## Arithmetic on self-similar sets

Bing Zhao, Xiaomin Ren, Jiali Zhu and Kan Jiang ∗

## Abstract

Let K 1 and K 2 be two one-dimensional homogeneous self-similar sets. Let f be a continuous function defined on an open set U ⊂ R 2 . Denote the continuous image of f by

$$f _ { U } ( K _ { 1 }, K _ { 2 } ) = \{ f ( x, y ) \, \colon ( x, y ) \in ( K _ { 1 } \times K _ { 2 } ) \cap U \}.$$

In this paper we give an sufficient condition which guarantees that f U ( K ,K 1 2 ) contains some interiors. Our result is different from Simon and Taylor's [13, Proposition 2.9] as we do not need the condition that the multiplication of the thickness of K 1 and K 2 is strictly greater than 1. As a consequence, we give an application to the univoque sets in the setting of q -expansions.

## 1 Introduction

/negationslash

Arithmetic on some sets was pioneered by Steinhuas who proved the following classical result: for any set E ⊂ R n with positive Lebesgue measure, E -E = { x -y : x, y ∈ E } contains interiors. It is natural to consider the Steinhuas' result when E is of zero Lebesgue measure. Indeed, it is an important topic in fractal geometry and dynamical systems. Let C be the middle-third Cantor set. Let C ∗ C = { x ∗ y : x, y ∈ C } , where ∗ = + , - · ÷ , , (when ∗ = ÷ , we assume y = 0). Steinhuas [14] proved that

$$C + C = [ 0, 2 ], C - C = [ - 1, 1 ].$$

Athreya, Reznick, and Tyson [1] proved that

$$C \div C = \cup _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } 3 ^ { n } [ 2 / 3, 3 / 2 ].$$

The sum of two Cantor sets appears naturally in homoclinic bifurcations [15]. Palis [15] posed the following problem: whether it is true (at least generically) that the arithmetic sum of dynamically defined Cantor sets either has measure zero or contains an interval. This conjecture was solved in [2]. Motivated by Palis' conjecture, it is natural to investigate when the sum of two Cantor sets contains some interiors. Newhouse [18] proved the following celebrated results. Given any two Cantor sets C 1 and C 2 , if τ ( C 1 ) τ ( C 2 ) &gt; 1, where τ ( C ,i i ) = 1 2 denotes the thickness , of C , i i = 1 2 , , then

∗ Kan Jiang is the corresponding author

C 1 + C 2 contains some interiors. Motivated by Newhouse's result, Simon and Taylor[13, Proposition 2.9] proved that for any C 2 functions H x,y ( ) defined on some open set U , if two Cantor sets C 1 and C 2 have the property τ ( C 1 ) τ ( C 2 ) &gt; 1, and the partial derivatives of H x,y ( ) are not vanishing for almost everywhere in U , then H C ,C ( 1 2 ) = { H x,y ( ) : x ∈ C , y 1 ∈ C 2 } contains some intervals. Simon and Taylor's result is elegant, however, their result is not true when τ ( C 1 ) τ ( C 2 ) ≤ 1. The theme of this paper is to weaken this condition for some fractal sets.

Let f be a continuous function defined on an open set U ⊂ R 2 , and E,F be two nonempty sets in R . Denote the continuous image of f by

$$f _ { U } ( E, F ) = \{ f ( x, y ) \colon ( x, y ) \in ( E \times F ) \cap U \}.$$

Let K 1 and K 2 be the attractors of the IFS's { f i ( x ) = λx + a i } n i =1 and { g j ( x ) = λx + b j } m j =1 , respectively, where a , b i j ∈ R , 0 &lt; λ &lt; 1 . Let the convex hull of K K 1 ( 2 ) be [ a, b ]([ c, d ]). Without loss of generality, we may assume f 1 ( a ) = a, f n ( b ) = b ( g 1 ( c ) = c, g m ( d ) = d ), and

$$f _ { i } ( a ) \leq f _ { i + 1 } ( a ), 1 \leq i \leq n - 1, g _ { j } ( c ) \leq g _ { j + 1 } ( c ), 1 \leq j \leq m - 1.$$

Let

$$D _ { 1 } = \{ 1 \leq i \leq n - 1 \, \colon f _ { i } ( b ) - f _ { i + 1 } ( a ) < 0 \}, \kappa _ { 1 } = \max _ { i \in D _ { 1 } } \{ f _ { i + 1 } ( a ) - f _ { i } ( b ) \}.$$

$$D _ { 2 } = \{ 1 \leq j \leq m - 1 \, \colon g _ { j } ( d ) - g _ { j + 1 } ( c ) < 0 \}, \kappa _ { 2 } = \max _ { j \in D _ { 2 } } \{ g _ { j + 1 } ( c ) - g _ { j } ( d ) \}.$$

Theorem 1.1. Let K , K 1 2 be the attractors defined as above. If there is some ( x , y 0 0 ) ∈ ( K 1 × K 2 ) ∩ U such that then f U ( K , K 1 2 ) contains some interiors.

$$\ h a t & \\ \frac { \kappa _ { 1 } } { d - c } < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda ( b - a ) } { \kappa _ { 2 } }, \\ \i i n s \ s o m e \ i n t e r i o r s. &$$

The following result can be obtained easily in terms of Theorem 1.1.

