}, every such curve is  rectifiable, that is, it has positive and finite length. By Lemma 3.2 in \cite{Fa}, the Hausdorff dimension of  a rectifiable curve equals $1$ (this consequence is explicitly stated on p. 30 in \cite{Fa}, after the proof of the Lemma 3.2). Because $\infty$ is in the Fatou set of $p$, Proposition \ref{prop: rect} implies that $J_p$ is a Euclidean circle. Transforming $J_p$ by an affine map $g$ into the unit circle and applying Proposition \ref{prop: powers} we conclude that $p(z)=g^{-1}(c (g(z))^d)$, where $|c|=1$.
\end{proof}

Complex Variables (math.CV); Dynamical Systems (math.DS)

Convex hulls of polynomial Julia sets


Controlling Lipschitz functions

Abstract: Given any positive integers $m$ and $d$, we say the a sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in $\mathbb R^m$ is {\em Lipschitz-$d$-controlling} if one can select suitable values $y_i\; (i\in I)$ such that for every Lipschitz function $f:\mathbb R^m\rightarrow \mathbb R^d$ there exists $i$ with $|f(x_i)-y_i|<1$. We conjecture that for every $m\le d$, a sequence $(x_i)_{i\in I}\subset\mathbb R^m$ is $d$-controlling if and only if $$\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\, |x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}=\infty.$$ We prove that this condition is necessary and a slightly stronger one is already sufficient for the sequence to be $d$-controlling. We also prove the conjecture for $m=1$.

\section{Introduction}

The following question, in some sense dual to Tarski's famous plank problem~\cite{Ta32,McMS14,Mo32}, was raised by L\'aszl\'o Fejes T\'oth~\cite{FT74}: What is the ``sparsest'' sequence of points in the plane with the property that every straight line $\ell$ comes closer than $1$ to at least one of its points? Erd\H os and Pach~\cite{EP80} answered this question by showing that for every infinite sequence of positive numbers $(r_i)_{i\in I}$,  one can find points $p_i$ with $|p_i|=r_i$ such that every line $\ell$ passes at distance less than $1$ from $p_i$, for at least one $i\in I$, if and only if $\lim_{n\to \infty} r_n = \infty$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{r_i}=\infty.$
\smallskip

Makai and Pach~\cite{MaP83} proposed a closely related, but more general question. Given a family $\cal F$ of real functions $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$, we say that an infinite sequence $x_i, i\in I,$ is {\em $\cal F$-controlling} if one can choose reals $y_i, i\in I,$ such that the graph of any function $f\in{\cal F}$ ``comes close'' to at least one of the points $p_i=(x_i,y_i), i\in I,$ in the sense that
$$|f(x_i)-y_i|<1\;\;\; \mbox{\rm holds for some}\;\;\; i\in I.$$
In particular, they proved that if $\cal F$ is the family of all linear functions $f(x)=a_0+a_1x\; (a_0,a_1\in {\mathbb R})$, a sequence of numbers $x_i\ge 1$ is $\cal F$-controlling if and only if $\sum_{i\in I}\frac{1}{x_i}=\infty.$ Kupavskii and Pach~\cite{KP16} managed to generalize this statement to the case where $\cal F$ consists of all polynomials $f(x)=a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+\ldots+a_kx^k$ of degree at most $k$, for some positive $k$. In this case, the corresponding necessary and sufficient condition is $\sum_{i\in I}\frac{1}{x_i^k}=\infty.$
\smallskip

The aim of this note is to investigate the analogous problem for another interesting class of functions. Given two positive integers $m$ and $d$, let ${\cal L}(m,d)$ denote the class of {\em Lipschitz functions} from ${\mathbb R}^m$ to ${\mathbb R}^d$, that is, the class of functions for which there exists a constant $C$ such that
$$|f(x)-f(x')|\le C|x-x'|\;\;\; \mbox{\rm for all}\;\;\; x,x'\in{\mathbb R}^m.$$
If a function $f$ satisfies the condition above with a fixed $C>0$, then $f$ is called a {\em $C$-Lipschitz} function (or a function with {\em Lipschitz constant} $C$). Note that in this definition we can use any norm equivalent to the Euclidean norm. Throughout this note, we will work with maximum norm. For convenience, $|.|$ will stand for the {\em maximum norm}, and the word ``ball'' will refer to a ball in the maximum norm, that is, a cube.
\medskip

\noindent{\bf Definition.} {\em Given a {\em function} $f: {\mathbb R}^m\to {\mathbb R}^d$ and two points $x\in{\mathbb R}^m, y\in{\mathbb R}^d,$ we say that the pair $(x,y)$ {\em controls} $f$ if $|f(x)-y|<1$.

