text:
# Fractal Entropies and Dimensions for Microstates Spaces

## 1. Introduction

Voiculescu’s microstate theory has settled some open questions in operator algebras. With it he shows in  that a free group factor does not have a regular diffuse hyperfinite subalgebra (the first known kind with separable predual). Using similar techniques Ge shows in  that a free group factor cannot be decomposed into a tensor product of two infinite dimensional von Neumann algebras (again the first known example with separable predual). Both results rely upon the microstate theory and the (modified) free entropy dimension. Free entropy dimension is a number associated to an $`n`$-tuple of selfadjoint operators in a tracial von Neumann algebra. It is an analogue of Minkowski dimension and as such it can be reformulated in terms of metric space packings.

Unfortunately it is not known whether $`\delta _0`$ is an invariant of von Neumann algebras, that is, if $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_p\}`$ is a set of selfadjoint elements in $`M`$ which generates the same von Neumann algebra as $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\},`$ then is it true that

$$\delta _0(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\delta _0(b_1,\mathrm{},b_p)\mathrm{?}$$

The mystery of the invariance issue is this: how does the asymptotic geometry of the microstate spaces reflect properties of the generated von Neumann algebra of the $`n`$-tuple?

 shows that $`\delta _0`$ possesses a fractal geometric description in terms of uniform packings. Encouraged by this result we use microstates to develop fractal geometric quantities for an $`n`$-tuple of selfadjoint operators in a tracial von Neumann algebra. For such an $`n`$-tuple $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ we define several numerical measurements of their microstate spaces, the most notable being the free Hausdorff dimension of $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n.`$ We denote this quantity by $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ As in the classical case we have that $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ For each $`\alpha _+`$ we define an $`\alpha `$-free Hausdorff entropy for $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ which we denote by $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ Hausdorff $`n`$-measure is a constant multiple of Lebesgue measure and in our setting we have an analogous statement: $`^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{log}(\frac{2n}{\pi e}).`$ A modified version of $``$ denoted by $`\overline{}`$ turns out to be an algebraic invariant. We compute the free Hausdorff dimension of the $`n`$-tuple when it generates a finite dimensional algebra or when $`n=1.`$ In both cases the free Hausdorff and free entropy dimensions agree. Using the computations for a single selfadjoint, we show that if $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<1,`$ then $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }`$ has a minimal projection. We view this as a microstates analogue of the classical fact that a metric space with Hausdorff dimension strictly less than $`1`$ must be totally disconnected. Finally we show $``$ becomes additive in the presence of freeness for the two aforementioned $`n`$-tuples of random variables.

Our motivation in developing fractal dimensions for microstate spaces is twofold. Firstly, having other metric measurements for them may eventually shed light on the connections between their asymptotic geometry and the structure of the generated von Neumann algebras. Secondly, it provides another conceptual framework for the microstate theory.

Section 2 is a list of notation. Section 3 reviews the definition of classical Hausdorff dimension, then presents the free Hausdorff dimension and entropy of an $`n`$-tuple and some of its basic properties. The section concludes with free packing and Minkowski-like entropies. Section 4 introduces $`\overline{},`$ the modified version of $`,`$ and shows that $`\overline{}`$ is an algebraic invariant. Section 5 deals with the free Hausdorff dimension of finite dimensional algebras. Section 6 deals with the free Hausdorff dimension of single selfadjoints. Section 7 discusses various formulae for the free Hausdorff dimension in the presence of freeness.

## 2. Preliminaries

Throughout this paper $`M`$ will be a von Neumann algebra with a normal, tracial state $`\phi .`$ $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_nM`$ are selfadjoint elements which generate a von Neumann algebra containing the identity, and $`\{s_i:i\}`$ is always a semicircular family in $`M`$ free with respect to $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}.`$ We maintain the notation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(:),\chi ,\delta _0`$ introduced in  and . $`tr_k`$ denotes the normalized trace on $`M_k^{sa}(),`$ the set of $`k\times k`$ selfadjoint complex matrices, and $`(M_k^{sa}())^n`$ is the set of $`n`$-tuples of elements in $`M_k^{sa}().`$ $`U_k`$ is the set of $`k\times k`$ complex unitaries. $`||_2`$ is the normalized Hilbert-Schmidt norm on $`M_k()`$ or $`M`$ induced by $`tr_k`$ or $`\phi ,`$ respectively, or the norm on $`(M_k())^n`$ given by $`|(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|_2=\left(_{i=1}^ntr_k(x_i^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ Denote by vol Lebesgue measure on $`(M_k^{sa}())^n`$ with respect to the inner product on $`(M_k^{sa}())^n`$ generated by the norm $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_2=(k_{j=1}^ntr_k(x_j^2))^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ For a metric space $`(X,d)`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ write $`P_ϵ(X)`$ for the maximum number of elements in a collection of mutually disjoint open $`ϵ`$ balls of $`X.`$ For a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ $`|A|`$ denotes the diameter of $`A`$ and $`𝒩_ϵ(A)`$ is the $`ϵ`$ neighborhood of $`A`$ in $`X.`$

## 3. Free Fractal Entropy and Dimensions

Before defining a ”free” Hausdorff dimension we recall classical Hausdorff dimension.

### 3.1. Hausdorff Dimension

Suppose $`(X,d)`$ is a metric space. For any $`ϵ,r>0`$ define $`H_ϵ^r(X)`$ to be the infimum over all sums of the form $`_{jJ}|\theta _j|^r`$ where $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is a countable $`ϵ`$-cover for X, i.e., $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is countable collection of subsets of $`X`$ whose union contains $`X`$ and for each $`j`$ $`|\theta _j|ϵ.`$ $`H_ϵ^r()`$ is an outer measure on $`X.`$ Observe that if $`ϵ_1<ϵ_2,`$ then $`H_{ϵ_1}^r(X)H_{ϵ_2}^r(X).`$ Hence, $`H^r(A)=lim_{ϵ0}H_ϵ^r(X)[0,\mathrm{}]`$ exists.

If $`r<s`$ and $`ϵ>0,`$ then for any countable $`ϵ`$-cover $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ for $`X,`$

$$ϵ^{sr}\underset{jJ}{}|\theta _j|^r\underset{jJ}{}|\theta _j|^s.$$

It follows that $`H_ϵ^r(X)(\frac{1}{ϵ})^{sr}H_ϵ^s(X).`$ Taking a limit as $`ϵ0`$ shows that for any $`K>0,`$ $`H^r(X)KH^s(X).`$ Consequently, there exists a nonnegative number $`r`$ for which $`H^s(A)=0`$ for all $`s>r`$ and $`H^s(X)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`s<r.`$ Formally, if $`H^s(X)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`s,`$ then define $`dim_H(X)=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, define $`dim_H(X)=inf\{r>0:H^r(X)=0\}.`$ $`dim_H(X)`$ is called the Hausdorff dimension of $`X.`$

It turns out that $`H^s()`$ generates a regular Borel measure on $`X`$ called Hausdorff $`s`$-dimensional measure. A subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ is called an $`s`$-set if $`0<H^s(A)<\mathrm{}.`$ It is clear that for every $`s`$-set $`A`$ of $`X`$ $`dim_H(A)=s.`$ However, it is possible for $`A`$ to have Hausdorff dimension $`s`$ and also satisfy $`H^s(A)=0`$ or $`H^s(A)=\mathrm{}.`$

Manipulating the definitions one has that for any $`S^d`$ $`dim_H(S)dim_P(S)`$ where $`dim_P(S)`$ denotes the upper Minkowski/uniform packing dimension of $`S`$ (see ). There exist sets $`S`$ for which the inequality is strict.

### 3.2. Free Hausdorff Dimension

In this subsection we define free Hausdorff dimension for $`n`$-tuples of selfadjoint elements in a von Neumann algebra and prove a few of its simple properties.

In what follows, the Hausdorff and packing quantities on the microstate spaces are taken with respect to the $`||_2`$ metric discussed in Section 2. For any $`m`$ and $`R,r,ϵ,\gamma >0`$ define successively

$$_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}[H_ϵ^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))]\right),$$

$$_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=inf\{_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma ):m,\gamma >0\}.$$

We now play the same limit games as in the classical case. If $`0<ϵ_1<ϵ_2,`$ then for any $`k,m,`$ and $`\gamma `$

$$H_{ϵ_1}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))H_{ϵ_2}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )),$$

whence from the definitions, $`_{ϵ_1,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_{ϵ_2,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ Thus we define $`_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ to be $`lim_{ϵ0}_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}].`$ If $`r<s`$ and $`1>ϵ>0,`$ then for any $`k`$

$$H_ϵ^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))H_ϵ^{sk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))ϵ^{(rs)k^2}.$$

Applying $`k^2\mathrm{log}`$ to both sides, taking a $`lim\; sup`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$ shows that for any $`m`$ and $`R,\gamma >0,`$

$$_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )_{ϵ,R}^s(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )+(sr)|\mathrm{log}ϵ|.$$

Taking infimums over $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ followed by a limit as $`ϵ0`$ we have for any $`R,K>0`$

$$_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_R^s(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.$$

###### Definition 3.1.

The free Hausdorff $`r`$-entropy of $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ is

$$^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{R>0}{sup}_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $`r>\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),`$ then $`^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof.