Corollary 1.2. Let K , K 1 2 be the attractors defined as above. If

$$\intertext { n e a u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u u e e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e e u u e e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e e u e u u e e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e e u e u e u u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u o e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e o u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u e u s u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u }$$

/negationslash then for f ( x, y ) = x α ± y α , α = 0 , xy, x y , f U ( K , K 1 2 ) contains some interiors.

Remark 1.3. We have the following remarks.

- (1) We compare Theorem 1.1 with Simon and Taylor's result. First, our result can be checked directedly. More importantly, we do not need the condition that the multiplication of the thickness is strictly greater than 1 .
- (2) For the irreducible graph-directed self-similar set (inhomogeneous self-similar set), we are able to construct a homogeneous self-similar set such that it can arbitrarily approximate the irreducible graph-directed self-similar set (inhomogeneous self-similar set) in the sense of Hausdorff dimension [9, Theorem 1.1], [16, Proposition 6]. Thus, we can consider similar problem on the irreducible graph-directed self-similar set (inhomogeneous self-similar set).

- (3) Theorem 1.1 is very useful to many other fractal sets, for instance, the set of points with multiple codings, some attractors generated by the open dynamics and so forth. The usage of Theorem 1.1 is as follows: for a given fractal set, we firstly find a sub self-similar set of this fractal set (if it is an inhomogeneous self-similar set, then we use the second remark above), then we utilize Theorem 1.1 to obtain partial results. We emphasize here that [9, Theorem 1.1], [16, Proposition 6] is very helpful to analyze the general fractal sets.

We give an application to q -expansions. Let 1 &lt; q &lt; 2. It is well-known that for every x ∈ [ 0 , 1 q -1 ] there is some ( a n ) ∈ { 0 1 , } N such that

$$x = \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \frac { a _ { n } } { q ^ { n } }.$$

We call ( a n ) an q -expansion of x . Typically, x has multiple expansions [17, 5]. If x has a unique expansion, then we call x a univoque point. Write U q for the set of points with unique expansions. Sidorov proved in [18] that for any q ≥ T 3 , then

$$\hat { \lambda } \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \xi } \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda \lambda
 \hat { U } _ { q } } + U _ { q } = \left [ 0, \frac { 2 } { q - 1 } \right ],$$

where T 3 is the Pisot number satisfying x 3 = x 2 + x +1 He also posed a question that . finding the smallest base q such that U q + U q = [ 0 , 2 q -1 ] . In [6], Dajani, Komornik,

Kong and Li proved that U ( x ) ∗ U ( x ) contains interiors, where ∗ = + , - · ÷ , , , and U ( x ) is the set of bases for which the expansion of x ∈ (0 , 1] is unique. The main tool of proving the above two results is the Newhouse thickness theorem. Motivated by their results, it is natural to consider the arithmetic on the univoque set U q . To the best of our knowledge, there are very few results concerning with f U ( U , U q q ), where f ( x, y ) is a general function. The following results are corollaries of Theorem 1.1.

Corollary 1.4. Let q ∗ ≈ 1 8019 . be the appropriate root of

$$x ^ { 3 } - x ^ { 2 } - 2 x + 1 = 0.$$

For any q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2) , if there is some ( x , y 0 0 ) ∈ ( K q × K q ) ∩ U such that

$$\underset { \text{there is some } } { \text{$\left(x_{0},y_{0})\in\left(\mathfrak{L}_{q}\times\mathfrak{L}_{q} \right) + U$ suc} } \\ 1 - 2 \lambda < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f \right | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f \right | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda } { 1 - 2 \lambda } }, \\ \text{, is the attractor of the IFS}$$

where λ = q -2 and K q is the attractor of the IFS

$$\ddot { \ } q \, \infty \, \underset { \ } \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceedings} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{succeedssucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceedings} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedssucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedsucceeds} \, & \text{susceedssucceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{sUSceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeding} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, & \text{susceeds} \, &$$

then f U ( U , U q q ) contains an interior.

Corollary 1.5. If q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2) , then

$$U _ { q } ^ { 2 } + U _ { q } ^ { 2 }, U _ { q } ^ { 2 } - U _ { q } ^ { 2 }, U _ { q } \cdot U _ { q }, U _ { q } \div U _ { q }$$

have interiors.