An infinite {\em sequence} $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ of points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is said to be {\em ${\cal L}(m,d)$-controlling} or, in short, {\em $d$-controlling} if one can choose points $(y_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^d$ such that for every $f\in {\cal L}(m,d)$ there exists $i$ such that $(x_i,y_i)$ controls $f$.}\medskip

It follows from the definition that replacing the condition $|f(x)-y|<1$ by the inequality $|f(x)-y|<\varepsilon$ for any fixed $\varepsilon>0$, does not effect whether a sequence is $d$-controlling. To see this, it is enough to notice that $f\in{\cal L}(m,d)$ if and only if $\varepsilon f\in{\cal L}(m,d)$, and that $(x_i,y_i)$ controls $f\in{\cal L}(m,d)$ if and only if $|(\varepsilon f)(x_i)-(\varepsilon y_i)|<\varepsilon.$
\smallskip

Obviously, if a sequence is $d$-controlling, then it is also $d'$-controlling for every $1\le d'\le d$. Indeed, ${\mathbb R}^{d'}$ can be regarded as a subspace of ${\mathbb R}^d$, so every Lipschitz function from ${\mathbb R}^m$ to ${\mathbb R}^{d'}$ is a Lipschitz function from ${\mathbb R}^m$ to ${\mathbb R}^d$.
\smallskip

We solve a problem in~\cite{MaP83} by giving, for any $d$, a necessary and sufficient condition for a sequence of points in ${\mathbb R}$ to be $d$-controlling ($m=1$). We conjecture that this result generalizes to sequences of points in ${\mathbb R}^m$, for any $m\le d$, but we can prove only a slightly weaker statement.
\smallskip

The following theorem gives a necessary condition. A somewhat weaker result was
established in \cite[Theorem 3.6A]{MaP83} (it is stated in the concluding remarks of this note).

\begin{thm}\label{nec} Let $m, d$ be positive integers. If a sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is $d$-controlling, then we have
$$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\, |x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}=\infty.$$
\end{thm}

Our next result shows that for $m=1$, the necessary condition in Theorem~\ref{nec} is also sufficient for a sequence of points in ${\mathbb R}$ to be $d$-controlling.

\begin{thm}\label{spec} Let $d$ be a positive integer. A sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}$ is $d$-controlling if and only if
$$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\, |x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}=\infty.$$
\end{thm}

For $m>d$, the condition in Theorems~\ref{nec} and~\ref{spec} is necessary, but {\em not sufficient} for a sequence in ${\mathbb R}^m$ to be $d$-controlling. To see this, observe that the sequence $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ consisting of all integer points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ satisfies the condition for all $d<m$. Nevertheless, this sequence is not even $1$-controlling. Indeed, for any function $h:I\to\{-1,1\}$, there exists a 2-Lipschitz function $f_h:{\mathbb R}^m\to{\mathbb R}$ for which $f(x_i)=h(i)$ for all $i\in I$. For any sequence of reals $(y_i)$, choose $\bar{h}(i)\in\{-1,1\}$ so that $|\bar{h}(i)-y_i|\ge 1$ for every $i\in I$, and notice that $f_{\bar{h}}$ is not controlled by any pair $(x_i,y_i)$.
\smallskip

However, we believe that for $m\le d$, the above condition is not only necessary but also sufficient for a sequence in ${\mathbb R}^m$ to be $d$-controlling.

\begin{gypo}\label{conj1} Let $m, d$ be positive integers, $m\le d$. A sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is $d$-controlling if and only if
$$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\, |x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}=\infty.$$
\end{gypo}

We cannot prove this conjecture for $m>1$, but we can formulate a slightly stronger condition that is already sufficient for a sequence to be $d$-controlling, provided that $m\le d$.

\begin{thm}\label{gen} Let $m, d$ be positive integers, $m\le d$. Suppose that a sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ satisfies the following condition for every positive $\alpha$: The set of all points $x\in{\mathbb R}^m$ with
$$|\{i\in I\, :\,|x_i-x|<\alpha\}|<|x|^{d-m}$$
is bounded.

Then the sequence $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ is $d$-controlling.
\end{thm}

For any $\beta>\alpha>0$, the region $\{x\in {\mathbb R}^m:\beta\le |x|\le 2\beta\}$ contains at least some positive constant $c=c(m)$ times $(\beta/\alpha)^m$ pairwise disjoint balls of radius $\alpha$ (that is, cubes of side length $2\alpha$, in the maximum norm). If the condition of the last theorem is satisfied, then each of these balls contains at least $\beta^{d-m}$ points $x_i$, provided that $\beta>\beta(\alpha)$ is sufficiently large. Thus, in this case,
$$|\{i\in I\, :\, |x_i|\le 2\beta\}|\ge c(\beta/\alpha)^m\beta^{d-m}=(c/\alpha^m)\beta^d.$$
Letting $\alpha\rightarrow 0,$ we obtain that the condition in
Conjecture~\ref{conj1} also holds. Roughly speaking, the condition in
Theorem~\ref{gen} is equivalent to the condition in Conjecture~\ref{conj1} for
``uniformly distributed'' sequences $x_i$, but the two conditions differ when
the density of the point sequence depends ``unevenly'' on the location. We
remark that our Theorem~\ref{nec} differs from Theorem 3.6A in \cite{MaP83} in the same sense: for ``uniform'' sequences the two
statements are equivalent, but in general they are not.
\smallskip

The exponent of $|x|$ in the right-hand side of the displayed formula in Theorem~\ref{gen} cannot be replaced by any smaller number, as follows from Theorem~\ref{nec}. Theorem~\ref{gen} disproves a conjecture from \cite{MaP83}; see the Remark at the end of Section 4.\\

