302]{}. R. Schoen, L. Simon, S. T. Yau [*Curvature estimates for minimal hypersurfaces*]{} Acta Mathematica 1975, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 275-288 R. Schoen, L. Simon [*Regularity of stable minimal hypersurfaces*]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34 (1981), 741-797 L. Simon [*Lectures on Geometric Measure Theory*]{} Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis 3, Canberra, (1984), VII+272. J. Simons [*Minimal varieties in Riemannian manifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 88 (1968), 62-105. N. Wickramasekera [*A general regularity theory for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 179 (2014), 843-1007.

[^1]: This terminology is customary in the literature at least when $g$ is a constant: we use it also for any $g>0$.

[^2]: To avoid confusion, we remark that in the interior of $\{g=0\}$ there are no touching singularities by the maximum principle for minimal hypersurfaces (and therefore (**T**) is redundant there), so it is really on the boundary of $\{g=0\}$ that $(a3)$ of Theorem \[thm:mainreg\_gpos\] has to be replaced by (**T**).

[^3]: Such $u_{1}, u_{2}$ always exist by the definition of touching singularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\].

[^4]: We note that for an integral varifold obtained as in [@BW2], the natural notion of stability to expect in the limit is the one that can be expressed in terms of ambient test functions, which motivates geometrically the choice of stating the stability assumption (c) via ambient functions.

[^5]: We point out that the integral varifolds obtained by the construction in [@RogTon] may be as those described in the discussion that precedes (**T**), for example the varifold on the right in Figure \[fig:Touchingdoubleminimal\]: therefore also in this context it is important to weaken the assumption on the coincidence set to (**T**).

[^6]: Such $u_{1}, u_{2}$ always exist by the definition of touching singularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\].

[^7]: This would be prevented by Hopf lemma if
302 ] { }. R. Schoen, L. Simon, S. T. Yau [ * Curvature estimates for minimal hypersurfaces * ] { } Acta Mathematica 1975, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 275 - 288 R. Schoen, L. Simon [ * Regularity of stable minimal hypersurfaces * ] { } Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34 (1981), 741 - 797 L. Simon [ * lecture on Geometric standard Theory * ] { } Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis 3, Canberra, (1984), VII+272. J. Simons [ * Minimal varieties in Riemannian manifolds * ] { } Ann. of Math. 88 (1968), 62 - 105. N. Wickramasekera [ * A general regularity hypothesis for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds * ] { } Ann. of Math. 179 (2014), 843 - 1007. 

 [ ^1 ]: This terminology is customary in the literature at least when $ g$ is a constant: we practice it besides for any $ g>0$. 

 [ ^2 ]: To avoid confusion, we remark that in the interior of $ \{g=0\}$ there are no touching singularity by the maximum principle for minimal hypersurfaces (and consequently (* * T * *) is redundant there), so it is really on the boundary of $ \{g=0\}$ that $ (a3)$ of Theorem   \[thm: mainreg\_gpos\ ] has to be replaced by (* * T * *). 

 [ ^3 ]: Such $ u_{1 }, u_{2}$ always exist by the definition of touching singularity; attend remark   \[oss: touchingsinggraphs\ ]. 

 [ ^4 ]: We note that for an integral varifold obtained as in [ @BW2 ], the lifelike notion of stability to ask in the limit is the one that can be express in terms of ambient test functions, which motivates geometrically the choice of express the stability assumption (c) via ambient functions. 

 [ ^5 ]: We point out that the integral varifolds obtained by the construction in [ @RogTon ] may be as those described in the discussion that precedes (* * T * *), for example the varifold on the right in Figure \[fig: Touchingdoubleminimal\ ]: therefore also in this context it is important to weaken the assumption on the coincidence sic to (* * T * *). 

 [ ^6 ]: Such $ u_{1 }, u_{2}$ always exist by the definition of touching singularity; visit remark   \[oss: touchingsinggraphs\ ]. 

