_{2^{-k} \cdot \ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for $t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$.\
**Proof** The isoperimetric inequality [@Gi 5.13, 5.14 and Inequality (5.16)] and a simple comparison with the (larger) volume of $\p B_1(0)$ give positive constants $c_n^\pm$ depending only on the dimension $n$, such that for any $p\in H$ we have $c_n^- \le Vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) \le c_n^+$. On the other hand, we have for any given $H$ and $p\in H$ that $$\frac{Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1}  \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)}{Vol_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)} \ra 1\mm{ for } t \ra 0 \mm{ since }\bigcap_{t >0}\I(t/2) = \Sigma \mm{ and } Vol_n(\Sigma) = 0.$$ Compactness arguments for area minimizers analogously to those in Lemma \[copr\] then yield some $t_{n,\varpi} \in (0,1)$ such that for any $t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$ and for any point $x \in H$ $$Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1}  \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi \cdot Vol_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi \cdot c_n^-.$$ This implies  for $k=0$. The case $k \neq 0$ follows from scaling by $2^k$ and the scaling behaviour of $\bp$ and the volumes. Inequality  can be derived in the same way.

From now on we consider a general hypersurface $H \in {\cal{H}}^n$. In particular, $H\subset M$ could be compact. We assume, as we already did on several occasions, that $M$ has been scaled by some large constant to the effect that for some $\varpi
_ { 2^{-k } \cdot \ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for $ t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$.\ 
 * * Proof * * The isoperimetric inequality   [ @Gi 5.13, 5.14 and Inequality (5.16) ] and a simple comparison with the (larger) volume of $ \p B_1(0)$ render incontrovertible constants $ c_n^\pm$ depending only on the proportion $ n$, such that for any $ p\in H$ we have $ c_n^- \le Vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) \le c_n^+$. On the other hired hand, we have for any given $ H$ and $ p\in H$ that $ $ \frac{Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1 }   \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)}{Vol_n(B_{1 } \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) } \ra 1\mm { for } t \ra 0 \mm { since } \bigcap_{t > 0}\I(t/2) = \Sigma \mm { and } Vol_n(\Sigma) = 0.$$ Compactness argument for area minimizers analogously to those in Lemma   \[copr\ ] then yield some $ t_{n,\varpi } \in (0,1)$ such that for any $ triiodothyronine \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$ and for any point $ x \in H$ $ $ Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1 }   \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi \cdot Vol_n(B_{1 } \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi \cdot c_n^-.$$ This implies    for $ k=0$. The sheath $ k \neq 0 $ follow from scaling by $ 2^k$ and the scaling behaviour of $ \bp$ and the volumes. Inequality    can be derived in the same manner. 

 From now on we consider a cosmopolitan hypersurface $ H \in { \cal{H}}^n$. In particular, $ H\subset M$ could be compact. We bear, as we already did on respective occasions, that $ M$ has been scale by some large constant to the effect that for some $ \varpi
_{2^{-k} \cfot \ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for $t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$.\
**Proof** The msoperijetric ivequality [@Gi 5.13, 5.14 and Inequality (5.16)] qnd a simple comparison witf the (larher) volune oh $\p B_1(0)$ give positmbe consbcnts $d_k^\pm$ dzpxnding only on jhe dimensiot $n$, such that xof cny $p\in H$ we have $c_n^- \le Vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) \le c_n^+$. Pn the other hanq, we rave for any given $H$ and $p\in H$ that $$\frzc{Vol_n(\E(u/2) \cap B_{1}  \setminus N_{1/2}(p) \cap H)}{Vol_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \fap J)} \ra 1\mm{ for } t \ra 0 \mm{ since }\bugca[_{r >0}\I(t/2) = \Sigma \om{ and } Vol_n(\Sigma) = 0.$$ Cojpactness arguments for area mivimizzrs analogoosmy jo those in Oemma \[bopr\] then yield some $d_{n,\varpi} \in (0,1)$ such that foc ant $t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$ and fmr any point $x \in R$ $$Vol_n(\E(t/2) \wa' B_{1}  \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap Y) \te \vatpi \cgot Xil_n(C_{1} \sttmmnua B_{1/2}(x) \cwp I) \ge \varpi \ddot c_n^-.$$ Thiw implies  for $k=0$. The cwwe $k \neq 0$ folmows fwoi scaling by $2^k$ and the scaling behavioug of $\bp$ and the volumes. Inewuality  can be derivef in the fame way.