It is easy to see that the sufficient condition stated in Theorem~\ref{gen} is {\em not necessary} even if $m=1$ and $d$ is arbitrary. The sequence of points consisting of $k2^{kd}$ copies of $2^k\in{\mathbb R}$ for every positive integer $k$, satisfies the condition of Theorem~\ref{spec} and is, therefore, $d$-controlling. On the other hand, apart from those $x\in{\mathbb R}$ that are closer than $\alpha$ to some power of $2$, every $x\not=0$ satisfies the inequality in Theorem~\ref{gen}. The set of these $x$ is {\em unbounded}, thus Theorem~\ref{gen} is not applicable. Since every $d$-controlling sequence of points in ${\mathbb R}$ can be regarded as a $d$-controlling sequence of points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ for any $m>1$, we obtain that the sufficient condition stated in Theorem~\ref{gen} is not necessary for a sequence to be $d$-controlling, for any values of $m$ and $d$.
\smallskip

Nevertheless, for some ``natural'' classes of sequences, the two conditions are equivalent, that is, Conjecture~\ref{conj1} holds. For instance, let $m\le d$ and $c>0$ be fixed, and consider the sequence of all points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ whose each coordinate is the $c$-th power of some natural number. It is easy to see that this sequence satisfies both the condition in Conjecture~\ref{conj1} and the one in Theorem~\ref{gen} if $c<m/d$ and neither of them, otherwise.

\smallskip

Concerning the case $m>d$, we have a conjecture that (roughly speaking) states that a sequence in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is $d$-controlling if and only if there is a $d$-dimensional Lipschitz surface passing through a subset of its points that already guarantees this property. The precise statement can be formulated for every $m$ and $d$, but for $m\le d$ the conjecture is obviously true.

\begin{gypo}\label{conj2}
 Let $m, d$ be positive integers. A sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is $d$-controlling if and only if there exist a Lipschitz map $g:{\mathbb R}^d\to{\mathbb R}^m$ and a $d$-controlling sequence of points $(x'_i)_{i\in I'}$ in ${\mathbb R}^d$ with $I'\subseteq I$ such that $g(x'_i)=x_i$ for all $i\in I'$.
\end{gypo}

The ``if'' part of the conjecture is trivially true. Indeed, suppose that a sequence $(y_i)_{i\in I'}$ in ${\mathbb R}^d$ shows that $(x'_i)_{i\in I'}$ is $d$-controlling. Then the same sequence also shows that the sequence of points $(x_i)_{i\in I'}$ in ${\mathbb R}^m$ is also $d$-controlling. To see this, take any Lipschitz function $f:{\mathbb R}^m\to{\mathbb R}^d$, and observe that $f(g(x)):{\mathbb R}^d\to{\mathbb R}^d$ is also a Lipschitz function. Thus, we have $|f(x_i)-y_i|=|f(g(x'_i))-y_i|<1$ for some $i\in I'$.
\smallskip

The ``only if'' part of the conjecture evidently holds for $m\le d$. Indeed, choose $g:{\mathbb R}^d\to{\mathbb R}^m$ to be the projection to the subspace induced by the first $m$ coordinates, set $I'=I$ and $x'_i=x_i\times0^{d-m}\in{\mathbb R}^d$ for every $i\in I$. The important part of the conjecture is the ``only if'' direction where $m>d$.
\smallskip

The proofs of Theorems \ref{nec}, \ref{spec}, and \ref{gen}, are presented in Sections 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{nec}}

As mentioned in the introduction, a somewhat weaker statement (Theorem 3.6A) was proved in \cite{MaP83}. Here we extend the proof to the general case.

Consider a sequence $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ that violates the condition in the theorem, that is, for which
$$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\,|x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}<\infty.$$
Given any sequence $(y_i)_{i\in I}$ of points in ${\mathbb R}^d$, we have to find a Lipschitz function $f\in{\cal L}(m,d)$ from ${\mathbb R}^m$ to ${\mathbb R}^d$ that is not controlled by any of the pairs $(x_i,y_i), i\in I$. We will find such a function $f$ with the property that $f(x)=g(|x|)$ for some Lipschitz function $g:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^d$. Then it is enough to guarantee that no pair $(|x_i|,y_i)$ controls $g$. In other words, it is enough to prove the statement for $m=1$.
\smallskip

For technical reasons, we deal with the indices $i$ for which $x_i=0$, separately. Let $k$ denote the number of such indices. It follows from the assumption that $k$ is finite. Suppose without loss of generality that the index set $I$ is the set of integers larger than $-k$ and that $|x_i|$ is monotonically increasing in $i$ with $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}|x_i|=\infty$. Thus, we have
\[ \begin{array}{lcr}
x_i=0 & \text{if}\ i\le 0,\\
|x_i|>0 & \text{if}\ i>0.
\end{array}\]

Let  $\alpha=\sup_{i>0}\frac{i}{|x_i|^d}$ and $\beta=2\alpha^{1/d}$. For $\mu\in {\mathbb R},$ denote $\lfloor \mu\rfloor$ and $\lceil \mu\rceil$ the lower and the upper integer part of $\mu$, respectively. Define a real number $\mu:=\max_{j>0}\frac{\lceil |x_j|\rceil^d}{|x_j|^d}$. It is easy to see that $\mu$ is a finite number bigger than $1$. Notice that $\alpha<\infty$ and, hence, $\beta<\infty$, because
$$\alpha=\sup_{i>0}\frac{i}{|x_i|^d}\le
\sup_{i>0}\frac{|\{j\in I\, :\,|x_j|\le |x_i|\}|}{|x_i|^d}\le \mu
\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{j\in I\, :\,|x_j|\le n\}|}{n^d}<\infty.$$
\smallskip