 [ ^7 ]: This would be prevent by Hopf lemma if
302]{}. R. Dchoen, L. Simon, S. T. Yau [*Cmrvature estimatgs for mmnimal gypersurwaces*]{} Acta Mathematica 1975, Volule 134, Issye 1, pp 275-288 R. Schoen, L. Simun [*Regulagity of srablt minimal hypersucraces*]{} Comm. Pudc Appn. Math. 34 (1981), 741-797 L. Simpn [*Lecturev on Geometric Mdadure Theory*]{} Proceedings of the Centwe for Kahhematical Anajysix 3, Cahberra, (1984), VII+272. J. Simons [*Minimal variefies in Riemannian msnifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 88 (1968), 62-105. N. Aickgamasekera [*A generwl regularijg trwory for stacle codimension 1 integtal varifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 179 (2014), 843-1007.

[^1]: Thir terkinology iw xushmmary in thx litegature at least when $c$ is a vonstant: we usc it elso for any $g>0$.

[^2]: To avoid cmnfusion, we remark that in dhz interior of $\{g=0\}$ there aee no touwhine sivgumacitjes by thx maximum pdinciple foe minimal hypersurfscqw (and therefode (**T**) if wedundant there), so it is really on the touhdary of $\{g=0\}$ that $(a3)$ of Thworem \[thm:mainreg\_gpos\] hws to be weplaced by (**T**).

[^3]: Such $u_{1}, u_{2}$ always exist by the definidion kw tiughine slngularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\].

[^4]: We houe nhat for an integval varifold obtaimef sf in [@BW2], the nxtural nofion of stability ho expest in the limiu is yhe one that can be expresswd in terms jd ambient test funetions, which motovatex geometrically the chonce of stating thf stabilifh assumption (c) vka smtient functions.

[^5]: We point ott that tie incegral vxrifplds oftained by the gmnstruction in [@RogHon] mcy be as those fescribed in the discussion thav precedes (**T**), gos eqample thz varinold on the rigrt in Figure \[fng:Touchiugdoubueminimal\]: nherefore also in thys context it ls important to weakqn tye awsumptiuv on the coincodence sen uo (**T**).

[^6]: Such $y_{1}, u_{2}$ always exist bn the sefinition of tiucying singularitu; sde welack \[oss:emuchingsinggsaphr\].

[^7]: Tfos wojld be kxevcntdd bu Hopf lemma if
302]{}. R. Schoen, L. Simon, S. T. estimates minimal hypersurfaces*]{} Mathematica 1975, Volume R. L. Simon [*Regularity stable minimal hypersurfaces*]{} Pure Appl. Math. 34 (1981), 741-797 Simon [*Lectures on Geometric Measure Theory*]{} Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis Canberra, (1984), VII+272. J. Simons [*Minimal varieties in Riemannian manifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. (1968), N. [*A regularity theory for stable codimension 1 integral varifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 179 (2014), 843-1007. [^1]: This is customary in the literature at least when is a constant: we it also for any $g>0$. To confusion, we that the of $\{g=0\}$ there no touching singularities by the maximum principle for minimal hypersurfaces (and therefore (**T**) is redundant there), so is really boundary of that of \[thm:mainreg\_gpos\] has to by (**T**). [^3]: Such $u_{1}, u_{2}$ the definition of touching singularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\]. We note for an integral varifold obtained as [@BW2], the natural notion of stability to expect the limit is the one that can be expressed in terms of ambient test functions, geometrically the choice of the stability assumption via functions. We out that integral varifolds obtained by the construction in [@RogTon] may be as described in the discussion that precedes (**T**), for example the the in Figure \[fig:Touchingdoubleminimal\]: also in this context is to weaken the assumption coincidence to $u_{1}, always by the definition of singularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\]. [^7]: would be prevented by
302]{}. R. Schoen, L. Simon, S. T. Yau [*CurvatuRe estimateS for mIniMal HyPersUrfaCes*]{} Acta MathemaTIca 1975, VOlume 134, Issue 1, pp 275-288 R. Schoen, L. SiMon [*ReGuLAritY Of StablE minimaL HyPERsuRfAcEs*]{} COmM. puRe AppL. MaTh. 34 (1981), 741-797 L. SimoN [*Lectures oN GeOmEtric Measure tHeOry*]{} ProceedIngS of the Centre For mathemAtIcaL analySis 3, canbeRra, (1984), VII+272. j. simons [*minimal vaRiETies in rIemanniAN MaNifoLds*]{} Ann. of Math. 88 (1968), 62-105. N. WickRAmASekera [*A general RegulaRiTY tHEOry For Stable codiMeNsion 1 INtegral VArIFOLds*]{} aNn. of Math. 179 (2014), 843-1007.