From now on we consider a general hypersusface $F \iu {\cal{H}}^v$. Ij particular, $H\subset M$ could be compact. We asfhmt, ax we already dld on several occaxilnx, that $M$ has bgen scaled by some large condtant tj the effect trat gor some $\varpi
_{2^{-k} \cdot \ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for $t \in (0, The inequality [@Gi 5.14 and Inequality with (larger) volume of B_1(0)$ give positive $c_n^\pm$ depending only on the dimension such that for any $p\in H$ we have $c_n^- \le Vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) c_n^+$. On the other hand, we have for any given $H$ and $p\in that \cap \setminus \cap H)}{Vol_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)} \ra 1\mm{ for } t \ra 0 \mm{ since }\bigcap_{t = \Sigma \mm{ and } Vol_n(\Sigma) = 0.$$ arguments for area minimizers to those in Lemma \[copr\] yield $t_{n,\varpi} \in such for $t \in (0, and for any point $x \in H$ $$Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi \cdot \setminus B_{1/2}(x) \ge \varpi c_n^-.$$ implies $k=0$. The case 0$ follows from scaling by $2^k$ behaviour of $\bp$ and the volumes. Inequality can derived in same way. From now on we a general hypersurface $H \in {\cal{H}}^n$. In particular, M$ could be compact. We assume, as we already did on several occasions, that $M$ scaled by some large to the effect for $\varpi
_{2^{-k} \cdot \ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for $t \in (0, T_{n,\varpi})$.\
**ProOf** The IsoPerImEtriC ineQuality [@Gi 5.13, 5.14 and InEQualIty (5.16)] and a simple comparisoN with ThE (LargER) vOlume Of $\p B_1(0)$ givE PoSITivE cOnStaNtS $C_n^\Pm$ depEndIng only On the dimenSioN $n$, Such that for aNY $p\In H$ we have $c_N^- \le vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) \le C_n^+$. ON the otHeR haND, we haVe fOr any Given $H$ ANd $p\in H$ That $$\frac{VOl_N(\e(t/2) \cap B_{1}  \SEtminus b_{1/2}(P) \CaP H)}{VoL_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)} \RA 1\mM{ For } t \ra 0 \mm{ since }\bIgcap_{t >0}\i(t/2) = \sIgMA \Mm{ aNd } VOl_n(\Sigma) = 0.$$ CoMpActneSS argumeNTs FOR AreA Minimizers anaLogously to tHOse In LemmA \[cOpr\] THen yieLd somE $t_{N,\VarPi} \in (0,1)$ such thaT for Any $t \in (0, t_{n,\vArpi})$ anD For any pOInt $x \in H$ $$vol_n(\E(t/2) \Cap b_{1}  \seTminUS B_{1/2}(X) \cAp H) \Ge \VArpI \CdOt VOL_n(B_{1} \Setminus b_{1/2}(x) \CaP H) \ge \vArpi \CDOT C_n^-.$$ ThIs iMpliEs  for $K=0$. The case $k \neq 0$ fOllOws fROm sCalinG by $2^k$ aNd thE sCalinG behavIour oF $\bP$ and the volumes. INequAlity  can bE deRiVed In The saME way.