In what follows, we define a nested sequence $\L_0\supseteq\L_1\supseteq\L_2\supseteq\ldots$ of families of $\beta$-Lipschitz functions from ${\mathbb R}$ to ${\mathbb R}^d$, we show that their intersection is nonempty, and any function $g\in\bigcap_{i\ge 0}\L_i$ meets the requirements.
\smallskip

Fix a point $y\in{\mathbb R}^d$ such that $|y-y_j|>1$ for every $j\le0$. Let $\L_0\subset\L(1,d)$ denote the family of all $\beta$-Lipschitz functions $g:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^d$ with $g(0)=y$. By the choice of $y$, no function $g\in\L_0$ is controlled by any of the points $(|x_j|,y_j)$ with $j\le0$.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}  \includegraphics[width=120mm]{Unblocklip2.pdf}\label{pic1}  \end{center}\begin{center}  Figure 1: The case $d=1$. \end{center}
\end{figure}

For every $i>0$, let $\L_i$ be defined as the set of all functions in $\L_0$ that are not controlled by any of the pairs $(|x_j|,y_j)$ with $j\le i$, and let
$$D_i=\{g(|x_i|)\, :\, g\in\L_i\}.$$
See Fig.~1, for an illustration of the case $d=1$. (The points $(x_i,y_i)$ are marked red. If a $\beta$-Lipschitz function belongs to $\L_i$, its graph cannot intersect the yellow region incident to $(x_i,y_i)$.)

We establish a lower bound for the Lebesgue measures $\mu(D_i)$ of the sets $D_i$.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf Claim 2.1.}\; {\em For every $i\ge0$, we have\;\;
$\mu(D_i)\ge2^{d+1}\alpha|x_i|^d-2^di.$}
\medskip

\noindent{\it Proof.} By induction on $i$. For $i=0$, we have $D_0=\{y\}$, which is a nonempty set of zero measure. It follows from the definition of $\alpha$ that the bound in Claim 2.1 is strictly positive for every $i>0$. Assume that we have already verified the Claim for some $i\ge0$, and we want to prove it for $i+1$.

Let $D'=\{g(|x_{i+1}|)\, :\, g\in\L_i\}$. Clearly, $D'$ can be obtained as the Minkowski sum of $D_i$ and the ball $B_r=B_r(0)$ of radius $r=\beta(|x_{i+1}|-|x_i|)$ around the origin. On the other hand, we have $D_{i+1}=D'\setminus B_1(y_{i+1})$, where $B_1(y_{i+1})$ denotes the ball of radius $1$ around $y_{i+1}$. Therefore,
$$\mu(D_{i+1})\ge\mu(D')-\mu(B_1(y_{i+1}))=\mu(D'+B_r)-\mu(B_1(y_{i+1})).$$
By the Brunn-Minkowski inequality, we have
$$\mu(D'+B_r)\ge(\mu^{1/d}(D_i)+\mu^{1/d}(B_r))^d.$$
Combining the last two inequalities,
$$\mu(D_{i+1})\ge(\mu^{1/d}(D_i)+\mu^{1/d}(B_r))^d-\mu(B_1(y_{i+1})).$$
As we use the maximum norm, we have $\mu(B_1(y_{i+1}))=2^d$ and $\mu(B_r)=2^dr^d$. Using the inductive hypothesis, we get the following chain of implications.
\begin{alignat*}{2}
  \phantom{\geq}  \mu(D_{i+1}) & \ge 2^{d+1}\alpha|x_{i+1}|^d-2^d(i+1) &&\Leftarrow \\
    \big((2^{d+1}\alpha|x_i|^d-2^di)^{\frac 1d}+2r\big)^d-2^d &\ge 2^{d+1}\alpha|x_{i+1}|^d-2^d(i+1)\ \ \ &&\Leftrightarrow \\
        \big((2\alpha|x_i|^d-i)^{\frac 1d}+r\big)^d &\ge 2\alpha|x_{i+1}|^d-i\ \ \ &&\Leftrightarrow \\
   \beta(|x_{i+1}|-|x_i|) &\ge (2\alpha|x_{i+1}|^d-i)^{\frac 1d}-(2\alpha|x_i|^d-i)^{\frac 1d}, &&
\end{alignat*}
where $\beta=2\alpha^{1/d},$ as before. By the definition of $\alpha$, we have $2\alpha x^d-i\ge \alpha x^d$ for every $x\ge |x_i|$. Consider the function $f(x):=(2\alpha x^d-i)^{1/d}$. Then
$$f'(x)= \frac 1d 2\alpha d\frac{x^{d-1}}{(2\alpha x^d-i)^{\frac{d-1}d}}\le 2\alpha \frac{x^{d-1}}{(\alpha x^d)^{\frac{d-1}d}}=2\alpha^{1/d},$$
for every $x\ge |x_i|$.
Therefore, the last inequality of the chain holds, and so does the first one, as claimed. \;Q.E.D.
\medskip

In particular, it follows from Claim 2.1 that $D_i\not=\emptyset$ and, hence, $\L_i$ is not empty for every $i\ge0$. To complete the proof of Theorem 1, it is enough to note that the set $\L_0$ is {\em compact} in the pointwise topology. Therefore, $\bigcap_{i\ge 0}\L_i\neq\emptyset$. By definition, no function $g\in \bigcap_{i\ge 0}\L_i$ is controlled by any pair $(|x_i|,y_i)$, as required.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{spec}}