It is natural to consider the dimension of f U ( U , U q q ). The following results are indeed some corollaries of B´r´ny [3], Peres and Shmerkin[16]. a a

Proposition 1.6. For any 1 &lt; q &lt; 2 ,

$$\dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } \cdot U _ { q } ) = \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } \div U _ { q } ) = \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ^ { 2 } \pm U _ { q } ^ { 2 } ) = \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \}.$$

For two different bases q , q 1 2 ∈ (1 , 2) with the property

$$\frac { \log q _ { 1 } } { \log q _ { 2 } } \notin \mathbb { Q },$$

then

$$\dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } + U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) = \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ), 1 \}.$$

The paper is arranged as follows. In section 2, we give the proofs of main results. In section 3, we give some remarks.

## 2 Proof of Main results

In this section, we shall give the proofs of the main theorems of this paper.

## 2.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1

Before, we prove Theorem 1.1, we recall some definitions. For simplicity, we only introduce the definitions for K 1 . For any ( i 1 , · · · , i k ) ∈ { 1 2 , , · · · , n } k , we call f i 1 , ··· ,i k ([ a, b ]) = ( f i 1 ◦· · ·◦ f i k )([ a, b ]) a basic interval of rank k, which has length λ k ( b -a ). In what follows, we use the following notation f i 1 ◦ · · · ◦ f i k = f i 1 , ··· ,i k . Denote by H k the collection of all these basic intervals of rank k with respect to { f i } n i =1 . Let J ∈ H k , define ˜ J = ∪ n i =1 I k +1 ,i , where I k +1 ,i ∈ H k +1 and I k +1 ,i ⊂ J for i = 1 2 , , · · · n . Let [ A, B ] ⊂ [ a, b ], where A and B are the left and right endpoints of some basic intervals in H k for some k ≥ 1, respectively. A and B may not be in the same basic interval. Let F k be the collection of all the basic intervals in [ A, B ] with length λ k ( b -a , k ) ≥ k 0 for some k 0 ∈ N + , i.e. the union of all the elements of F k is denoted by G k = ∪ t k i =1 I k,i , where t k ∈ N + , I k,i ∈ H k and I k,i ⊂ [ A, B ]. Clearly, by the definition of G k , it follows that G k +1 ⊂ G k for any k ≥ k . 0 Similarly, we can define the basic intervals for K 2 . Let M and N are the left and right endpoints of some basic intervals in H ′ k with respect to K 2 . Denote by G ′ k the union of all the basic intervals with length λ k ( d -c ) in the interval [ M,N ], i.e. G ′ k = ∪ t ′ k j =1 J ′ k,j , where t ′ k ∈ N + , J ′ k,j ∈ H ′ k and J ′ k,j ⊂ [ M,N ]. The following lemma is crucial to our analysis.

Lemma 2.1. Let f : U → R be a continuous function . Suppose A and B ( M and N ) are the left and right endpoints of some basic intervals in H k 0 ( H ′ k 0 ) for some k 0 ≥ 1 respectively such that [ A, B ] × [ M,N ] ⊂ U. Then K 1 ∩ [ A, B ] = ∩ ∞ k = k 0 G k , and K 2 ∩ [ M,N ] = ∩ ∞ k = k 0 G ′ k . Moreover, if for any k ≥ k 0 and any two basic intervals I ⊂ G k , J ⊂ G ′ k such that then f ( K 1 ∩ [ A, B , K ] 2 ∩ [ M,N ]) = f ( G ,G k 0 ′ k 0 ) .

$$f ( I, J ) = f ( \widetilde { I }, \widetilde { J } ), \\ ) = f ( G _ { k _ { 0 } }, G ^ { \prime } _ { k _ { 0 } } ).$$

Proof. By the construction of G k ( G ′ k ), i.e. G k +1 ⊂ G k ( G ′ k +1 ⊂ G ′ k ) for any k ≥ k 0 , it follows that

$$K _ { 1 } \cap [ A, B ] = \cap _ { k = k _ { 0 } } ^ { \infty } G _ { k } \text{ and } K _ { 2 } \cap [ M, N ] = \cap _ { k = k _ { 0 } } ^ { \infty } G _ { k } ^ { \prime }.$$

The continuity of f yields that

$$f ( K _ { 1 } \cap [ A, B ], K _ { 2 } \cap [ M, N ] ) = \cap _ { k = k _ { 0 } } ^ { \infty } f ( G _ { k }, G _ { k } ^ { \prime } ).$$

In terms of the relation G k +1 = ˜ G k , G ′ k +1 = ˜ G ′ k and the condition in the lemma, it follows that

$$f ( G _ { k }, G ^ { \prime } _ { k } ) \ & = \ \cup _ { 1 \leq i \leq t _ { k } } \cup _ { 1 \leq j \leq t ^ { \prime } _ { k } } f ( I _ { k, i }, J _ { k, j } ) \\ & = \ \cup _ { 1 \leq i \leq t _ { k } } \cup _ { 1 \leq j \leq t ^ { \prime } _ { k } } f ( \widetilde { I _ { k, i } }, \widetilde { J _ { k, j } } ) \\ & = \ f ( \cup _ { 1 \leq i \leq t _ { k } } \widetilde { I _ { k, i } }, \cup _ { 1 \leq j \leq t ^ { \prime } _ { k } } \widetilde { J _ { k, j } } ) \\ & = \ f ( G _ { k + 1 }, G ^ { \prime } _ { k + 1 } ). \\ \sigma ^ { \prime } \, \Gamma \, \Delta \, \Gamma _ { 0 } \, \left ( \, \Gamma \, \right ) \, \sum \, \Gamma \, \Delta \, \Gamma _ { 0 } \, \right ).$$

Therefore, f ( K 1 ∩ [ A, B , K ] 2 ∩ [ M,N ]) = f ( G ,G k 0 ′ k 0 )

.

