Abstract

The paper introduces the hyperplane absolute winning game, proves its countable-intersection and invariance properties, and shows that hyperplane absolute winning sets are winning for Schmidt's original game.

Role in dependence graphs

Proof-critical source

On Some Properties of Irrational Subspaces

This paper is included only for the following marked statement:

  • HAW permanence properties · §2HAW sets are stable under countable intersections and imply winning for Schmidt's game.

Proof-critical source

Metric theory with a fixed matrix

This paper is included only for the following marked statement:

  • Proposition 2.3(a)–(b) · printed p. 323HAW implies Schmidt winning/full Hausdorff dimension, and countable intersections of HAW sets are HAW. The focal paper uses the intersection property in Lemma 7.8 and recalls the dimension implication.

AI-generated audit

Audit summary

Audited against the exact journal version of record

Not a correctness certificate. These reports do not replace expert scrutiny or formal verification.

Exact reviewed source

Version of record · Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 153 (2012), no. 2, 319–339

Ryan Broderick, Lior Fishman, Dmitry Kleinbock, Asaf Reich, Barak Weiss. The set of badly approximable vectors is strongly $C^1$ incompressible. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 153 (2012), no. 2, 319–339.

Open audited source ↗
Generated August 23, 2026
01Statements3 reported findingsCorrect

The hyperplane-absolute-winning result for badly approximable vectors, its C1C^1 invariance, the strong incompressibility consequence, the fractal-intersection results, and the nondense-orbit example are correct. Three uniquely determined local typographical corrections do not alter any statement.

Theorems 2.4 and 2.5Correct

Hyperplane absolute winning is C1C^1 invariant and contains the badly approximable vectors

Journal pages 323–327 · Theorems 2.4–2.5 and their proofs · version of record

For Theorem 2.4, uniform control of DfDf and D(f1)D(f^{-1}) on the first sufficiently small compact game ball permits a subsequence of Bob's moves to be mapped to a legal game with parameter β=βn\beta'=\beta^n. The affine linearization error is made smaller than the deletion margin, so pulling a deleted kk-plane neighborhood back gives a legal deletion and transfers Alice's winning strategy. For Theorem 2.5, the simplex lemma confines every denominator block to one affine hyperplane, and deleting its neighborhood yields the uniform bound xp/qcq(1+1/d)\lVert x-p/q\rVert\geq c q^{-(1+1/d)}. The printed move index Ajk+1A_{j_k+1} must be AjkA_{j_k}; with this mechanical correction the deletion is made immediately after BjkB_{j_k}, has admissible width βk+1ρ<βρjk\beta^{k+1}\rho<\beta\rho_{j_k}, and forces Bjk+1B_{j_k+1} to avoid the dangerous rational points.

Cambridge version of record
Theorems 1.1 and 1.2Correct

The strong incompressibility and diffuse-fractal conclusions follow

Journal pages 320–321 and 330–334 · Theorems 1.1, 1.2, 4.10 and Corollary 5.4 · version of record

Hyperplane absolute winning is preserved by countable intersections and by inverse images under nonsingular C1C^1 maps. Proposition 4.9 transfers the game to every hyperplane-diffuse closed set, and the winning-on-KK dimension lemma gives positive dimension. When KK supports an Ahlfors-regular absolutely decaying measure, its Hausdorff dimension is recovered in full. Applying these facts to BAd\mathrm{BA}_d proves both advertised incompressibility conclusions with the stated quantifiers over the maps and open set.

Cambridge version of record
Theorem 2.6Correct

Avoidance sets for semisimple toral endomorphisms are HAW

Journal pages 324 and 327–330 · Theorem 2.6 and proof · version of record

If the spectral radius is one, Kronecker's theorem and semisimplicity make a common power of the integral rational matrix equal to the identity, reducing the target to avoidance of a countable set. If the spectral radius exceeds one, the proof separates the maximal-modulus invariant subspace, compares different inverse images of the target lattice, and deletes the affine hyperplane parallel to the complementary invariant subspace at each selected scale. The separation estimates ensure that every surviving orbit stays a fixed distance from the target point.

Cambridge version of record
02Proofs4 reported findingsCorrect

The material proofs are correct and complete after three mechanical typographical corrections. The pullback strategy, simplex-lemma argument, diffuse-set restriction, and dimension deductions preserve all parameter ranges and quantifiers.

Proof of Theorem 2.4Correct and complete

The game pullback controls nonlinear distortion at every selected scale

Journal pages 324–327 · proof of Theorem 2.4 · version of record

The choice C=2C1C2C=2C_1C_2 and nn with C(1+β)βn2<1C(1+\beta)\beta^{n-2}<1 makes the pulled-back deletion thinner than βρi\beta\rho_i. The chosen subsequence has radius ratio in [βn,βn1)[\beta^n,\beta^{n-1}), which supplies a legal βn\beta^n-game and leaves the required separation from the preceding deleted plane. Continuity of the inverse derivative makes the affine approximation error uniform on all later balls. Thus every outcome of the original game maps into an outcome of the transferred winning strategy.

Cambridge version of record
Proof of Theorem 2.5Typo

The deleted-plane move has an off-by-one printed index

Journal page 327 · proof of Theorem 2.5, display defining Alice's move · version of record

The display prints Ajk+1=Lk(βk+1ρ)A_{j_k+1}=\mathcal L_k^{(\beta^{k+1}\rho)}, although Alice must answer Bob's already chosen ball BjkB_{j_k}. The unique correction is Ajk=Lk(βk+1ρ)A_{j_k}=\mathcal L_k^{(\beta^{k+1}\rho)}. It is legal because ρjk>βkρ\rho_{j_k}>\beta^k\rho, and then the next ball Bjk+1B_{j_k+1} avoids the neighborhood exactly as the following sentence requires. No theorem or later application changes.

Cambridge version of record
Proposition 5.1Typo

The displayed strict comparison should be an equality

Journal page 334 · proof of Proposition 5.1 · version of record

After choosing β=(1/C)1/γ\beta=(1/C)^{1/\gamma}, the proof says Cβγ<1C\beta^\gamma<1; the left side is exactly 11. Replacing << by == is the unique correction. The defining decay estimate itself is strict, so it still gives μ(B(x,ρ)L(βρ))<μ(B(x,ρ))\mu(B(x,\rho)\cap\mathcal L^{(\beta\rho)})<\mu(B(x,\rho)), leaving a support point outside the hyperplane neighborhood and proving diffuseness without any additional argument.

Cambridge version of record
Lemma 5.3Typo

The open-set variable is misnamed once

Journal page 334 · statement of Lemma 5.3 · version of record

The lemma quantifies an open set UU but ends its hypothesis with VKV\cap K\neq\varnothing. The unique intended correction is UKU\cap K\neq\varnothing, as in the preceding and following statements. The corrected hypothesis is exactly the one used to deduce Corollary 5.4.

Cambridge version of record
03Novelty0 reported findingsNo non-novelty findings

No non-novelty findings.

Detailed audit reportFull reasoning, exact locations, and sources checked.
Open report PDF ↗