For any $`R,ϵ,\gamma >0`$ and $`m,k`$ it is clear that

$$\mathrm{log}\left[H_{4ϵ}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))\right]\mathrm{log}(P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )))+rk^2\mathrm{log}(4ϵ).$$

Consequently by ,

$`_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_{4ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}_{4ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$
$``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}_ϵ(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+r\mathrm{log}4ϵ`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_ϵ(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)}{|\mathrm{log}ϵ|}}|\mathrm{log}ϵ|+r\mathrm{log}4ϵ\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}\left(r|\mathrm{log}ϵ|+r\mathrm{log}4ϵ\right)`$
$`=`$ $`r\mathrm{log}4.`$
Hence, $`^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`r>\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ and the result follows. ∎

###### Definition 3.3.

If $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ has finite dimensional approximants, then $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=inf\{r>0:^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{}\}.`$ Otherwise, define $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{}.`$ $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ is called the free Hausdorff dimension of $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n.`$

###### Definition 3.4.

For $`s0`$ $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is an $`s`$-set if $`\mathrm{}<^s(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<\mathrm{}.`$

By definition if $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is an $`s`$-set, then $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=s.`$

Classical uniform packing dimension dominates Hausdorff dimension and it is not surprising that in our setting we have the analogous statement by Lemma 3.2 and Definition 3.3:

###### Corollary 3.5.

$`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$

###### Lemma 3.6.

If $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_p`$ are self-adjoint elements in $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime },`$ then for any $`r>0`$

$$^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_p).$$

###### Proof.

Withough loss of generality assume that the $`z_i`$ have finite dimensional approximants. Suppose $`R`$ exceeds the operator norms of the $`z_i`$ or $`y_j.`$ Given $`m`$ and $`ϵ,\gamma >0`$ there exist by Lemma 4.1 of  $`m_1,`$ $`\gamma _1>0`$ and polynomials $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_p`$ in $`n`$ noncommutative variables such that if $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m_1,k,\gamma _1)`$ then

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,f_1(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),\mathrm{},f_p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_p;m,k,\gamma ).$$

For each $`k`$ this map from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m_1,k,\gamma _1)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_p;m,k,\gamma )`$ defined by sending $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ to $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,f_1(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),\mathrm{},f_p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))`$ increases distances with respect to $`||_2.`$ Hence

$$_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m_1,\gamma _1)_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_p;m,\gamma ).$$

This being true for any $`m,\gamma ,ϵ,`$ and $`R`$ as stipulated, the results follows. ∎

In  it was shown that $`\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{}\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=n.`$ This is the noncommutative analogue of the fact that if a Borel set $`S^d`$ has nonzero Lebesgue measure, then its uniform packing dimension is $`d.`$ One can replace ”uniform packing” in the preceding sentence with ”Hausdorff,” and we record its analogue, after making a simple remark about free Hausdorff entropy.

The following equation says that free entropy is a normalization of free Hausdorff $`n`$-entropy and echoes asymptotically in statement and proof the fact that Lebesgue measure is a scalar multiple of Hausdorff dimension.

###### Lemma 3.7.

$`^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K`$ where $`K=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{2n}{\pi e}\right).`$

###### Proof.

We can clearly assume that $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ has finite dimensional approximants. First we show that the left hand side of the equation is greater than or equal to the right hand side. Suppose that $`ϵ,\gamma >0,m,k,R>\mathrm{max}_{1jn}\{z_j\}.`$ Suppose $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is a cover of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ).`$ Because any set is contained in a closed convex set of equal diameter we may assume that the $`\theta _j`$ are closed and convex. In particular they are Borel sets and the isodiametric inequality yields

$$\underset{jJ}{}|\theta _j|^{nk^2}\frac{2^{nk^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{nk^2}{2}+1)}{\sqrt{\pi k}^{nk^2}}\underset{jJ}{}\text{vol}(\theta _j)\frac{2^{nk^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{nk^2}{2}+1)}{\sqrt{\pi k}^{nk^2}}\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )).$$

Thus, $`_ϵ^n(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma ))`$ dominates

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}[\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))]+k^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk^2}{2}}+1\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{4}}\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}[\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))]+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk^2}{2e}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{4}}\right)`$
$``$ $`\chi _R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.`$
The above is a uniform lower bound for any $`R,m,\gamma ,`$ and $`ϵ`$ so

$$^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.$$

For the reverse inequality again assume $`ϵ,\gamma ,m,k,`$ and $`R`$ are as before. Given $`k`$ use Vitali’s covering lemma to find an $`ϵ`$-cover $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ such that each $`\theta _j`$ is a closed ball and

$$\underset{jJ}{}\text{vol}(\theta _j)<2\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )).$$

By definition

$$\frac{(\pi k)^{\frac{nk^2}{2}}}{2^{nk^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{nk^2}{2}+1)}H_ϵ^{nk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))2\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )).$$

Thus $`_{ϵ,R}^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )`$ is dominated by

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}(\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )))+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi k}}\right)+k^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{nk^2}{2}}+1)\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}(\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )))+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk^2}{2e}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi k}}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\chi _R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )+K.`$
$`_{ϵ,R}^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\chi _R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.`$ It follows that

$$^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.$$

We now have:

###### Corollary 3.8.

If $`\chi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{},`$ then $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is an $`n`$-set. In particular $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=n.`$

Observe that if $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_n`$ is a free semicircular family, then $`\chi (s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)>\mathrm{}`$ by  whence $`(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=\delta _0(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=n`$ by Corollary 3.8.

It may have crossed the reader’s mind why we did not prove or in the very least make a remark about a subadditive property for $`.`$ At this point we recall a difference between classical Hausdorff dimension and Minkowski dimension when taking Cartesian products. Suppose $`S^m`$ and $`T^n`$ are Borel sets, $`dim_H()`$ is Hausdorff dimension, and $`dim_M()`$ denotes Minkowski dimension. It is easy to see that

$$dim_M(S\times T)dim_M(S)+dim_M(T).$$

On the other hand with some work (see ) one shows

$$dim_H(S\times T)dim_H(S)+dim_H(T).$$

Strictness of the above inequality can occur. In fact, there exist sets $`S,T`$ with Hausdorff dimension 0 such that $`dim_H(S\times T)=1`$ (see ). We do not know if there exist sets of self-adjoints satisfying a similar inequality.

In general we have $`dim_H(S\times T)dim_H(S)+dim_M(T).`$ The classical proof does not immediately provide a proof for the microstates situation. The obstruction occurs when one fixes the parameter $`ϵ`$ and finds that the convergence of the $`ϵ`$ packing number of the $`k\times k`$ matricial microstates as $`k\mathrm{}`$ may depend too heavily upon the choice of $`ϵ`$ and thus grow too slow for good control as one pushes $`ϵ`$ to $`0.`$ In some cases, however, one can obtain strong upper bounds where for small enough $`ϵ`$ the rate of convergence of the $`k`$-dimensional quantities behaves appropriately so that the inequality $`(y_1,\mathrm{},y_m,z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)(y_1,\mathrm{},y_m)+\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ holds. In particular, the inequality will occur when $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ generates a hyperfinite von Neumann algebra or when it can be partitioned into a free family of sets each of which generates a hyperfinite von Neumann algebras.

### 3.3. Free Entropies for $`\delta _0`$

Although Hausdorff dimension and measure can provide metric information about sets they are often difficult to compute (in particular, finding sharp lower bounds is a problem). A machine which sometimes allows for easier computations is Minkowski content. It is a numerical measurement related to Minkowski dimension in the same way that Hausdorff measure is related to Hausdorff dimension.

Suppose $`X^d.`$ For $`r>0`$ define $`M^r(X)`$ by

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}\frac{\lambda (𝒩_ϵ(X))}{\lambda (B_ϵ^{ds})}$$

where $`\lambda `$ is Lebesgue measure on $`^d`$ and $`B_ϵ^{ds}`$ is the ball of radius $`ϵ`$ centered at the origin in $`^{ds}.`$ As with $`M^r()`$ we have that $`M^r(X)KM^s(X)`$ for any $`r<s`$ and $`K>0.`$ Hence there exists a nonnegative number $`r`$ for which $`M^s(X)=0`$ for $`r<s`$ and $`M^s(X)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`r>s.`$

This number $`r`$ turns out to be the Minkowski dimension of $`X.`$ $`M^r(X)`$ is called the Minkowski content of $`X`$ and provides a measurement of the size of $`X.`$ We can also define a packing quantity related to $`M^r(X),`$ $`P^r(X),`$ by

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}P_ϵ(X)(2ϵ)^r.$$

As before there exists a unique $`r0`$ for which $`P^s(X)=0`$ if $`r<s`$ and $`P^s(X)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`r>s.`$ Again this unique $`r`$ turns out to be the Minkowski dimension of $`X.`$

Unlike the Hausdorff construction neither $`M^r`$ nor $`P^r`$ are measures. In fact, they have the unpleasant property (from the classical viewpoint) that their values of a set and its closure are the same. Hence, $`M^1()=P^1()=\mathrm{}.`$ On the other hand $`H^1()=0`$ (although $`H^0()=\mathrm{}`$).

