ScalingStacks

Proof. [04TT]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

Proof.

Suppose uu vanishes on

{xk+1=…=xn=0}.\{x_{k+1}=...=x_{n}=0\}.

By subtracting a linear function of the form ak+1​xk+1+…+an​xna_{k+1}x_{k+1}+...+a_{n}x_{n} we may assume that u⁡(t​en)=o⁡(t)u(te_{n})=o(t). Then Sh,0​(0)S_{h,0}(0) has length R⁡(h)​hR(h)h in the ene_{n} direction, where R⁡(h)→∞R(h)\rightarrow\infty as h→0h\rightarrow 0. Furthermore, Sh,0​(0)S_{h,0}(0) has length exceeding 1C​h\frac{1}{C}h in the en−k,…,en−1e_{n-k},...,e_{n-1} directions, where CC is the Lipschitz constant of uu in B1/2B_{1/2}. Finally, Sh,0​(0)S_{h,0}(0) contains the unit ball in the subspace spanned by {e1,…,ek}\{e_{1},...,e_{k}\}. We conclude that

|Sh,0​(0)|≥C−k​R​(h)​hn−k,|S_{h,0}(0)|\geq C^{-k}R(h)h^{n-k},

which contradicts Lemma 2.2 as h→0h\rightarrow 0 for k≥n2k\geq\frac{n}{2}. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.