The ``only if'' part of the theorem is a special case of Theorem~\ref{nec}. Thus, we have to prove only the ``if'' part.
\smallskip

Let $(x_i)_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ be a sequence of real numbers satisfying the ``density condition''
$$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb N}}\frac{|\{i\in I\, :\,|x_i|\le n\}|}{n^d}=\infty.$$
Split this sequence into two sequences, one consisting of the nonnegative numbers and the other consisting of the negative ones. At least one of these two sequences must satisfy the above density condition, so we can assume without loss of generality that, say, $x_i\ge0$ for all $i$.
If $(x_i)_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ has a convergent subsequence $(x_{i_j})_{j\in {\mathbb N}}\rightarrow x$, as $j\rightarrow\infty$, then choose any sequence of points $(y_j)_{j\in{\mathbb N}}$, everywhere dense in ${\mathbb R}^d$. Obviously, every Lipschitz function $f:{\mathbb R}\rightarrow{\mathbb R}^d$ is controlled by infinitely many pairs $(x_{i_j},y_j)$. Therefore, we can assume without loss of generality that $(x_i)_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ is an increasing sequence of nonnegative numbers, tending to infinity.
\smallskip

We need a simple statement about a finite portion of the sequence $(x_i)$.
\smallskip

Fix a positive integer $j$. Let $\L_j$ denote the family of $j$-Lipschitz functions $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^d$ with $|f(0)|\le j$. (Note that this deviates from the definition of $\L_j$ used in the previous section.) We also fix $n\in{\mathbb N}$. Let $k=k(j,n)=(j(n+1)+1)^d$, and assume that $x_i\le n$ for $1\le i\le k$.
\smallskip

Since we use the maximum norm in ${\mathbb R}^d$, the ball (cube) $B_r$ of radius $r=j(n+1)$ around the origin can be uniquely partitioned into $k$ balls of radius $r'=\frac{r}{r+1}<1$. Let the centers of these balls be denoted by $z_i$ and the balls themselves by $B_{r'}(z_i),\;1\le i\le k.$ Index the centers $z_i$ decreasingly with respect to the lexicographic order. For every $i, 1\le i\le k$, set $$y_i=z_i-j(n-x_i)v,$$
where $v$ is the all-$1$ vector in ${\mathbb R}^d$. See Fig. 2, which depicts the case $d=1$.

\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}  \includegraphics[width=120mm]{Blocklip.pdf}\label{pic2}  \end{center}\begin{center}  Figure 2. \end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip

\noindent{\bf Claim 3.1.} {\em Any function $f\in\L_j$ is controlled by one of the pairs $(x_i,y_i), \; 1\le i\le k.$}
\medskip

\noindent{\em Proof.} Let $f$ be an arbitrary element of $\L_j$. Notice that the function $g(x)=f(x)+j(n-x)v$ is monotonically decreasing in all of its coordinates, and that $g(x)\in B_r$ for every $x\in [0,n].$

Consider the set $S$ of all indices $1\le i\le k$ such that $g(x_i)$ is contained in a ball $B_{r'}(z_{i'})$ for some $1\le i'\le i$. As $g(x_k)$ is in $B_r$, it belongs to a ball $B_{r'}(z_{i'})$ for some $1\le i'\le k$. Therefore, $k\in S$, so that the set $S$ is not empty. Let $i_0$ denote the smallest element of $S$.

Then we have $g(x_{i_0})\in B_{r'}(z_{i_0})$. Indeed, otherwise $g(x_{i_0})\in B_{r'}(z_{i'})$ for some index $i'<i_0$. Thus, $i_0>1$. Using the monotonicity of $g$ and the monotonicity of the sequences $(x_i)_{1\le i\le k}$ and $(z_i)_{1\le i\le k}$, we obtain that $g(x_{i_0-1})\in B_{r'}(z_{i''})$ for some $i''\le i'\le i_0-1$, contradicting the minimality of $i_0$. Hence, $$1>r'\ge|g(x_{i_0})-z_{i_0}|=|f(x_{i_0})-y_{i_0}|.$$
This means that $(x_{i_0},y_{i_0})$ controls $f$, as claimed. \; Q.E.D.

\medskip

Now we can easily finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{spec}. We need to show that the sequence $(x_i)_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ is $d$-controlling. To control all functions in $\L_j$ for a fixed $j$, pick an $n=n(j)$ such that for at least $k=(j(n+1)+1)^d$ distinct indices $i$ we have $x_i\le n$. It follows from the density condition that such an $n$ exists.
\smallskip

By Claim 3.1, we can choose $y_i$ for $k$ distinct indices $i$ such that every function in $\L_j$ is controlled by one of the $k$ pairs $(x_i,y_i)$. Repeat this step this successively for $j=1,2,\ldots$, making sure that we always use pairwise disjoint sets of indices. This is possible, because removing any finite number of elements from $(x_i)_{i\in {\mathbb N}}$, the remaining sequence still satisfies the density condition. Since every Lipschitz function ${\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^d$ belongs to one of the classes $\L_j$, after completing the above process for all $j\in{\mathbb N}$, all Lipschitz functions ${\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^d$ will be controlled by one of the pairs $(x_i,y_i)$. This proves Theorem~\ref{spec}.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{gen}}

As in the proof of Theorem \ref{spec}, for every positive integer $j$, $\L_j$
denotes the family of $j$-Lipschitz functions $f:{\mathbb R}^m\to{\mathbb R}^d$ with $|f(0)|\le
j$. As we did in that proof, we fix $j$ and we show that one can control $\L_j$ using only finitely many points $x_i$. To complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{gen}, we perform this step for $j=1,2,\ldots$, sequentially, observing that the density condition in the theorem continues to hold even if we delete any finite number of points $x_i$ from our sequence.