In the following $`𝒩_ϵ`$ and will be taken with respect to the $`||_2`$ metrics.

###### Definition 3.9.

For any $`m`$ and $`R,\alpha ,\gamma ,ϵ>0`$ define successively,

$`𝕄_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}k^2\mathrm{log}(\text{vol}(𝒩_ϵ(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ))))+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}k`$
$`+|\mathrm{log}(ϵ^{n\alpha })|`$
$$𝕄_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=inf\{𝕄_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma ):m,\gamma >0\},$$

$$𝕄_R^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}𝕄_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)$$

$$𝕄^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{R>0}{sup}𝕄_R^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

We call $`𝕄^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ the free Minkowski $`\alpha `$-entropy of $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}.`$

Recalling the definition of $`_ϵ(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ in  we also make the following:

###### Definition 3.10.

For $`\alpha >0`$ the free packing $`\alpha `$-entropy of $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is

$$^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{R>0}{sup}_R^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)$$

where

$$_R^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}_{ϵ,R}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+\alpha \mathrm{log}2ϵ.$$

The following is a easy and we omit the proof. It relates $`^\alpha ,^\alpha ,`$ the free entropy of an $`ϵ`$-semicircular perturbation, and $`𝕄^\alpha `$ and shows that the latter three give the same information modulo universal constants.

###### Lemma 3.11.

For any $`\alpha >0`$

$`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\alpha \mathrm{log}2`$ $``$ $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$
$``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}[\chi (z_1+ϵs_1,\mathrm{},z_n+ϵs_n:s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)+(n\alpha )|\mathrm{log}ϵ|]`$
$`+\alpha \mathrm{log}(4\sqrt{n})\chi (s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)`$
$``$ $`𝕄^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+(n\alpha )\mathrm{log}\sqrt{n}+\alpha \mathrm{log}(4\sqrt{n}){\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{log}(2\pi e)`$
$``$ $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+\alpha \mathrm{log}4\sqrt{n}+n\mathrm{log}4.`$
## 4. Modified Free Hausdorff Dimension and Algebraic Invariance

Thus far we cannot prove that $``$ is an algebraic invariant and towards this end we introduce a technical modification of $`.`$ For a metric space $`(X,d),`$ and $`0<\delta <ϵ`$ a $`(\delta <ϵ)`$-cover $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is a countable cover of $`X`$ such that for each $`j`$ $`\delta |\theta _j|ϵ.`$ For $`r>0`$ define $`H_{(\delta <ϵ)}^r(X)`$ to be the infimum over all sums of the form $`_{jJ}|\theta _j|^s`$ where $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is a $`(\delta <ϵ)`$-cover of $`X.`$ As before, for $`\delta <ϵ_1<ϵ_2`$ and $`s>r0`$ $`H_{(\delta <ϵ_1)}^r(X)H_{(\delta <ϵ_2)}^r(X)`$ and $`H_{(\delta <ϵ)}^r(X)H_{(\delta <ϵ)}^s\frac{1}{ϵ^{sr}}.`$

Taking all Hausdorff quantities with respect to the $`||_2`$ metric, define successively for any $`m,`$ and $`L,R,r,ϵ,\gamma >0`$ with $`L\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ`$

$$\overline{}_{L,ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left[k^2\mathrm{log}H_{(L\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ),R}^{rk^2}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )\right],$$

$$\overline{}_{L,ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{}z_n)=inf\{\overline{}_{L,ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma ):m,\gamma >0\},$$

$$\overline{}_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{L>0}{sup}\overline{}_{L,ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

As before $`\overline{}_{ϵ_1,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{}_{ϵ_2,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ for $`ϵ_1<ϵ_2`$ so that $`lim_{ϵ0}\overline{}_{ϵ,R}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]`$ exists. Write $`\overline{}_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ for this limit and $`\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=sup_{R>0}\overline{}_R^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ Obviously $`^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ For any $`r<s`$ and $`K>0`$ we have $`\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{}^s(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)+K.`$

We have the analogous result of Lemma 3.2 provided we know that uniform packings by open $`ϵ`$-balls of microstate spaces generate $`(L\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ)`$-covers for $`\gamma `$ sufficiently small. This is not immediate for a priori an $`ϵ`$ ball in a microstate space could have diameter much smaller than $`ϵ,`$ possibly even $`0`$ (in this case the ball consists of just a single point). But path-connectedness of $`U_k`$ and a simple point set topology argument allows us to deduce that for large dimensions the microstate spaces are rich enough so that the diameter of any $`ϵ`$ ball with microstate center is at least $`ϵ`$:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Suppose $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ generates a von Neumann algebra not equal to $`I`$ and $`R>\mathrm{max}\{z_i\}_{1in}.`$ There exist $`ϵ_0,\gamma >0,`$ and $`m,N`$ such that if $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0,kN,`$ and $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ),`$ then there is a $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ with

$$|Y(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|_2=ϵ.$$

###### Proof.

There exists some $`i`$ such that $`z_iI.`$ Without loss of generality we can assume that $`z=z_1I.`$ Hence by  $`\delta _0(z)>0.`$ Set $`\beta =\frac{\delta _0(z)}{2}.`$ By  find some $`ϵ_0`$ satisfying $`1/40>ϵ_0>0`$ and

$$_{20ϵ_0,R}(z)>\beta |\mathrm{log}20ϵ_0|.$$

Thus by regularity of $`\chi `$ for a single self-adjoint and  there exist $`m,N`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ such that if $`k>N,`$ then

$$k^2\mathrm{log}(P_{20ϵ_0}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma )))>\beta |\mathrm{log}20ϵ_0|.$$

By  we may choose $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ so that if $`x,y\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma ),`$ then there exists a $`uU_k`$ such that $`|uxu^{}y|_2<ϵ_0.`$

Now suppose that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ with $`k>\mathrm{max}\{N,1/\sqrt{\beta }\}.`$ Suppose also that $`0<ϵ<ϵ_0`$ and $`B_ϵ`$ is the open ball of $`||_2`$ -radius $`ϵ`$ centered at $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n).`$ Assume by contradiction that $`B_ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )=\mathrm{}.`$ Write $`U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ for the set of all $`n`$-tuples of the form $`(ux_1u^{},\mathrm{},ux_nu^{})`$ for $`uU_k.`$ Clearly $`B_ϵU(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\mathrm{}.`$ $`U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a path-connected set so this implies that $`U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is contained in $`B_ϵ.`$ Consequently, $`U(x_1)=\{ux_1u^{}:uU_k\}`$ is contained in the open ball of $`||_2`$-radius $`ϵ`$ with center $`x_1.`$

On the other hand the selection of $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ imply $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma )𝒩_{ϵ_0}(U(x_1)).`$ Combined with the estimate of the first paragraph we have

$$P_{4ϵ_0}(U(x_1))P_{20ϵ_0}(𝒩_{ϵ_0}(U(x_1)))\left(\frac{1}{20ϵ_0}\right)^{\beta k^2}>2.$$

Thus one can find two points in $`U(x_1)`$ whose $`||_2`$ distance from one another is greater than or equal to $`4ϵ_0>4ϵ.`$ It follows that $`U(x_1)`$ cannot possibly be covered by the open ball of $`||_2`$-radius $`ϵ.`$ This is absurd. There must exist some $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ with $`|Y(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|_2=ϵ.`$

Lemma 4.1 with the proof of Lemma 3.2 show that if $`r>\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),`$ then $`\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{},`$ provided the $`z_i`$ generate a nontrivial von Neumann algebra. Otherwise they generate $`I`$ and then it’s clear that for $`r>0`$ $`\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{}.`$

###### Definition 4.2.

The modified free Hausdorff dimension of $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is

$$\overline{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=inf\{r>0:\overline{}^r(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\mathrm{}\}.$$

Immediately we observe that:

###### Corollary 4.3.

$`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\overline{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$

We now come to the primary result concerning $`\overline{}.`$ Viewing polynomials as Lipschitz maps when restricted to norm bounded sets, the following is simply a corollary of the fundamental fact that fractal dimensions are preserved under bi-Lipschitz maps.