[^1]: This tErminology iS CusTomary In The LIteratUre at LeASt wHen $g$ is a consTant: We use it alSo for aNY $g>0$.

[^2]: To avoID confusIon, we rEmaRk tHat iN ThE iNteRiOR of $\{G=0\}$ ThEre ARe nO touchinG sInGularItieS BY THe maXimUm prIncipLe for minimal hYpeRsurFAceS (and tHerefOre (**T**) Is RedunDant thEre), so It Is really on the boUndaRy of $\{g=0\}$ that $(A3)$ of thEorEm \[Thm:maINreg\_gpOs\] hAs tO be replAced by (**T**).

[^3]: sUch $U_{1}, u_{2}$ ALWAyS exist by the definitIoN OF tOuching sIngulaRItY; sEE remark \[oSs:TouChinGSInggrAphs\].

[^4]: wE nOte that fOr an inTEgRaL varifoLd ObtainEd As iN [@BW2], The naTUral Notion Of stabilIty to EXpect in the limiT Is the one that cAN bE EXpREsseD in Terms of ambiEnt tESt fuNctiONs, WhiCH motiVates GeOMeTRically the choice of sTaTing thE stabIlity assumptiOn (c) via ambiENT FunctionS.

[^5]: We pOInT Out that the inteGral vArifolds obTAined by tHe conStructioN in [@RogTon] MAY be as thoSe dEscRibEd iN THe Discussion thaT PReceDeS (**T**), for exAmpLe the vaRifOld On tHe rIgHt in FigurE \[fig:ToucHiNgDoUbLemInimaL\]: ThereforE aLso In ThiS contEXt it is ImporTant To WeAKen The assuMPtION on tHe CoInciDenCe Set to (**t**).

[^6]: SucH $U_{1}, u_{2}$ aLways exIst by the dEfiNItioN oF tOuching Singularity; seE rEmark \[oss:toUcHinGsinggRAPhs\].

[^7]: This wOuld be prevented by Hopf leMMa if
302]{}. R. Schoen, L. Simo n, S. T. Y au [* Cur vat ur e es tima tes for minima l  hyp ersurfaces*]{} Acta Ma thema ti c a 19 7 5,  Volu me 134, Is s u e 1 ,pp  27 5- 2 88  R. S cho en, L.Simon [*Re gul ar ity of stabl e  m inimal hyp ers urfaces*]{}Com m. Pur eApp l . Mat h.34 (1 981),7 41-797  L. Simon  [ * Lectur e s on Ge o m et ricMeasure Theory*]{ }  P r oceedings of t he Cen tr e  f o r  Ma the matical An al ysis3 , Canbe r ra , ( 198 4 ), VII+272. J . Simons [* M ini mal va ri eti e s in R ieman ni a n m anifolds*]{ } An n. of Mat h. 88( 1968),6 2-105.N. Wic kra mas eker a  [ *A  ge ne r alr eg ula r ity  theoryfo rstabl e co d i m e nsio n 1  int egral  varifolds*]{ } A nn.o f M ath.179 ( 2014 ),  843- 1007.
[^1] :This terminolog y is  customar y i nthe  l itera t ure at  le ast  when $ g$ is a con st a n t :we use it also for  a n y  $ g>0$.