\medskip
The proof of Theorem~\ref{gen} is based on a topological lemma. We consider a continuously moving set $D$ that leaves a ball $B\subset R^d$. By continuity, each point of $D$ must cross the boundary of the ball. Using Brouwer's fixed point theorem, we find a point $z\in D$ that crosses the boundary at a point with a special property. See Figure 3, for an illustration. The color gradation distinguishes different points of $D$, that is, points of the same color indicate the trajectory of a point, as it progresses in time $t$.
\medskip

\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}  \includegraphics[width=160mm]{SquareJanos4.png}\label{pic3}  \end{center}\begin{center}  Figure 3. \end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip

\noindent{\bf Lemma 4.1.} {\em  Let $d$ be a positive integer. Let $B$ denote a closed ball of positive radius around the origin in ${\mathbb R}^d$, and let $S$ stand for the boundary of $B$. Let $J=[t_0,t_1]$ be a closed interval on the real line, let $D$ be an arbitrary topological space, and let $f:D\times J\to{\mathbb R}^d$ and $g:B\to D$ be continuous functions.

If $f(z,t_0)\in B\setminus S$ and $f(z,t_1)\notin B$ for all $z\in D$, then there exist $z\in D$ and $t\in (t_0,t_1)$ such that $f(z,t)\in S$ and $g(f(z,t))=z$.}
\medskip

\noindent{\em Proof.} Denote $l$  the radius of $B$. Let $B'=B\times J\subset{\mathbb R}^{d+1}$, and let $h:B'\to{\mathbb R}^{d+1}$ be defined as $h(y,t)=(y',t')$, where $y'=f(g(y),t)$ and $t'=t-|y'|+l$.  Let $c:{\mathbb R}^{d+1}\to B'$ be a coordinate-wise retraction; to be specific, let $c(y,t)=(\min(1,l/|y|)\cdot y,\min(t_1,\max(t_0,t)))$. Finally, let $\bar h:B'\to B'$ be the composition of these functions: $\bar h(y,t)=c(h(y,t))$.

Clearly, $\bar h$ is continuous and $B'$ is homeomorphic to the $(d+1)$-dimensional ball. Thus, we can apply Brouwer's fixed point theorem to conclude that there exists $(y,t)\in B'$ with $\bar h(y,t)=(y,t)$. Let $z=g(y)$ and $(y',t')=h(y,t)$.

If $t=t_0$, then the second coordinate of $c(y',t')$ equals $t_0$. Hence, either we have $t'=t_0$ or $t'$ was retracted to $t_0$ from the left. Since $t'\le t$, we have $|y'|\ge l$, and thus $f(z,t_0)\notin B\setminus S$, contradicting our assumption.

Analogously, if $t=t_1$, then $t'\ge t$, so $|y'|\le l$, implying that $f(z,t_1)\in B$, which is again  a contradiction.

Consequently, we must have $t_0<t<t_1$. Using the fact that $c$ is a retraction, we obtain that $t'=t$, so $|y'|=l$ and $y'=f(z,t)\in S$. We must also have $y'=y$, which implies that $g(f(z,t))=g(y)=z$. \; Q.E.D.
\medskip

To apply the lemma, we think of ${\mathbb R}^m$ as a product space ${\mathbb R}^{m-1}\times {\mathbb R}$,
with the last coordinate considered as time.
Let $D\subset {\mathbb R}^{m-1}$ and  $B\subset {\mathbb R}^d$ be balls, let $J=[t_0,t_1]$ be an interval, and let $g:B\to D$ a linear map (see Fig. 3). Consider any $j$-Lipschitz function $f:{\mathbb R}^m\to{\mathbb R}^d\; (m\le d),$ and focus our attention on the restriction of $f$ to $D\times J$. In order to apply Lemma~4.1, we choose $B$ large enough to make sure that $f(z,t_0)$ lies in the interior of $B$ for all $z\in D$. By the lemma, we can either find $z\in D$ such that $x=(z,t_1)$ satisfies $y=f(x)\in B$, or there exists $x=(z,t)\in D\times J$ such that $y=f(x)$ belongs to the boundary of $B$ and $g(y)=z$. Our goal is to find sufficiently many indices $i\in I$ with $x_i\in D\times J$, and to assign appropriate values $y_i$ to them, so that for every conceivable pair $(x,y)$ provided by the lemma we can find a pair $(x_i,y_i)$ that is close to it. Specifically, if we have $|x-x_i|<\frac 1{2j}$ and $|y-y_i|<\frac 12$ for some $i$, then $f(x)=y$ implies that the pair $(x_i,y_i)$ controls $f\in\L_j$. Next we spell out the details of proof.
\medskip

\noindent
\textit{Proof of Theorem~\ref{gen}. \ } Let $m\le d$ and let $(x_i)_{i\in I}$
be a sequence of points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ satisfying the density condition in the
theorem. Let us fix $j\in {\mathbb N}$. As we have pointed out earlier, it is
sufficient to show that we can select finitely many indices $i\in I$ and
assign to them suitable points $y_i\in{\mathbb R}^d$ such that every function in $\L_j$
is controlled by at least one of the pairs $(x_i,y_i)$.
\smallskip