###### Lemma 4.4.

If $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_p\}`$ and $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ are sets of selfadjoint elements in $`M`$ which generate the same algebra, then

$$\overline{}(y_1,\mathrm{},y_p)=\overline{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

###### Proof.

Set $`Y=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_p\},Z=\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}.`$ Write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m,k,\gamma )`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(y_1,\mathrm{},y_p,m,k,\gamma ).`$ We interpret quantities like $`\overline{}(Y)`$ in the obvious way. Similarly for $`Z.`$ It suffices to show that $`\overline{}(Y)\overline{}(Z).`$ Find $`n`$ polynomials $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ in $`p`$ noncommuting variables such that $`f_j(y_1,\mathrm{},y_p)=z_j`$ for each $`j.`$ Similarly find $`p`$ polynomials $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_p`$ in $`n`$ noncommuting variables such that for each $`i`$ $`g_i(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=y_i.`$ For any $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)(M_k^{sa}())^p`$ define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)=(f_1(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p),\mathrm{}f_n(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)).$$

Similarly for any $`(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)(M_k^{sa}())^n`$ define

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)=(g_1(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n),\mathrm{},g_p(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)).$$

We can arrange it so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes $`p`$-tuples of $`k\times k`$ selfadjoints to $`n`$-tuples of $`k\times k`$ self-adjoints for any $`k.`$ Similarly for $`\mathrm{\Psi }.`$

Suppose $`R>0,1>ϵ>0.`$ There exists a constant $`L>1`$ dependent only upon $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`R`$ such that for any $`x,y((M_k^{sa}())_R)^p,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)((M_k^{sa}())_{LR})^n`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(y)|_2L|xy|_2.`$ Also, there exist $`K>0`$ and $`m_0`$ dependent only upon the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`R`$ such that for any $`\gamma >0`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_0,k,\gamma )`$

$$|(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })(x)x|_2<K\sqrt{\gamma }.$$

Now suppose $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ with $`2KL\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ.`$ Choose $`m_1`$ and $`\gamma >\gamma _1>0`$ such that for any $`k`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1))\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LR}(Z;m,k,\gamma )$$

There exists a constant $`L_1>0`$ dependent upon $`LR`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that for any $`a,b((M_k^{sa}())_{LR})^n`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(a)\mathrm{\Psi }(b)|_2L_1|ab|_2.$$

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Theta }_s_{sS}`$ is a $`(2KL\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ)`$-cover for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LR}(Z;m,k,\gamma ).`$ Define $`S_1`$ to be the subset of $`S`$ consisting of those elements $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ has nontrivial intersection with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1)).`$ For each $`iS_1`$ define $`B_i`$ to be an open ball of $`||_2`$-radius $`|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|`$ with center in $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1)).`$ Consider for each such $`i`$ the center of the ball $`B_i.`$ Take one element $`x`$ in the preimage of this center under $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a map restricted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1).`$ In the metric space $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1),||_2)`$ consider $`B(x,|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|/L),`$ the open ball of radius $`|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|/L`$ with center $`x.`$ $`B(x,|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|/L)`$ has diameter no less that $`|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|/L`$ (by Lemma 4.1 with appropriate restrictions on $`ϵ,m,k,\gamma `$ and $`R`$) and clearly it lies in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)`$ so that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)||\mathrm{\Theta }_i|/L2K\sqrt{\gamma }.`$ For any $`y,w\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1))`$ we have

$$L_1|\mathrm{\Phi }(y)\mathrm{\Phi }(w)|_2|(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })(y)(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })(w)|_2|yw|_22K\sqrt{\gamma _1}$$

whence it follows that $`L_1|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|>|\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)|2K\sqrt{\gamma _1}(L_1+1)ϵ>\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i).`$

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)|_{iS_1}`$ is a $`(2K\sqrt{\gamma }<(L_1+1)ϵ)`$ cover for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1).`$ Estimate:

$`H_{\left(2K\sqrt{\gamma _1}<(L_1+1)ϵ\right)}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1)){\displaystyle \underset{iS_1}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_i)|^{rk^2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iS_1}{}}(L_1|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|+2K\sqrt{\gamma _1})^{rk^2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{iS_1}{}}((L_1+1)|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|)^{rk^2}`$
$``$ $`(L_1+1)^{rk^2}{\displaystyle \underset{iS}{}}|\mathrm{\Theta }_i|^{rk^2}.`$
This being true for any $`(2KL\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ)`$-cover $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i_{sS}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LR}(Z;m,k,\gamma )`$ it follows that

$$H_{\left(2K\sqrt{\gamma _1}<(L_1+1)ϵ\right)}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Y;m_1,k,\gamma _1))(L_1+1)^{rk^2}H_{\left(2KL\sqrt{\gamma }<ϵ\right)}^{rk^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LR}(Z;m,k,\gamma )).$$

By definition we now have

$$\overline{}_{2K,(L_1+1)ϵ,R}^r(Y;m_1,\gamma _1)\overline{}_{2KL,ϵ,LR}^r(Z;m,\gamma )+r\mathrm{log}(L_1+1).$$

This hold for $`m,m_1`$ sufficiently large and $`\gamma ,\gamma _1`$ sufficiently small. Thus,

$$\overline{}_{2K,(L_1+1)ϵ,R}^r(Y)\overline{}_{2KL,ϵ,LR}^r(Z)+r\mathrm{log}(L_1+1).$$

Thus, for any $`ϵ>0`$ we have $`\overline{}_{(L_1+1)ϵ,R}^r(Y)\overline{}_{ϵ,LR}^r(Z)+r\mathrm{log}(L_1+1).`$ Taking a $`lim_{ϵ0}`$ on both sides yields $`\overline{}_R^r(Y)\overline{}_{LR}^r(Z)+r\mathrm{log}(L_1+1)`$ where both $`L`$ and $`L_1`$ are dependent upon $`R.`$

Now suppose $`\overline{}^r(Z)=\mathrm{}.`$ Then for all $`R>0`$ $`\overline{}_R^r(Z)=\mathrm{}`$ and by the last sentence of the preceding paragraph this means $`\overline{}_R^r(Y)=\mathrm{}`$ for all such $`R,`$ whence $`\overline{}^r(Y)=\mathrm{}.`$ By definition, $`\overline{}(Y)\overline{}(Z)`$ as desired. ∎

## 5. The Free Hausdorff Dimension of Finite Dimensional Algebras

In this section we show that if $`M`$ is finite dimensional and $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ generates $`M`$, then

$$(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

The argument is geometrically simple and it amounts to a slightly finer analysis than that in  where the main objective was to calculate $`\delta _0()`$ of sets of self-adjoint elements which generate hyperfinite von Neumann algebras. The metric information of the microstate space of $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is encapsulated in the unitary orbit of the images of $`z_i`$ under a single representation of $`M`$ which preserves traces. This set in turn, is Lipschitz isomorphic to the homogeneous space obtained by quotienting $`U_k`$ by the subgroup of consisting of those unitaries commuting with the image of $`M`$ under the representation. By  a neighborhood of this homogeneous space is (modulo a Lipschitz distortion) a ball of operator norm radius $`r`$ in Euclidean space of dimension $`\alpha k^2`$ where $`\alpha =\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ ($`\alpha `$ depends only on $`M`$ and $`\phi `$). By the computations of  the asymptotic metric information of this set is roughly that of a ball of $`||_2`$-radius $`r`$ in Euclidean space of dimension $`\alpha k^2.`$ The Hausdorff quantities of balls are easy to deal with and yield the expected dimension.

Because such balls are $`\alpha k^2`$-sets in their ambient space of equal $`||_2`$-radius, the argument above says that $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is an $`\alpha `$-set and thereby shows that $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\alpha .`$

We start with an upper bound which works for all hyperfinite von Neumann algebras and then proceed with the lower bound for the finite dimensional case.

### 5.1. Upper Bound

Throughout the subsection assume $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ are selfadjoint generators for $`M`$ and that $`M`$ is hyperfinite. By decomposing $`M`$ over its center

$`MM_0(_{i=1}^sM_{k_i}())M_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`\phi \alpha _0\phi _0(_{i=1}^s\alpha _itr_{k_i})0`$
where $`s\{0\}\{\mathrm{}\},\alpha _i>0`$ for $`1is`$ $`(i),`$ $`M_0`$ is a diffuse von Neumann algebra or $`\{0\}`$, $`\phi _0`$ is a faithful, tracial state on $`M_0`$ and $`\alpha _0>0`$ if $`M_0\{0\},`$ $`\phi _0=0`$ and $`\alpha _0=0`$ if $`M_0=\{0\},`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a von Neumann algebra or $`0.`$ Set $`\alpha =1_{i=1}^s\frac{\alpha _i^2}{k_i^2}.`$ We show in this section that $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<\mathrm{}.`$

We remark that by  $`\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\alpha `$ so by Corollary 3.5 $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\alpha .`$ However, we have the slightly stronger statement below:

###### Lemma 5.1.

$`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 3.10 of  there exists a $`C>0`$ such that for $`ϵ>0`$ sufficiently small

$$\chi (a_1+ϵs_1,\mathrm{},a_n+ϵs_n,I+ϵs_{n+1}:s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n+1})\mathrm{log}(ϵ^{n+1\alpha })+\mathrm{log}(4^{n+1}D_0)$$

where $`D_0=\pi ^{n+1}(8(R+1))^{n+1}(C+1)6^{n+1}`$ and $`R`$ is the maximum of the operator norms of the $`a_i.`$ By  for $`ϵ>0`$ sufficiently small