Theorem 2.2. Suppose that ∂ f, ∂ x y f are continuous. If there is some ( x , y 0 0 ) ∈ ( K 1 × K 2 ) ∩ U such that

$$2 \, ) + \, & \cup \, \ s u c { n } \ u n a t \\ \frac { \kappa _ { 1 } } { d - c } < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda ( b - a ) } { \kappa _ { 2 } }, \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } > 0, \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } > 0, \\ e n \, f _ { U } ( K _ { 1 }, K _ { 2 } ) \, \text{ contains some interiors.}$$

then f U ( K , K 1 2 ) contains some interiors.

Proof. Since ∂ f, ∂ x y f are continuous, and ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &gt; 0 , ∂ x f | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &gt; 0, it follows that there is some neighbourhood of ( x , y 0 0 ), denoted by V , such that

$$\partial _ { y } f ( x, y ) > 0, \partial _ { x } f ( x, y ) > 0$$

for any ( x, y ) ∈ V. Let I = f i 1 ··· i p ([ a, b ]) and J = g j 1 ··· j p ([ c, d ]) be two basic intervals of H k and H ′ k , respectively. We assume that I × J ⊂ V . By the definition ˜ I and ˜ J , we have

Therefore,

$$\widetilde { I } & = \cup _ { j = 1 } ^ { n } f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( [ a, b ] ), \widetilde { J } = \cup _ { l = 1 } ^ { m } g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( [ c, d ] ). \\ \quad \ f l / \widetilde { I } \ \widetilde { I } \, - 1 / n + 1 / m \quad \ f l / \ f. \quad. \ f l ( \alpha \, \mathbb { H } \, \cdots \, \alpha. \quad. \ f l ( \alpha \, \mathcal { H } \, \cdots \, \mathbb { U } ).$$

For any 1 ≤ j ≤ n , we shall prove that

$$& f ( \widetilde { I }, \widetilde { J } ) = \cup _ { j = 1 } ^ { n } \cup _ { l = 1 } ^ { m } f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( [ a, b ] ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( [ c, d ] ) ). \\ & \leq j \leq n, \text{ we shall prove that}$$

$$\cup _ { l = 1 } ^ { m } f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( [ a, b ] ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( [ c, d ] ) )$$

is an interval. In fact, by the conditions ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &gt; 0 , ∂ x f | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &gt; 0, it remains to prove that

$$f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( b ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( d ) ) - f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( a ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l + 1 } ( c ) ) \geq 0.$$

Note that

$$& f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( b ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( d ) ) - f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( a ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l + 1 } ( c ) ) \\ = & \ \ ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j } ( a ) ) \lambda ^ { p } \partial _ { x } f + ( g _ { l } ( d ) - g _ { l + 1 } ( c ) ) \lambda ^ { p } \partial _ { y } f + o ( \lambda ^ { p } ) ] \\ = & \ \ \lambda ^ { p } \left [ ( b - a ) \lambda \partial _ { x } f ( x, y ) + ( g _ { l } ( d ) - g _ { l + 1 } ( c ) ) \partial _ { y } f ( x, y ) + o ( 1 ) \right ]$$

for any ( x, y ) ∈ I × J ⊂ V . By the condition ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) ∂ f x | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &lt; λ b ( -a ) κ 2 and the continuity of ∂ f, ∂ x y f , it follows that

$$f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( b ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( d ) ) - f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( a ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l + 1 } ( c ) ) \geq 0.$$

Next, we want to show that

$$\cup _ { l = 1 } ^ { m } f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j } ( [ a, b ] ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( [ c, d ] ) ) \cup \cup _ { l = 1 } ^ { m } f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p } j + 1 } ( [ a, b ] ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } l } ( [ c, d ] ) )$$

is an interval for any 1 ≤ j ≤ n -1. Indeed, it suffices to prove that

$$\begin{array} { l l } & f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p j } } ( b ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p } m } ( d ) ) - f ( f _ { i _ { 1 } \cdots i _ { p j + 1 } } ( a ), g _ { j _ { 1 } \cdots j _ { p 1 } } ( c ) ) \\ & = & ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j + 1 } ( a ) ) \lambda ^ { p } \partial _ { x } f + ( g _ { m } ( d ) - g _ { 1 } ( c ) ) \lambda ^ { p } \partial _ { y } f + o ( \lambda ^ { p } ) ] \\ & = & \lambda ^ { p } \left [ ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j + 1 } ( a ) ) \partial _ { x } f + ( d - c ) \partial _ { y } f + o ( 1 ) \right ] \\ & = & \lambda ^ { p } \left [ ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j + 1 } ( a ) ) \partial _ { x } f + ( d - c ) \partial _ { y } f + o ( 1 ) \right ] \end{array}$$