Set $\epsilon=1/(8j+8)$ and choose a positive integer $c$ with
$c^m>4d/\epsilon^{d-m}$. Using the density condition in the theorem with $\alpha=\epsilon/c$,
we obtain that there exists $t_0>j+1$ such that $$|\{i\in
I\,:\,|x_i-x|<\alpha\}\ge|x|^{d-m}$$
holds for every $x\in {\mathbb R}^m$ with $|x|\ge t_0-2\epsilon$.  Set $l=\lfloor jt_0+j\rfloor+1<(j+1)t_0$. The density
condition we really need for our argument is
$$|\{i\in I\,:\,|x_i-x|<\epsilon\}\ge4d(2l)^{d-m},$$
which holds for every $|x|\ge t_0-\epsilon$, since the ball of radius $\epsilon$
around $x$ can be split into $c^m$ internally disjoint balls of radius
$\alpha$, each containing at least $(|x|-\epsilon)^{d-m}$ points $x_i$ in their
interior. This adds up to total of $c^m(t_0-2\epsilon)^{d-m}>4d(2l)^{d-m}$, as
required. Finally, set $t_1>t_0$ such that
$$|\{i\in I\,:\,|x_i-x|<\epsilon\}|\ge4d(2l)^{d-m}+(2l)^d$$
holds for all $|x|\ge t_1-\epsilon$. The existence of such a value $t_1$ follows easily from the density condition on the sequence $(x_i)$, because for every sufficiently large $|x|$, the
left-hand side of the above inequality is at least $|x|^{d-m}$, while its right-hand side is a
constant.
\smallskip

Let $D=\{z\in{\mathbb R}^{m-1}\, :\,|z|\le t_0\}$ be the ball of radius $t_0$ around the
origin in ${\mathbb R}^{m-1}$, let $J=[t_0,t_1]$, let $B=\{y\in{\mathbb R}^d\, :\,|y|\le l\}$ be
the ball of radius $l$ around the origin in ${\mathbb R}^d$, and let $S=\{y\in{\mathbb R}^d\,
:\,|y|=l\}$ denote the sphere bounding $B$. Define a linear map $g:B\to D$ by
setting
$$g(y_1,\ldots,y_d)=\frac {t_0}{2l}(y_1-y_m,y_2-y_m,\ldots,y_{m-1}-y_m).$$
We identify ${\mathbb R}^m$ with ${\mathbb R}^{m-1}\times{\mathbb R}$ and will use the notation $(z,t)\in{\mathbb R}^m$ for $z\in{\mathbb R}^{m-1}$ and $t\in{\mathbb R}$.

Cover $D\times J$ with internally disjoint balls (cubes, in the $l_{\infty}$-norm) of radius $\epsilon$. These balls will be referred to as the
{\em $\epsilon$-balls}. Let $Z=Z_0\times Z_1$ be a fixed $\epsilon$-ball, where
$Z_0\subset{\mathbb R}^{m-1}$ is a ball of radius $\epsilon$ and $Z_1$ is an interval
of length $2\epsilon$.
\smallskip

The sphere $S$ consists of $2d$ facets ($d-1$-dimensional cubes). A facet
is obtained by fixing one of the $d$ coordinates to $l$ or $-l$, and letting
the other coordinates take arbitrary values in the interval $[-l,l]$. Consider all
points $y$ on a facet such that $g(y)\in Z_0$. If the fixed
coordinate of the facet is one of the first $m$ coordinates, and such points $y$
exist at all, then the first $m$ of their coordinates are determined within an
interval of $8l\epsilon/t_0\le1$, while the remaining coordinates can take
arbitrary values in $[-l,l]$. This set can be covered by at most $(2l)^{d-m}$
balls of radius $1/2$. We refer to these balls as the {\em $1/2$-balls for $Z$}.

Next, consider
all points $y$ on a facet of $S$ such that $g(y)\in Z_0$, but assume that the fixed
coordinate of this facet is one of the last $d-m$ coordinates. Cover
this set with balls of radius $1/2$, as follows. Partition the possible
values of the $m$'th coordinate into $4l$ intervals, each of length $1/2$. These
intervals determine each of the first $m-1$ coordinates of $y$ within an
interval of length $1$, and there are $d-m-1$ further coordinates that can take any value in
$[-l,l]$. We have $2(2l)^{d-m}$ balls of radius $1/2$ that cover all points
$y$ on this facet with $g(y)\in Z_0$. Summing up over all facets of $S$, we have at most $4d(2l)^{d-m}$ $1/2$-balls for $Z$. For each of these
$1/2$-balls $W$ for $Z$, select a separate index $i\in I$ such that $x_i$ lies in the
interior of $Z$, and set $y_i$ to be the center of the ball $W$. Note that the center $x$ of $Z$ satisfies $|x|\ge t_0-\epsilon$ (otherwise, $Z$ would be disjoint from $D\times J$). Thus, by our choice of $t_0$, we have enough indices to choose from. We repeat the same procedure for every the $\epsilon$-ball $Z$.

\smallskip

\noindent{\em Case 1:} Consider now any $f\in{\cal L}_j$ for which there exists $x=(z,t)\in D\times J$ such that $y=f(x)\in S$ and $g(y)=z$.

