Back to search
2101.01798

On a family of self-affine IFS whose attractors have a non-fractal top

Kevin G. Hare, Nikita Sidorov

correcthigh confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM

Audit review

The paper proves that for parameters (λ,µ) in a computably large region G, the top boundary ∂top(Aλ,µ) is the graph of a continuous, strictly increasing function by constructing a barrier attractor Bλ,µ for gated maps S0,S1, and then iterating R(A)=∂top(T0(A)∪T1(A)) starting from Bλ,µ to obtain an increasing sequence Rn that converges to ∂top(Aλ,µ); this yields continuity and strict monotonicity (Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.3) and explicitly places Bλ,µ below ∂top(Aλ,µ) (B bounds ∂top from below) . The candidate solution’s core claim W(b)≤b (and hence f≤b) contradicts the paper’s monotonicity Rn−1≤Rn and the fact that Bλ,µ≤∂top(Aλ,µ); in the paper R(B)≥B and Rn↗∂top(Aλ,µ) (not the other way around) . The model also assumes unproven endpoint equalities and a unique crossing on the overlap, which are not established in the paper and are used critically in its continuity and strict-increase arguments.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

This note identifies a natural family of planar self-affine IFS for which the top boundary is non-fractal (a continuous, strictly increasing graph) on a large and explicit subset G of parameters. The proof is clear and self-contained via a barrier construction and a monotone top-boundary iteration that preserves continuity and increases to the attractor's top boundary. Computational estimates of the size of G are convincing. Minor clarifications about the overlap endpoints and the precise meaning of 'below the barrier' would further improve readability.