Clearly if f j ( b ) -f j +1 ( a ) ≥ 0, then

$$\lambda ^ { p } \left [ ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j + 1 } ( a ) ) \partial _ { x } f + ( d - c ) \partial _ { y } f + o ( 1 ) \right ] \geq 0$$

If f j ( b ) -f j +1 ( a ) &lt; 0, i.e. j ∈ D 1 , then by the condition κ 1 b -a &lt; ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) ∂ f x | ( x ,y 0 0 ) and the continuity of ∂ f, ∂ x y f , we also have

$$\lambda ^ { p } \left [ ( f _ { j } ( b ) - f _ { j + 1 } ( a ) ) \partial _ { x } f + ( d - c ) \partial _ { y } f + o ( 1 ) \right ] \geq 0$$

Therefore, we have proved that f ( I, J ) = f ( ˜ ˜ I, J ). In terms of Lemma 2.1, it follows that f U ( K , K 1 2 ) contains some interiors.

Similarly, we can prove the following result. We left it to the readers.

Theorem 2.3. Suppose that ∂ f, ∂ x y f are continuous. If there is some ( x , y 0 0 ) ∈ ( K 1 × K 2 ) ∩ U such that

$$2 \, J + \cup \ s u c { n } \ n u u \\ \frac { \kappa _ { 1 } } { d - c } < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda ( b - a ) } { \kappa _ { 2 } }, \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } > 0, \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } < 0, \\ \intertext { e n f } f _ { U } ( K _ { 1 }, K _ { 2 } ) \ c o n t a i n s \ s o m e \ i n t e r i o r s.$$

then f U ( K , K 1 2 ) contains some interiors.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 . By Theorems 2.2 and 2.3, it remains to prove the following two cases.

- (1) If ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &lt; 0 , ∂ x f | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &lt; 0 , then we let F 1 ( x, y ) = -f ( x, y ) and use Theorem 2.2.
- (2) If ∂ f y | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &gt; 0 , ∂ x f | ( x ,y 0 0 ) &lt; 0 , then we let F 2 ( x, y ) = -f ( x, y ), and make use of Theorem 2.3.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00224v1-figure-189eaf59-b39c-4693-8d52-5a09a2041083.jpg)

## 2.2 Proof of Theorem 1.4

Now, we prove Theorem 1.4. Our idea is simple, i.e. for any q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2), we shall construct some self-similar set, denoted by K q , contained in U q such that f U ( K , K q q ) contains some interiors. Therefore, f U ( U , U q q ) has some interiors. Before we construct the set K q we give some classical results of unique expansions. The following theorem characterizes the criteria of the unique expansions, the proof of this result can be found in [8] or some references therein.

Theorem 2.4. Let ( a n ) ∞ n =1 be an expansion of x ∈ [0 , ( q -1) -1 ] . Then ( a n ) ∞ n =1 ∈ ˜ U q if and only if

$$( a _ { k + 1 } a _ { k + 2 } \cdots ) < ( \eta _ { n } ) _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty }$$

wherever a k = 0 ,

$$\overline { ( a _ { k + 1 } a _ { k + 2 } \cdots ) } < ( \eta _ { n } ) _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty }$$

wherever a k = 1 , where ( η n ) ∞ n =1 is the quasi-greedy expansions of 1 , ˜ U q denotes all the unique expansions in base q , and ' &lt; ' means the lexicographic order.

Lemma 2.5. Let q ∗ ≈ 1 8019 . be the appropriate root of

$$x ^ { 3 } - x ^ { 2 } - 2 x + 1 = 0.$$

Then for any q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2) ,

$$U _ { q } \supset K _ { q },$$

where K q is the attractor of the following IFS

$$\begin{array} { c } \psi \psi \psi \\ \psi \\ g _ { 1 } ( x ) = \frac { x + 1 } { q ^ { 2 } }, g _ { 2 } ( x ) = \frac { x } { q ^ { 2 } } + \frac { 1 } { q } \Big \}. \end{array}$$

Proof. In base q ∗ , the quasi-greedy expansion of 1 is 11(01) ∞ . Therefore, by Theorem 2.4, we have that for any q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2),

$$\{ ( 0 1 ), ( 1 0 ) \} ^ { \infty } \subset \widetilde { U _ { q _ { * } } } \subset \widetilde { U _ { q } }. \\ \text{self-similar set $K_{q}$ by the coding sp}.$$

Thus, we can construct a self-similar set K q by the coding space { (01) , (10) } ∞ , namely,

$$U _ { q } \supset K _ { q },$$

where K q is the attractor of the IFS

$$\left \{ g _ { 1 } ( x ) = \frac { x + 1 } { q ^ { 2 } }, g _ { 2 } ( x ) = \frac { x } { q ^ { 2 } } + \frac { 1 } { q } \right \}.$$

Now, we are able to prove Corollary 1.4.