$`\chi (a_1+ϵs_1,\mathrm{},a_n+ϵs_n,I+ϵs_{n+1};s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n+1})`$ $``$ $`_{2ϵ\sqrt{n}}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,I)`$
$`+`$ $`(n+1)\mathrm{log}ϵ+\chi (s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n+1}).`$
Hence

$$_{2ϵ\sqrt{n}}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_{2ϵ\sqrt{n}}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,I)\mathrm{log}(ϵ^\alpha )+K$$

where $`K=\mathrm{log}((2\pi e)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}4^{n+1}D_0).`$ By Lemma 3.11 we’re done. ∎

More generally the analysis of  shows:

###### Corollary 5.2.

Suppose $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ generates $`M`$ and $`u_j_{j=1}^s`$ is a sequence of Haar unitaries which also generates $`M.`$ If $`u_{j+1}u_ju_{j+1}^{}\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_j\}^{\prime \prime }`$ for each $`1js1,`$ then

$$^1(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<\mathrm{}.$$

### 5.2. Lower Bound

Throughout assume that $`M=_{i=1}^pM_{k_i}()I,`$ $`\phi =_{i=1}^p\alpha _jtr_{k_i}`$ where $`p`$ and $`\alpha _i>0`$ for each $`i,`$ and $`R>\mathrm{max}_{1jn}\{z_j\}.`$ Also assume that the $`z_j`$ generate $`M.`$ Set $`\alpha =1_{i=1}\frac{\alpha _i^2}{k_i^2}.`$ By Corollary 5.8 of  for any set of self-adjoint generators $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ for $`M,`$ $`\delta _0(a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)=\alpha .`$

We recall some basic facts from section 5 of . There exists a $`zM`$ such that the $``$-algebra $`z`$ generates is all of $`M.`$ For a representation $`\pi :MM_k()`$ define $`H_\pi `$ to be the unitary group of $`(\pi (M))^{}`$ and $`X_\pi =U_k/H_\pi .`$ Endow $`X_\pi `$ with the quotient metric $`d_2`$ derived from the $`||_2`$-metric on $`U_k.`$ Define $`U_\pi (z)`$ to be the unitary orbit of $`\pi (z).`$ Consider the map $`f_\pi :U_\pi (z)X_\pi `$ given by $`f_\pi (u\pi (z)u^{})=q(u)`$ where $`q:U_kX_\pi `$ is the quotient map. By Lemma 5.4 of

$$\{f_\pi :\text{for some}k\pi :MM_k()\text{is a representation}\}$$

has a uniform Lipschitz constant $`D>1.`$ Finally, there exists a polynomial $`f`$ in $`n`$ noncommuting variables satisfying $`f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=z.`$ We find a constant $`L>1`$ such that for any $`k`$ and $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n(M_k^{sa}())_R`$

$$|f(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)f(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)|_2L\mathrm{max}\{|\xi _i\eta _i|_2:1in\}.$$

We will also need the following lemma. It is a sharpening of Lemma 3.6 of .

###### Lemma 5.3.

If $`1>\epsilon >0,`$ then there exists a $`N`$ such that for any $`k>N`$ there is a corresponding $``$-homomorphism $`\sigma _k:MM_k()`$ satisfying:

* $`tr_k\sigma _k\phi <\epsilon .`$
* $`dim(U_k/H_k)\alpha k^2`$ where $`H_k`$ is the unitary group of $`\sigma _k(M)^{}`$ and $`H_k`$ is tractable in the sense defined in .

###### Proof.

First suppose that for some $`i,j`$ $`\alpha _in_j^2\alpha _jn_i^2.`$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\alpha _1n_2^2>\alpha _2n_1^2.`$ Given $`\epsilon >0`$ as above we choose $`\epsilon _1<\epsilon `$ so that if $`\beta _1=\alpha _1\epsilon _1,\beta _2=\alpha _2+\epsilon _1,`$ and $`\beta _i=\alpha _i`$ for $`3ip`$ then $`_{i=1}\frac{\beta _i^2}{n_i^2}<_{i=1}^p\frac{\alpha _i^2}{n_i^2}\delta `$ for some $`1>\epsilon >\delta >0`$ dependent upon $`\epsilon _1.`$ Obviously $`\beta _1+\mathrm{}+\beta _p=1.`$

We now proceed as in Lemma 3.6. Choose $`n_0`$ such that $`\frac{1}{n_0}<\frac{\delta }{p^2}`$ and set $`k_0=(n_0+1)n_1\mathrm{}n_p.`$ Suppose $`k>k_0.`$ Find the unique $`n`$ satisfying

$$nn_1\mathrm{}n_pk<(n+1)n_1\mathrm{}n_p.$$

Set $`d=nn_1\mathrm{}n_p`$ and find $`m_1\mathrm{}m_p\{0\}`$ satisfying $`\beta _i\frac{\delta }{4p^2}<\frac{m_i}{n}<\beta _i+\frac{\delta }{4p^2}`$ and $`_{i=1}^p\frac{m_i}{n}=1.`$ Set $`l_i=\frac{dm_i}{nn_i}\{0\}`$ and $`l_{p+1}=k_{i=1}^pl_in_i.`$ Define $`\sigma _k:NM_k()`$ by

$$\sigma _k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}I_{l_1}x_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & I_{l_p}x_p& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0_{l_{p+1}}\end{array}\right]$$

where $`0_{l_{p+1}}`$ is the $`l_{p+1}\times l_{p+1}`$ 0 matrix and $`I_{l_i}x_i`$ is the $`l_in_i\times l_in_i`$ matrix obtained by taking each entry of $`x_i,(x_i)_{st}`$, and stretching it out into $`(x_i)_{st}I_{l_i}`$ where $`I_{l_i}`$ is the $`l_i\times l_i`$ identity matrix.

$$(tr_k\sigma _k)(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)=\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}l_iTr(x_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{dm_i}{kn}tr_{n_i}(x_i).$$

$`\frac{d}{k}>1\frac{\delta }{p^2}`$ so $`\alpha _i+\frac{\delta }{p^2}\frac{d}{k}\frac{m_i}{n}>(\alpha _i\frac{\delta }{p^2})(1\frac{\delta }{p^2})>\alpha _i\frac{\epsilon }{p}.`$ It follows that $`tr_k\sigma _k\phi <\epsilon `$.

$`H_k`$ consists of all matrices of the form

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}u_1I_{n_1}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & u_pI_{n_p}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& u_{p+1}\end{array}\right]$$

where $`u_iU_{l_i}`$ for $`1ip+1`$ and $`u_iI_{n_i}`$ is the $`l_in_i\times l_in_i`$ matrix obtained by repeating $`u_in_i`$ times along the diagonal. $`H_k`$ is obviously tractable. Thus we have the estimate:

$$l_{p+1}=k\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{dm_i}{n}=kd<n_1\mathrm{}n_p.$$

So

$`dimH_k=l_{p+1}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}l_i^2<k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1^2\mathrm{}n_p^2}{k^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{n^2n_i^2}}\right)`$ $`<`$ $`k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1^2\mathrm{}n_p^2}{k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2p}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _i^2}{n_i^2}}\right)`$
$`<`$ $`k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1^2\mathrm{}n_p^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i^2}{n_i^2}}\right)`$
$`<`$ $`k^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i^2}{n_i^2}}\right).`$
Hence, $`dim(U_k/H_k)\alpha k^2.`$ For $`k>k_0=N`$ we have produced a $``$-homomorphism $`\sigma _k:MM_k()`$ satisfying all the properties of the lemma.

Now suppose that $`\alpha _in_j^2=\alpha _jn_i^2`$ for all $`i,j.`$ It follows that $`\alpha _i`$ for all $`i.`$ Otherwise, $`\alpha _i`$ is irrational for some $`i.`$ Thus, $`_{i=1}^pn_j^2/n_i^2=\alpha _i^1`$ which is absurd. For each $`i`$ write $`\alpha _i=p_i/q_i,`$ $`p_i,q_i.`$ Set $`N=q_1\mathrm{}q_pn_1\mathrm{}n_p.`$ Suppose $`k=k_1N`$ for some $`k_1.`$ Define $`l_i=\frac{k\alpha _i}{n_i}.`$ As in the preceding argument define $`\sigma _k:NM_k()`$ by

$$\sigma _k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}I_{l_1}x_1& & 0\\ & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& & I_{l_p}x_p\end{array}\right].$$

It is plainly seen that $`tr_k\sigma _k=\phi `$ and that $`H_k`$ is a tractable subgroup with $`dimH_k=k^2_{i=1}^p\frac{\alpha _i^2}{n_i^2}.`$ Thus $`dim(U_k/H_k)=\alpha k^2`$ and we have the desired result for all multiples $`k`$ of $`N.`$ It is easy from here to show that the result holds for all sufficiently large $`k`$ and we leave the proof to the reader. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4.