FrOm nOw oN we consIder a geNEraL hYPERsUrface $H \in {\cal{H}}^n$. In paRtICUlAr, $H\subseT M$ coulD Be CoMPact. We asSuMe, aS we aLREady dId on SEvEral occaSions, tHAt $m$ hAs been sCaLed by sOmE laRge ConstANt to The effEct that fOr somE $\Varpi
_{2^{-k} \cdot \ve}(z)\not =\emptyset $ for  $t  \i n(0,t_{n ,\varpi})$.\
* * Proo f** The isoperimetricinequ al i ty [ @ Gi  5.13 , 5.14a nd I neq ua li ty(5 . 16 )] an d a  simple  compariso n w it h the (large r )volume of$\p  B_1(0)$ giv e p ositiv econ s tants  $c _n^\p m$ dep e ndingonly on t he dimens i on $n$, s uc h th at for any $p\inH $w e have $c_n^-\le Vo l_ n (B _ { 1/2 }(p ) \cap H)\l e c_n ^ +$. Ont he o t her hand, we have  for any gi v en$H$ an d$p\ i n H$ t hat $ $\ f rac {Vol_n(\E(t /2)\cap B_{1 }  \se t minus B _ {1/2}(p ) \cap  H) }{V ol_n ( B_ {1 } \ se t min u sB_{ 1 /2} (p) \cap  H )}  \ra1\mm { f o r }t \ ra 0  \mm{  since }\bigc ap_ {t > 0 }\I (t/2)  = \S igma  \ mm{ a nd } V ol_n( \S igma) = 0.$$ Co mpac tness arg ume nt s f or  area minimi zer s a nalogou sly tot hos ei n Le mma \[copr\] thenyi e l dsome $t_ {n,\va r pi }\ in (0,1) $suc h th a t  forany$ t\in (0,t_{n,\ v ar pi })$ and  f or any  p oin t $ x \in H$ $ $Vol_n (\E(t/2)  \cap B_{1}  \setmin u s B_{1/2}(x)\ ca p H) \ge\va rpi \cdot V ol_n ( B_{1 } \s e tm inu s  B_{1 /2}(x )\ ca p  H) \ge \varpi \cdo tc_n^-. $$ Th is implies  f or $k=0$.T h e  case $k  \ne q  0 $  follows fromscali ng by $2^k $  and the  scal ing beha viour of$ \ bp$ andthe  vo lum es. I ne quality  canb e  der iv ed in t hesame wa y.
Fr omnow  o n we cons ider a g en er al  h ype rsurf a ce $H \i n{\c al {H} }^n$. In par ticul ar,$H \s u bse t M$ co u ld b e co mp ac t. W e a ss ume,as w e  al ready d id on sev era l  occ as io ns, tha t $M$ has bee nscaled byso melargec o nstant t o the effect that for s o me $\va rpi 
_{2^{-k} \cdot_\ve}(z)\not=\emptyset$ for_$t \in (0, t_{n,\varpi})$.\
**Proof**_The isoperimetric_inequality [@Gi_5.13, 5.14_and_Inequality (5.16)] and_a simple comparison_with the (larger) volume_of $\p B_1(0)$_give_positive constants $c_n^\pm$ depending only on the dimension $n$, such that for any $p\in_H$_we have_$c_n^-_\le_Vol_n(B_{1/2}(p) \cap H) \le c_n^+$._On the other hand, we_have for_any given $H$ and $p\in H$ that $$\frac{Vol_n(\E(t/2)_\cap_B_{1}  \setminus_B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)}{Vol_n(B_{1} \setminus B_{1/2}(p) \cap H)} \ra 1\mm{_for } t \ra 0 \mm{_since }\bigcap_{t >0}\I(t/2)_=_\Sigma_\mm{ and } Vol_n(\Sigma)_= 0.$$ Compactness arguments for area_minimizers analogously to those in Lemma \[copr\]_then yield some $t_{n,\varpi} \in (0,1)$ such_that for any $t \in (0,_t_{n,\varpi})$ and for any point_$x \in_H$ $$Vol_n(\E(t/2) \cap B_{1} _\setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap_H) \ge_\varpi \cdot Vol_n(B_{1}_\setminus B_{1/2}(x) \cap H) \ge \varpi_\cdot c_n^-.$$ This_implies  for $k=0$. The case $k_\neq_0$ follows from_scaling_by_$2^k$ and_the scaling behaviour_of_$\bp$ and_the_volumes. Inequality  can be derived in_the_same way.

From now on we consider a_general hypersurface $H \in_{\cal{H}}^n$._In particular, $H\subset M$_could be compact. We assume,_as we already did on several_occasions, that_$M$ has_been scaled by some large constant to the effect that for_some $\varpi