Proof of Corollary 1.4 . For the self-similar set K q , note that a = 1 q 2 -1 , b = q q 2 -1 , r = q -2 . Therefore, the condition

$$\begin{array} { c } \text{common} \\ \frac { \kappa _ { 1 } } { b - a } < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda ( b - a ) } { \kappa _ { 1 } } \\ \end{array} \right | \\ \text{$x$ condition}$$

is exactly the following condition

$$\text{g continuous} \\ 1 - 2 \lambda < \left | \frac { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | < \frac { \lambda } { 1 - 2 \lambda }, \\ \text{fore, we prove Corollary 1.4.}$$

where λ = q -2 . Therefore, we prove Corollary 1.4.

Proof of Corollary 1.5 . For f ( x, y ) = xy or x 2 + y 2 or x 2 -y , y/x 2

$$\text{our $y$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $( $( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$
$ \text{earality, we only consider the following case as for th} \\ \text{$----1$} \text{$----2$} \text{$----3$} \text{$----4$} \text{$----5$} \text{$----6$} \text{$----7$} \text{$----8$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----8$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----8$} \text{$----8$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----9$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----10$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----13$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----13$} \text{$----12$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$} \text{$----11$$$

Without loss of generality, we only consider the following case as for the remaining case, the discussion is analogous. Suppose

$$\text{pose} \\ \left | \frac { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } ) } } \right | = \frac { y _ { 0 } } { x _ { 0 } }. \\ \frac { 1 } { \longleftarrow } \right | \in K _ { a } \times K _ { a }. \text{ It is ei}$$

We take ( x , y 0 0 ) = ( 1 q 2 -1 , q q 2 -1 ) ∈ K q × K q . It is easy to check that in this case

$$\begin{array} { c c c } \mathbb { U } ^ { - 1 } - \mathbb { U } ^ { - 1 } / \\ \frac { 1 - 2 \lambda } { \lambda } < \left | \frac { \partial _ { x } f | _ { ( x _ { 1 }, y _ { 1 } ) } } { \partial _ { y } f | _ { ( x _ { 1 }, y _ { 1 } ) } } \right | = \frac { y _ { 1 } } { x _ { 1 } } < \frac { 1 } { 1 - 2 \lambda }, \\ \intertext {, where } \lambda = q ^ { - 2 }. \text{ Therefore, Corollary 1.5 follows C} \end{array}$$

for any q ∈ ( q , ∗ 2), where λ = q -2 . Therefore, Corollary 1.5 follows Corollary 1.4.

## 2.3 Proof of Proposition 1.6

B´ ar´ny [3] proved the following result. a

Theorem 2.6. Let Λ be an arbitrary self-similar set in R 2 not contain in any line. Suppose that g : R 2 → R is a C 2 map such that

/negationslash

$$( g _ { x } ) ^ { 2 } + ( g _ { y } ) ^ { 2 } \neq 0, ( g _ { x x } g _ { y } - g _ { x y } g _ { x } ) ^ { 2 } + ( g _ { x y } g _ { y } - g _ { y y } g _ { x } ) ^ { 2 } \neq 0$$

/negationslash for any ( x, y ) ∈ Λ . Then

$$\dim _ { H } g ( \Lambda ) = \min \{ 1, \dim _ { H } ( \Lambda ) \}.$$

In terms of this result, we can prove Proposition 1.6.

Proof of Proposition 1.6 . First, we prove that for any 1 &lt; q &lt; 2,

$$\dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } \cdot U _ { q } ) = \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } \div U _ { q } ) = \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ^ { 2 } \pm U _ { q } ^ { 2 } ) = \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \}.$$

It remains to prove that the formula is correct for any q KL &lt; q &lt; 2, where q KL is the Komornik-Loreti constant. As for any q ∈ (1 , q KL ], dim H ( U q ) = 0 (see [10]), and the fact that for any C 2 map g , we always have

$$\dim _ { H } ( g ( U _ { q }, U _ { q } ) ) \leq \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \}.$$