$`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is an $`\alpha `$-set.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.1 it suffices to show that $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{}.`$ Recall the proof of Lemma 5.2 in . Replacing Lemma 3.6 of  in the proof with Lemma 4.1 above, the arguments of  produce $`1>\lambda ,\zeta ,r>0`$ such that for any given $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ there exists an $`N`$ such that for $`kN`$ there exists a $``$-homomorphism $`\sigma _k:MM_k()`$ and:

* $`tr_k\sigma _k\phi <\frac{\gamma }{(R+1)^m}.`$
* The set of unitaries $`H_k`$ of $`\sigma _k(M)^{}`$ is a tractable Lie subgroup of $`U_k`$ and setting $`X_k=U_k/H_k,`$ $`dim(X_k)\alpha k^2.`$
* Define $`_kiM_k^{sa}()`$ to be the Lie subalgebra of $`H_k`$ (as above) and $`𝒳_k`$ to be the orthogonal complement of $`_k`$ with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product. For every $`s>0`$ write $`𝒳_k^s`$ for the ball in $`𝒳_k`$ of operator norm less than or equal to $`s`$ and $`c_k`$ for the volume of the ball of $`𝒳_k`$ of $`||_2`$ of radius 1. Here all volume quantities are obtained from Lebesgue measure when the spaces are given the real inner product induced by $`Tr.`$

$$\frac{\text{vol}(𝒳_k^1)}{c_k}>(\zeta )^{dim𝒳_k}.$$
* For any $`x,y𝒳_k^r`$

$$d_2(q(e^x),q(e^y))\lambda |xy|_2.$$

Suppose $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ are fixed and $`k`$ so that the four conditions above hold. Suppose also that $`ϵ<\lambda (DL)^1.`$ If $`T_k`$ denotes the unitary orbit $`\{(u\sigma _k(z_1)u^{},\mathrm{},u\sigma _k(z_n)u^{}):uU_k\},`$ then clearly

$$_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(T_k)\right).$$

Define $`g_k:X_kT_k`$ by $`g_k(q(u))=(u\sigma _k(z_1)u^{},\mathrm{},u\sigma _k(z_n)u^{}).`$ Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ the image of $`𝒳_k^r`$ under the map $`g_kqe.`$ Clearly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_kT_k`$ and the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(qe)^1f_\pi f:\mathrm{\Omega }_k𝒳_k^r`$ is a well-defined (by the fourth condition above) surjective map with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Lip}\frac{DL}{\lambda }.`$ Hence

$$H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(T_k)H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_k)\left(\frac{\lambda }{DL}\right)^{\alpha k^2}H_{DLϵ\lambda ^1}^{\alpha k^2}(𝒳_k^r).$$

Suppose $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is a countable cover of $`𝒳_k^r.`$ We have by volume comparison

$$\underset{jJ}{}\frac{(\sqrt{\pi k}|\theta _j|)^{dim𝒳_k}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{dim𝒳_k}{2}+1)}\underset{jJ}{}\text{vol}(\theta _j)\text{vol}(𝒳_k^r)(r\zeta )^{dim𝒳_k}\frac{(\sqrt{\pi k})^{dim𝒳_k}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{dim𝒳_k}{2}+1)}.$$

Thus

$$H_{DLϵ\lambda ^1}^{\alpha k^2}(𝒳_k^r)H_{DLϵ\lambda ^1}^{dimX_k}(𝒳_k^r)(r\zeta )^{dim𝒳_k}.$$

Following the chains of inequalities for such $`kN`$

$$H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(T_k)\left(\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{DL}\right)^{dimX_k}.$$

It follows that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(T_k)\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{DL}\right).$$

By the concluding inequality of the preceding paragraph $`_{ϵ,R}^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )`$ exceeds the right hand expression above. Forcing $`ϵ0`$ we conclude that $`_R^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ exceeds the right hand expression above. $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{}.`$

###### Corollary 5.5.

$`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\alpha =\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$

## 6. The free Hausdorff dimension of a single selfadjoint

We show that the free Hausdorff dimension and modified free entropy dimension are equal for single selfadjoints. In the first subsection we prove an easy lemma on finding lower bounds for Hausdorff measure quantities of locally isometric spaces. From there we compute in the second part their asymptotic limit to arrive at the desired claim. Finally, we present a microstates version of the classical fact that a space with Hausdorff dimension strictly less than 1 is totally disconnected.

### 6.1. A Lemma on Hausdorff Measures

Finding sharp lower bounds for the free Hausdorff dimension of a given $`n`$-tuple hinges on estimating $`H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}`$ of the microstate spaces. Here $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ`$ remain fixed as $`k`$ tends to infinity. The lemma we will prove below says that for locally isometric spaces (metric spaces such that any two $`ϵ`$ balls are isometric), the right lower bounds on the $`ϵ`$ packing numbers give the right lower bounds on $`H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}.`$ We use this result in the next subsection through the following argument. The microstate spaces of a single self-adjoint are unitary orbits of single self-adjoint matrices with appropriate eigenvalue densites. Such sets are locally isometric and the volumes of the $`ϵ`$-neighborhoods of such orbits are well known . Invoking the lemma below with appropriate bounds will then provide the result.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Suppose $`X^d`$ is a $`g`$-set such that any two open $`ϵ`$ balls of $`X`$ are isometric. Assume further that for some $`\alpha 0`$ there exist $`C>1>ϵ_0>0,`$ such that for any $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0`$

$$P_ϵ(X)>Cϵ^\alpha .$$

Then for any Borel set $`EX`$

$$H_{ϵ_0}^\alpha (E)>C\frac{H^g(E)}{H^g(X)}.$$

###### Proof.

Pick a point $`xX`$ and for $`ϵ>0`$ denote by $`D_ϵ`$ the open ball in $`X`$ of radius $`ϵ`$ centered at $`x.`$ Using the lower bound on $`P_ϵ(X)`$ and the fact that any two open $`ϵ`$ balls of $`X`$ are isometric we have for any $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0`$

$$H^g(D_ϵ)\frac{H^g(X)}{P_ϵ(X)}\frac{H^g(X)}{C}ϵ^\alpha .$$

Now suppose $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ is an $`ϵ_0`$-cover for $`E.`$ For $`\delta >0`$ and for each $`j`$ find an open ball $`D_j`$ of $`X`$ with radius no greater than $`(1+\delta )|\theta _j|`$ satisfying $`\theta _jD_j.`$ Using the inequality above paired with the assumption that any two open balls of $`X`$ of equal radius are isometric we now have the estimate:

$$(1+\delta )^\alpha \underset{jJ}{}|\theta _j|^\alpha \frac{C}{H^g(X)}\underset{jJ}{}H^g(D_j)C\frac{H^g(E)}{H^g(X)}.$$

Forcing $`\delta 0`$ it follows that $`_{jJ}|\theta _j|^\alpha C\frac{H^g(E)}{H^g(X)}.`$ $`\theta _j_{jJ}`$ being an arbitrary $`ϵ_0`$-cover for $`E`$ the conclusion follows. ∎

### 6.2. The Estimates

It’s now just a matter of putting the lemma together with some strong packing estimates.

###### Lemma 6.2.

If $`z=z^{}M,`$ then $`(z)=\delta _0(z).`$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 3.5 $`(z)\delta _0(z)`$ so it suffices to prove the reverse inequality. Recall from  that $`\delta _0(z)=1_{tsp(z)}\mu (\{t\})^2,`$ where $`\mu `$ is the Borel measure induced on $`sp(z)`$ by $`\phi ,`$ so we have to show that $`(z)1_{tsp(z)}\mu (\{t\})^2.`$

Write $`\mu =\sigma +\nu `$ where $`\sigma `$ is the atomic part of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ is the diffuse part of $`\mu .`$ $`\sigma =_{i=1}^sc_i\delta _{r_i}`$ for some $`s\{0\}\{\mathrm{}\},`$ $`c_ic_{i+1}>0,`$ and where for $`ij,`$ $`r_ir_j.`$ Suppose $`R>z`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}>\tau >0.`$ We can find $`l`$ such that $`_{i=l+1}^sc_i<\frac{\tau }{3}.`$ For $`ϵ>0`$ define $`D_ϵ=\{(s,t)[a,b]^2:|st|<ϵ\}.`$ Because $`\nu `$ is diffuse by Fubini’s theorem for small enough $`ϵ_0<1,`$

$$(\nu \times \nu )(D_{3ϵ_0})<\tau .$$

Arrange it so that $`ϵ_0`$ also satisfies $`\nu ([r_iϵ_0,r_i+ϵ_0])<\frac{\tau }{3l}`$ and $`|r_ir_j|>3ϵ_0`$ for $`1i<jl.`$ Set $`c=\nu ([a,b]).`$ Again because $`\nu `$ is diffuse for each $`k`$ and $`1j[ck]`$ there exists a largest number $`\lambda _{jk}[a,b]`$ satisfying $`\nu ([a,\lambda _{jk}])=\frac{j}{k}.`$