[ ^2]: T o  a vo i d confus io n,we r e m ark t hati nthe inte rior o f  $ \{ g=0\}$th ere ar enotou ching sing ularit ies by t he ma x imum principle for minimal h y pe r s ur f aces  (a nd therefor e (* * T**)  isr ed und a nt th ere),  s o  i t  is really on the b ou ndaryof $\ {g=0\}$ that$(a3)$ ofT h e orem \[t hm:m a in r eg\_gpos\] has  to b e replaced by (**T* *).
[^3]: Su ch $u_{1} , u_{2}$ a lwa ysexi stb y  t he definition o f to uc hing si ngu larity;  se e r ema rk\[ oss:touch ingsingg ra ph s\ ]. 

[ ^4]:W e note t ha t f or  an  inte g ral va rifol d ob ta in e d a s in [@ B W2 ] ,  the  n at ural  no ti on of  sta b ili ty to e xpect inthe limi tis  the on e that can be  e xpressed i nter ms ofa m bient te st functions, which mot i vates g eom etric ally  the choi ceof sta tin g  the s tabili ty as su mpt i o n (c) v ia  am bi ent functi o n s.
[^5] :We p oint ou t that the integra l  va rifolds obtai ned  byt h econ s tr u cti on in[ @ RogTon] may beas those d es c ri bed in the dis cu ssion t hat pre cedes (**T**) , for exa mple theva rifo l d  on  the right  in Figu re \[fig: T ouchi n gd ouble min imal\] :the refor e also inthiscontex tit isimpor ta nt to we aken the assumption onthe co incid enc e set to(** T **) .

[^6]:Such  $u_{1}, u _{2 }$alway s e x ist b y th e  d efi n ition  oft ouching s i ng ula r i ty ; see remar k \ [os s:tou chi n gsingg raph s\].

[^7]: Thisw ould be preven tedb y  Ho pfl emma  i f
302]{}. R._Schoen, L._Simon, S. T. Yau_[*Curvature estimates_for_minimal hypersurfaces*]{}_Acta_Mathematica 1975, Volume_134, Issue 1,_pp 275-288 R. Schoen,_L. Simon [*Regularity_of_stable minimal hypersurfaces*]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34 (1981), 741-797 L. Simon [*Lectures on_Geometric_Measure Theory*]{}_Proceedings_of_the Centre for Mathematical Analysis_3, Canberra, (1984), VII+272. J._Simons [*Minimal_varieties in Riemannian manifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 88_(1968),_62-105. N. Wickramasekera_[*A general regularity theory for stable codimension 1 integral_varifolds*]{} Ann. of Math. 179 (2014),_843-1007.

[^1]: This terminology_is_customary_in the literature at_least when $g$ is a constant:_we use it also for any_$g>0$.

[^2]: To avoid confusion, we remark that_in the interior of $\{g=0\}$ there_are no touching singularities by_the maximum_principle for minimal hypersurfaces (and_therefore (**T**) is_redundant there),_so it is_really on the boundary of $\{g=0\}$_that $(a3)$ of_Theorem \[thm:mainreg\_gpos\] has to be replaced by_(**T**).

[^3]:_Such $u_{1}, u_{2}$_always_exist_by the_definition of touching_singularity;_see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\].

[^4]:_We_note that for an integral varifold_obtained_as in [@BW2], the natural notion of_stability to expect in_the_limit is the one_that can be expressed in_terms of ambient test functions, which_motivates geometrically_the choice_of stating the stability assumption (c) via ambient functions.

[^5]: We point_out that the integral varifolds obtained_by the construction in_[@RogTon] may_be_as those described_in_the discussion_that precedes (**T**), for example the varifold_on the_right in Figure \[fig:Touchingdoubleminimal\]: therefore also_in this context it_is_important to weaken the assumption on_the coincidence set to (**T**).

[^6]: Such_$u_{1}, u_{2}$ always exist by_the_definition_of touching singularity; see remark \[oss:touchingsinggraphs\].

[^7]:_This would be prevented by Hopf_lemma if