In our proposition, g x, y ( ) = xy, x 2 ± y , x/y 2 . In what follows, we always assume g x, y ( ) is one of the four functions. For f ( x, y ) = x/y , we may adjust the proof if necessary. Let ˜ U q be the associated coding space of U q . For any /epsilon1 &gt; 0, we may find a subshift of finite type, denoted by ˜ U q 0 , with transitivity condition [4] such that ˜ U q 0 ⊂ ˜ U q and that where π q ( ) · means the natural projection of the coding space in base q . Note that π q ( ˜ U q 0 ) is a graph-directed self-similar set. We denote it by ( K , K , 1 2 · · · , K n ). By the transitivity condition, it follows that

$$\dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q } ( \widetilde { U _ { q _ { 0 } } } ) ) & > \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ) - \epsilon, \\ \text{e natural projection of the coding space}$$

$$\dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q } ( \widetilde { U _ { q _ { 0 } } } ) ) = \dim _ { H } ( K _ { i } ), \\ K _ { i }, \, & \text{by Theorem } [ 9, \, \text{Theorem } 1. 1 ], \, \text{for}$$

for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Given K i , by Theorem [9, Theorem 1.1], for any /epsilon1 &gt; 0, there is some self-similar set K such that

$$K \subset K _ { i }, \dim _ { H } ( K ) > \dim _ { H } ( K _ { i } ) - \epsilon.$$

Therefore, for any q KL &lt; q &lt; 2, and any /epsilon1 &gt; 0 there exists some homogeneous selfsimilar set K ⊂ U q such that

$$\dim _ { H } ( K ) > \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ) - \epsilon.$$

Note that K × K is a self-similar set in R 2 which is not contained in a line. By Theorem 2.6

$$\dim _ { H } g ( K \times K ) = \min \{ 1, \dim _ { H } ( K \times K ) \}.$$

Here if g x, y ( ) = x/y , we may replace U q by [ 2 -q q -1 , 1 ] ∩ U q . As for this case, 0 ∈ U q and we need to avoid this point if we use Theorem 2.6. The rest proof is the same. Therefore,

$$\dim _ { H } ( g ( U _ { q }, U _ { q } ) ) \ & \geq \ \dim _ { H } ( g ( K, K ) ) \\ & = \ \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( K \times K ), 1 \} \\ & = \ \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( K ), 1 \} \\ & \geq \ \min \{ 2 ( \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ) - \epsilon ), 1 \}.$$

Letting /epsilon1 → 0, and we obtain that

$$\dim _ { H } ( g ( U _ { q }, U _ { q } ) ) \geq \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \},$$

and subsequently we have proved that

$$\dim _ { H } ( g ( U _ { q }, U _ { q } ) ) = \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \}.$$

The proof of the remaining formula is similar. With a similar discussion, for any q , q 1 2 ∈ ( q KL , 2) we have

$$\dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } + U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) = \dim _ { H } P ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } \times U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) \leq \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } \times U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) = \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ),$$

where P denotes the projection to the y -axis through the angle 3 π/ . 4 Thus

$$\dim _ { H } ( ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } + U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) ) \leq \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ), 1 \}.$$

In order to show that dim H (( U q 1 + U q 2 )) ≥ min dim { H ( U q 1 ) + dim H ( U q 2 ) , 1 } . Arbitrarily fix an /epsilon1 &gt; 0. As in the proof of

$$\dim _ { H } ( g ( U _ { q }, U _ { q } ) ) \geq \min \{ 2 \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q } ), 1 \},$$

one can take graph-directed self-similar sets π q 1 ( ˜ U 1 ) and π q 2 ( ˜ U 2 ) such that π q 1 ( ˜ U 1 ) ⊆ U q 1 , π q 2 ( ˜ U 2 ) ⊆ U q 2 and

By [9, Remark 1.2], there exist some homogeneous self-similar sets K q 1 and K q 2 with similarity ratios 1 /q 1 and 1 /q 2 , respectively, such that

$$\dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q _ { 1 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 1 } } ) ) > \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) - \epsilon, \ \dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q _ { 2 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 2 } } ) ) > \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) - \epsilon. \\ \text{By } [ 9, \text{ Remark } 1. 2 ], \text{ there exist some homogeneous self-similar sets } K _ { q _ { 1 } } \text{ and } K _ { q _ { 2 } } \text{ with }$$

and that

$$K _ { q _ { 1 } } \subset \pi _ { q _ { 1 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 1 } } ), K _ { q _ { 2 } } \subset \pi _ { q _ { 2 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 2 } } )$$

$$\dim _ { H } ( K _ { q _ { 1 } } ) > \dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q _ { 1 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 1 } } ) ) - \epsilon, \dim _ { H } ( K _ { q _ { 2 } } ) > \dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q _ { 2 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 2 } } ) ) - \epsilon. \\ \text{By } [ 16, \text{Theorem } 2 ], \text{ we have}$$

By [16, Theorem 2], we have

$$\dim _ { H } ( K _ { q _ { 1 } } + K _ { q _ { 2 } } ) = \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( K _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( K _ { q _ { 2 } } ), 1 \}$$

Therefore,

$$\dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } + U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) \geq \dim _ { H } ( \pi _ { q _ { 1 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 1 } } ) + \pi _ { q _ { 2 } } ( \widetilde { U _ { 2 } } ) ) \geq \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) - 4 \epsilon, 1 \}. \\ \text{Therefore,}$$

Therefore,

$$\dim _ { H } ( ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } + U _ { q _ { 2 } } ) ) = \min \{ \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 1 } } ) + \dim _ { H } ( U _ { q _ { 2 } } ), 1 \}.$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00224v1-figure-7cc29b6e-8787-47b1-82d7-79d8339a523b.jpg)

## 3 Final remarks

It would be interesting if one can give the exact form of f U ( K , K 1 2 ) for some functions. For instance, what is the exact structure of C · C ? We shall give an answer to this question in another paper.