Now observe that for $`k`$ large enough there exists a subset $`S_k`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},[ck]\}`$ such that for any $`iS_k,|\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{(i+1)k}|<ϵ_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}S_k>(1\frac{\tau }{3})[ck].`$ To see this for each $`k`$ consider the maximum number of elements in a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},[ck]\}`$ such that for any element $`i`$ in this subset, $`|\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{(i+1)k}|<ϵ_0.`$ Find a subset $`S_k`$ which achieves this maximum number. For any $`iS_k,`$ $`|\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{(i+1)k}|ϵ_0.`$ Define $`E_k=\{1,\mathrm{},[ck]\}S_k`$ and denoting by $`m`$ Lebesgue measure on $``$

$$ba>m(_{iE_k}[\lambda _{ik},\lambda _{(i+1)k}])\mathrm{\#}E_kϵ_0.$$

Consequently $`\mathrm{\#}E_k<\frac{ba}{ϵ_0}`$ and thus for $`k`$ large enough $`\mathrm{\#}E_k<\frac{\tau [ck]}{3}`$ (provided $`c>0;`$ if $`c=0,`$ then the claim is vacuously satisfied), whence $`\mathrm{\#}S_k(1\frac{\tau }{3})[ck].`$

By what has preceded for $`k`$ sufficiently large I can find a subset $`G_k`$ of $`\{\lambda _{1k},\mathrm{},\lambda _{[ck]k}\}`$ such that

* For any $`iG_k,`$ $`|\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{(i+1)k}|<ϵ_0.`$
* Any element of $`G_k`$ is at least $`3ϵ_0`$ apart from any element of $`\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_l\}.`$
* $`\mathrm{\#}G_k>[ck]\frac{\tau [ck]}{3}\frac{\tau k}{3}.`$

For each $`k`$ define $`p_k=\mathrm{\#}G_k+_{i=1}^l[c_ik](>k\tau k)`$ and $`A_k`$ to be the diagonal $`p_k\times p_k`$ matrix obtained by filling in the the first $`\mathrm{\#}G_k`$ diagonal entries with the elements of $`G_k`$ (ordered from least to greatest) and the last $`_{j=1}^l[c_jk]`$ diagonal entries filled with $`r_1`$ repeated $`[c_1k]`$ times, $`r_2`$ repeated $`[c_2k]`$ times, etc., in that order. Define $`B_k`$ to be the $`(kp_k)\times (kp_k)`$ diagonal matrix obtained by filling in the entries (ordered from least to greatest) with $`\{\lambda _{1k},\mathrm{},\lambda _{[ck]k}\}G_k,`$ the entries $`r_i`$ repeated $`[c_ik]`$ for $`i>l,`$ and $`0`$ repeated as many times as necessary to make $`B_k`$ a $`(kp_k)\times (kp_k)`$ matrix. Finally define $`y_k`$ to be the $`k\times k`$ matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_k& 0\\ 0& B_k\end{array}\right]$$

For any $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ given, $`y_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma )`$ for sufficiently large $`k.`$ For any $`xM_k^{sa}()`$ denote by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ the unitary orbit of $`x.`$ We have that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y_k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma )`$ for sufficiently large $`k.`$

Now we want strong lower bounds for the packing numbers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma ).`$ Such bounds for $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y_k)`$ will suffice. Write $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r(y_k)`$ for the set of all $`k\times k`$ matrices of the form

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}uA_ku^{}& 0\\ 0& B_k\end{array}\right]$$

where $`u`$ is a $`p_k\times p_k`$ unitary. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r(y_k)\mathrm{\Theta }(y_k)`$ and because $`1/2>\tau `$

$$P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Theta }(y_k))P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Theta }_r(y_k))P_{2ϵ}(\mathrm{\Theta }(A_k)).$$

If we can find strong lower bounds for the packing numbers of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(A_k),`$ or equivalently strong lower bounds for the volume of the $`ϵ`$-neighborhoods of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(A_k),`$ then we can invoke Lemma 6.5 and arrive at a lower bound for the Hausdorff quantities of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma ).`$

Denote $`G`$ to be the group of diagonal unitaries and $`_<^k`$ to be the set of all $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)^k`$ such that $`t_1<\mathrm{}<t_k.`$ There exists a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M_k^{sa}()U_k/G\times _<^k`$ defined almost everywhere on $`M_k^{sa}()`$ such that for each $`xM_k^{sa}()`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=(h,z)`$ where $`z`$ is a diagonal matrix with real entries satisfying $`z_{11}<\mathrm{}<z_{kk}`$ and $`h`$ is the image of any unitary $`u`$ in $`U_k/G`$ satisfying $`uzu^{}=x.`$ By results of Mehta  the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a measure $`\mu `$ on $`U_k/G\times _<^k`$ given by $`\mu (E)=\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(E))`$ and moreover,

$$\mu =\nu \times D_k_{_<^k}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_k$$

where $`D_k=\frac{\pi ^{k(k1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^kj!}`$ and $`\nu `$ is the normalized measure on $`U_k/G`$ induced by Haar measure on $`U_k.`$ Write $`\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k)`$ for the $`||_2`$ $`ϵ`$-neighborhood of the unitary orbit of $`A_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(A_k)`$ for the unitary orbit of $`A_k.`$ A matrix will be in $`\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k)`$ iff the sequence obtained by listing its eigenvalues in increasing order and according to multiplicity, differs from the similar sequence obtained from the eigenvalues of $`y_k`$ by no more than $`\sqrt{p_k}ϵ`$ in $`\mathrm{}^2`$ norm. In particular this will happen if the $`j`$th terms of the sequences differ by no more than $`ϵ.`$

Now for each $`k`$ write $`a_{1k},\mathrm{},a_{p_kk}`$ for the eigenvalues of $`A_k`$ ordered from least to greatest and according to multiplicity. Consider the region in $`^{p_k}`$ obtained by taking the Cartesian product

$$[a_{1k}ϵ,a_{1k}+ϵ]\times \mathrm{}\times [a_{p_kk}ϵ,a_{p_kk}+ϵ]$$

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ the intersection of this region with $`_<^{p_k}.`$ Integrating over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ according to the density given above it follows that for $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0`$ $`\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k))`$ exceeds

(1) $`D_{p_k}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_k}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.`$
Denote by $`W_k`$ all 2-tuples $`(i,j)`$ such that $`1i<jp_k`$ and $`|a_{ik}a_{jk}|<ϵ_0.`$ Generously estimating, (1) dominates

(2) $`D_{p_k}ϵ_0^{k^2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_k}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(i,j)W_k}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.`$
Consider the map $`F:[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ which sends $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{p_k})`$ to $`(a_{1k}+t_1,\mathrm{},a_{p_kk}+t_{p_k}).`$ By a change of variables formula via this map (2) dominates

(3) $`D_{p_k}ϵ_0^{k^2}{\displaystyle _{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(i,j)W_k}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.`$
By Selberg’s integral formula and a change of variables we have

$`ϵ^{p_k^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_k+j+1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}`$
$`=`$ $`p_k!{\displaystyle _{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}`$
$`<`$ $`p_k!(2ϵ)^{p_k^2\mathrm{\#}W_k}{\displaystyle _{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(i,j)W_k}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.`$
Thus,

$$(p_k!)^12^{k^2}ϵ^{\mathrm{\#}W_k}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_k+j+1)}<_{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(i,j)W_k}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.$$

All I need to do now is find an upper bound $`\mathrm{\#}W_k.`$ Write $`W_k=T_kV_k`$ where $`T_k`$ consists of all $`(i,j)`$ such that $`a_{ik}=a_{jk}=r_l`$ for some $`1ln`$ and $`V_k=W_kT_k.`$ Because $`|r_ir_j|>3ϵ_0`$ for $`1i<jl,`$ it follows that $`\mathrm{\#}T_k=_{j=1}^l[c_jk]^2.`$ Let’s estimate $`V_k.`$ First observe that if $`(i,j)V_k,`$ then either $`a_{ik}`$ or $`a_{jk}`$ does not lie in $`\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_l\};`$ consequently, both $`a_{ik}`$ and $`a_{jk}`$ are not in $`\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_l\}`$ because all elements of $`G_k`$ are at least $`3ϵ_0`$ away from $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_l.`$ Therefore they are elements of $`G_k.`$ For each $`(i,j)V_k`$ denote by $`S(i,j)`$ the closed square $`[a_{ik},a_{(i+1)k}]\times [a_{jk},a_{(j1)k}].`$ Because $`|a_{ik}a_{(i+1)k}|,|a_{jk}a_{(j+1)k}|<ϵ_0,`$ for each $`(i,j)V_k,S(i,j)D_{3ϵ_0}.`$ Also, for $`(i^{},j^{})V_k,S(i,j)S(i^{},j^{})`$ has $`\nu \times \nu `$ measure $`0`$ because $`\nu `$ is diffuse.

$$\tau >(\nu \times \nu )(D_{3ϵ_0})(\nu \times \nu )(_{(i,j)W_k}S(i,j))=\underset{(i,j)W_k}{}(\nu \times \nu )(S(i,j))=\mathrm{\#}V_kk^2.$$

Consequently, $`\mathrm{\#}W_k<\mathrm{\#}T_k+\mathrm{\#}V_k<(\tau +_{j=1}^lc_j^2)k^2.`$ Write $`\beta =\tau +_{j=1}^lc_j^2.`$ Substituting this into the previous inequality we now have

$$(p_k!)^12^{k^2}ϵ^{\beta k^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+j+1)}<_{[ϵ,ϵ]^{p_k}_<^{p_k}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(i,j)W_k}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.$$