Clearly, $x\in Z$ for some $\epsilon$-ball $Z$, and $y\in W$ for some $1/2$-ball $W$ for $Z$. Thus, there exists $i\in I$ such that $x_i$ lies in the interior of $Z$, and $y_i$ is the center of $W$. This implies that $|x_i-x|<2\epsilon$ and $|y_i-y|\le\frac 12$. Using the Lipschitz property, we obtain
$$|f(x_i)-y|=|f(x_i)-f(x)|\le j|x_i-x|<2j\epsilon<\frac12.$$
Hence, $(x_i,y_i)$ controls $f$, as $|f(x_i)-y_i|\le|f(x_i)-y|+|y_i-y|<1$.

\smallskip

\noindent{\em Case 2:} It remains to deal with the case where for some $f\in{\cal L}_j$ we cannot find $x=(z,t)\in D\times J$ such that $y=f(x)\in S$ and $g(y)=z$.

Let $f$ be such a function. Notice that $f(z,t_0)\in B\setminus S$ for every $z\in D$. Indeed, we have $|(z,t_0)|=t_0$ and, hence, $|f(z,t_0)|\le jt_0+|f(0)|\le jt_0+j<l$, as required.
Then, according to Lemma~4.1, if we cannot find $x=(z,t)\in D\times J$ such that $y=f(x)\in S$ and $g(y)=z$, then $f(z,t_1)\in B$ must hold for some $z\in D$. We show that in this case one can select a few more indices $i\in I$ and set the corresponding values $y_i$ so that for some of the newly selected indices $i$, the pairs $(x_i,y_i)$ control $f$.

To achieve this, cover the entire ball $B$ with $(2l)^d$ balls of radius $1/2$, and refer to them as {\em new balls}. For any $\epsilon$-ball $Z$ that contains a point $(z,t_1)$ and for any new ball $W$, choose a separate (yet unselected) index $i\in I$ such that $x_i$ lies in the interior of $Z$, and set $y_i$ to be the center of $W$. Note that the center $x$ of $Z$ satisfies the inequality $|x|\ge t_1-\epsilon$. Thus, by our choice of $t_1$, we have enough indices to choose from. It can be shown by a simple computation similar to the above one that if for some $z\in D$ we have $y=f(z,t_1)\in B$, then for the indices $i\in I$ selected for the $\epsilon$-ball containing $(z,t_1)$ and the new ball containing $y$ the pair $(x_i,y_i)$ controls $f$.

\smallskip

This completes the proof of the fact that every $f\in{\cal L}_j$ is controlled by one of the
pairs $(x_i,y_i)$ and, hence, the proof of Theorem~\ref{gen}.  \; Q.E.D.

\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Remark.}  Makai and Pach \cite{MaP83} proved the following result (that also follows from our Theorem~\ref{nec}): Let $m\le d$ and let $A$ be a set of points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ satisfying the condition that for any $x\in {\mathbb R}^m$, the number of points in the unit ball around $x$ is at most $K(|x|^{d-m}+1)$, where $K$ is a suitable constant. Then $A$ is {\em not} $d$-controlling. Makai and Pach made the conjecture that the same statement remains valid if for any $x\in {\mathbb R}^m$, the unit ball around $x$ contains at most $K(|x|^{d-1}+1)$ points of $A$. This would be a significant improvement for $m>1$. However, our Theorem~\ref{gen} shows that no such improvement is possible. Indeed, for any function $f:{\mathbb R}^+\to{\mathbb R}^+$ tending to infinity, one can construct a set of point in ${\mathbb R}^m$ with at most $f(|x|)|x|^{d-m}$ points in the unit ball around any point $x$, but still satisfying the condition of Theorem~\ref{gen}. By the theorem, such a set is $d$-controlling.

We close this paper by constructing an explicit set $A$ with the properties mentioned above. We choose an increasing sequence of reals $c_i>4$ such that $f(x)>2^{m(i+2)+d}$ whenever $x\ge c_i-2$. Consider the set $S_{i}:=\{x\in2^{-i} \mathbb Z^m\mid c_i\le|x|<c_{i+1}\}$. Form a set $A_i\subset {\mathbb R}^m$ by collecting $\left\lceil|x|^{d-m}\right\rceil$ points from the ball of radius $2^{-i}$ around every point $x\in S_i$. Consider the set $A:=\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i$. For $|x|>c_{i}$, we have at least $|x|^{d-m}$ points of $A$ in the $2^{1-i}$-ball around $x$. This shows that $A$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{gen} and is, therefore, $d$-controlling. On the other hand, if $i$ is the highest index such that the unit ball around $x$ contains a point in $A_i$, then $|x|>c_i-2>2$, and the unit ball around $x$ contains at most $\left\lceil(|x|+2)^{d-m}\right\rceil$ points of $A$ around each of the at most $2^{m(i+2)}$ points of $\cup_{i=1}^\infty S_i$ in the ball of radius $2$ about $x$. By our choice of $c_i$, this shows that the unit ball around $x$ contains at most $f(|x|)|x|^{d-m}$ points of $A$, as claimed.\\

\textsc{Acknowledgements. } We thank the referee for carefully reading the text and pointing out an inaccuracy in the proof of Claim~2.1.

Functional Analysis (math.FA); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM); Combinatorics (math.CO); Metric Geometry (math.MG)

Controlling Lipschitz functions