## Acknowledgements

The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.11701302,

11671147). The work is also supported by K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University. Kan Jiang would like to thank Karma Dajani, Derong Kong and Wenxia Li for some suggestions on the previous versions of the manuscript.

## References

- [1] Jayadev S.Athreya, Bruce Reznick, and Jeremy T.Tyson. Cantor set arithmetic. American Mathematical Monthly , 126(1):4-17, 2019.
- [2] Carlos Gustavo T. de A. Moreira and Jean-Christophe Yoccoz. Stable intersections of regular Cantor sets with large Hausdorff dimensions. Ann. of Math. (2) , 154(1):45-96, 2001.
- [3] Bal´zs B´r´ny. a a a On some non-linear projections of self-similar sets in R 3 . Fund. Math. , 237(1):83-100, 2017.
- [4] Rafael Alcaraz Barrera, Simon Baker and Derong Kong, Entropy, topological transitivity, and dimensional properties of unique q -expansions. Tran. AMS , 370(2019), 3209-3258.
- [5] Karma Dajani and Martijn de Vries. Invariant densities for random β -expansions. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 9(1):157-176, 2007.
- [6] Karma Dajani, Vilmos Komornik, Derong Kong, and Wenxia Li. Algebraic sums and products of univoque bases. Indag. Math. (N.S.) , 29(4):1087-1104, 2018.
- [7] Karma Dajani, Kan Jiang, Derong Kong, and Wenxia Li. Multiple expansions of real numbers with digits set { 0 1 , , q } . Math. Z. , 291(3-4):1605-1619, 2019.
- [8] Martijn de Vries and Vilmos Komornik. Unique expansions of real numbers. Adv. Math. , 221(2):390-427, 2009.
- [9] Abel Farkas. Dimension approximation of attractors of graph directed IFSs by self-similar sets. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 167(1):193-207, 2019.
- [10] Paul Glendinning and Nikita Sidorov. Unique representations of real numbers in non-integer bases. Math. Res. Lett. , 8(4):535-543, 2001.
- [11] John E. Hutchinson. Fractals and self-similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 30(5):713747, 1981.
- [12] Pedro Mendes and Fernando Oliveira. On the topological structure of the arithmetic sum of two Cantor sets. Nonlinearity , 7(2):329-343, 1994.
- [13] K´ aroly Simon and Krystal Taylor. Interior of sums of planar sets and curves arXiv:1707.01420 , 2017.

- [14] Hugo Steinhuas. Mowa W/suppress lasno´´ sc Mnogo´ sci Cantora. Wector, 1-3. English translation in: STENIHAUS, H.D. 1985.
- [15] Jacob Palis and Floris Takens. Hyperbolicity and sensitive chaotic dynamics at homoclinic bifurcations , volume 35 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. Fractal dimensions and infinitely many attractors.
- [16] Yuval Peres and Pablo Shmerkin. Resonance between Cantor sets. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 29(1):201-221, 2009.
- [17] Nikita Sidorov. Almost every number has a continuum of β -expansions. Amer. Math. Monthly , 110(9):838-842, 2003.
- [18] Nikita Sidorov. Expansions in non-integer bases: lower, middle and top orders. J. Number Theory , 129(4):741-754, 2009.

Department of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China

E-mail address: zhaobing@nbu.edu.cn

Department of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China

E-mail address: 283186364@qq.com

Department of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China

E-mail address: 740464942@qq.com

Department of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China

E-mail address: kanjiangbunnik@yahoo.com, jiangkan@nbu.edu.cn
Bing Zhao Xiaomin Ren Jiali Zhu Kan Jiang
Arithmetic on self-similar sets
Let $K_1$ and $K_2$ be two one-dimensional homogeneous self-similar sets. Let
$f$ be a continuous function defined on an open set $U\subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$.
Denote the continuous image of $f$ by $$ f_{U}(K_1,K_2)=\{f(x,y):(x,y)\in
(K_1\times K_2)\cap U\}. $$ In this paper we give an sufficient condition which
guarantees that $f_{U}(K_1,K_2)$ contains some interiors. Our result is
different from Simon and Taylor's \cite[Proposition 2.9]{ST} as we do not need
the condition that the multiplication of the thickness of $K_1$ and $K_2$ is
strictly greater than $1$. As a consequence, we give an application to the
univoque sets in the setting of $q$-expansions.