It follows that (3) dominates

$$D_{p_k}ϵ_0^{k^2}(p_k!)^12^{k^2}ϵ^{\beta k^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+j+1)}$$

and because $`(1)>(2)>(3)`$ in the previous paragraph, we have that for $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0,\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k))>L_kϵ^{\beta k^2}`$ where

$$L_k=D_{p_k}ϵ_0^{k^2}(p_k!)^12^{k^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+j+1)}.$$

For $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0`$

$$P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Theta }(y_k))P_{2ϵ}(\mathrm{\Theta }(A_k))L_k\frac{ϵ^{\beta k^2p_k^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_k^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}(\pi k)^{\frac{p_k^2}{2}}}.$$

Notice that $`L_k`$ is independent of $`ϵ.`$ By Lemma 6.1 it follows that for each $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0,`$ and for sufficiently large $`k`$

$$H_{ϵ_0}^{p_k^2\beta k^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z;m,k,\gamma ))\frac{L_k\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_k^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}\pi ^{\frac{p_k^2}{2}}\sqrt{k}^{p_k^2}}.$$

Now $`p_k^2\beta k^2>\alpha k^2`$ where $`\alpha =1_{j=1}^lc_j^24\tau `$ so for any $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ $`_{ϵ_0,R}^\alpha (z;m,\gamma )`$ dominates (by Stirling’s formula)

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}(L_k\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{p_k^2}{2}}+1)){\displaystyle \frac{p_k^2}{2k^2}}\mathrm{log}k16\pi \right)`$
$`>`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}j!+{\displaystyle \frac{p_k^2}{2}}\mathrm{log}p_k\right)+\mathrm{log}ϵ_0`$
$`+\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+j+1)}}\right)16\pi `$
$`>`$ $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_017\pi .`$
$`lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}k^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+j+1)}\right)>\frac{5}{4}`$ and $`lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}\left(k^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{p_k}j!+\frac{p_k^2}{2k^2}\mathrm{log}p_k\right)>\frac{1}{4}`$ above. Both of these inequalities can be obtained from some calculus. This lower bound being uniform in $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$

$$^\alpha (z)_{ϵ_0,R}^\alpha (z;m,\gamma )>\mathrm{log}ϵ_017\pi .$$

$`\alpha =14\tau _{j=1}^lc_j^2.`$ Finally since $`\frac{1}{2}>\tau >0`$ was arbitrary and $`ls`$ and $`\alpha 1_{j=1}^sc_j^2=\delta _0(z)`$ (from  and ) as $`\tau 0`$ it follows that $`^\alpha (z)>\mathrm{}`$ for all $`\alpha <\delta _0(z).`$ $`(z)\delta _0(z).`$

### 6.3. Minimal Projections

From  if $`\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<1,`$ then $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }`$ has a minimal projection. We will end this section by showing that the same holds if $`\delta _0`$ is replaced by $`.`$ This is a slightly stronger statement since $`\delta _0`$ dominates $`.`$ The corresponding classical fact is that a metric space with Hausdorff dimension strictly less than 1 must be totally disconnected. We will more or less proceed by using the same argument in  for ”weak hyperfinite monotonicity of $`\delta _0`$” except we will limit our case to the situation where the hyperfinite subalgebra is commutative. Even then, the argument, though intuively simple, requires more care since the quantities involved are Hausdorff ones, and thus, harder to bound from below than the packing quantities of $`\delta _0.`$ First a simple corollary from the computation we’ve made.

###### Corollary 6.3.

If $`z_kz`$ strongly, then $`lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}(z_k)(z).`$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6.2 $`(z)=\delta _0(z)`$ and for all $`k,(z_k)=\delta _0(z_k).`$ Thus, by , $`lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}(z_k)=lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}\delta _0(z_k)\delta _0(z)=(z).`$

###### Lemma 6.4.

If $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ has finite dimensional approximants and $`z=z^{}\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime },`$ then

$$(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)(z).$$

###### Proof.

We will first prove the statement under the additional assumption that $`z`$ lies in the algebra $`A`$ generated by $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}.`$ Under this assumption there exists a polynomial $`f`$ in $`n`$ noncommuting variables, such that $`f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=z`$ and we can also assume that for any $`n`$ selfadjoint operators $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n`$ on a Hilbert space $`f(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)`$ is again selfadjoint. Now suppose $`R>0`$ exceeds the operator norms of the $`z_i.`$ There exists an $`L>z`$ such that for any $`(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)(M_k^{sa}()_R)^n,f(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)M_k^{sa}()_L.`$ Suppose $`\frac{1}{2}>\tau >0,`$ and consider all the associated quantities defined with respect to this $`\tau `$ in Lemma 6.2 for $`z=z^{}:l,ϵ_0,A_k,B_k,W_k,y_k,p_k,D_{p_k}.`$

Suppose $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0.`$ By Lemma 4.2 of  there exist $`m_1,`$ and $`\gamma _1>0`$ such that for any $`a,b\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(z;m,k,\gamma ),`$ there exists a $`uU_k`$ satisfying $`|uau^{}b|_2<ϵ_0\tau .`$ We can choose $`m_2,m_2>m`$ and $`\gamma _2>0,\gamma _2>0`$ so fine that if $`(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m_2,k,\gamma _2),`$ then $`f(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(z;m_1,k,\gamma _1).`$

By the assumption for $`k`$ large enough there exists an $`(h_{1k},\mathrm{},h_{nk})\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m_2,k,\gamma _2).`$ Thus, $`x_k=f(h_{1k},\mathrm{},h_{nk})\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(z;m_1,k,\gamma _1).`$ Now recall the matrices $`y_k`$ constructed in Lemma 6.2. For $`k`$ large enough both $`x_k`$ and $`y_k`$ lie in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(z;m_1,k,\gamma _1)`$ and thus by the preceding paragraph there exists a unitary $`u`$ satisfying $`|uy_ku^{}x_k|_2<t.`$ It follows that if $`\lambda _{ik}`$ and $`\mu _{ik}`$ denote the respective $`i`$th eigenvalues of $`y_k`$ and $`x_k`$ for $`1ik`$ where the eigenvalues are listed according from least to greatest and with respect to multiplicity, then, $`_{i=1}^n|\lambda _{ik}\mu _{ik}|^2<t^2k.`$ With this in mind, $`x_k`$ is unitarily equivalent to the diagonal $`k\times k`$

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_k^{}& 0\\ 0& B_k^{}\end{array}\right]$$

where $`A_k^{}`$ is a $`p_k\times p_k`$ diagonal matrix ($`p_k`$ defined in Lemma 6.2) and $`B_k^{}`$ is a $`(kp_k)\times (kp_k)`$ diagonal matrix and if $`\lambda _{ik}`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ eigenvalue of the matrix above, then $`\mu _{ik}`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ eigenvalue of

$$y_k=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A_k& 0\\ 0& B_k\end{array}\right]$$

We conclude that the $`p_k\times p_k`$ matrices $`A_k`$ and $`A_k^{}`$ differ in $`||_2`$-norm (on $`M_{p_k}()`$) by no more than $`t.`$

We’re now going to compare the volumes of the $`ϵ`$ neighborhoods of the unitary orbits of $`A_k`$ and $`A_k^{}`$ which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k^{}),`$ respectively. Denote again by $`a_{1k},\mathrm{},a_{p_kk}`$ the eigenvalues of $`A_k`$ ordered from least to greatest and according to multiplicity and similarly denote by $`a_{1k}^{},\mathrm{},a_{p_kk}^{}`$ the eigenvalues of $`A_k^{}`$ ordered in the same fashion. We have $`_{i=1}^{p_k}|a_{ik}a_{ik}^{}|^2<(ϵ_0\tau )^2p_k.`$ Now just as in the proof of Lemma 6.2 $`\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k^{}))`$ exceeds

$`D_{p_k}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i<j}(t_it_j)^2𝑑t_1\mathrm{}𝑑t_{p_k}.`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}`$ is the intersection of

$$[a_{1k}^{}ϵ,a_{1k}^{}+ϵ]\times \mathrm{}\times [a_{p_kk}^{}ϵ,a_{p_kk}^{}+ϵ]$$

with $`_<^{p_k}.`$ Now we run the same argument in Lemma 6.2. Write $`W_k^{}`$ for the set of 2-tuples (i,j) such that $`1i<jp_k`$ and $`|a_{ik}^{}a_{jk}^{}|<\frac{ϵ_0}{2}.`$ Now consider $`W_k^{}W_k.`$ If $`(i,j)`$ is an element of this set, then either $`|a_{ik}a_{ik}^{}|`$ or $`|a_{jk}a_{jk}^{}|`$ exceeds $`\frac{ϵ_0}{4}.`$ A moment’s thought now shows that there exist at least $`\mathrm{\#}(W_k^{}W_k)/p_k`$ indices $`i,1ip_k,`$ for which $`|a_{ik}a_{ik}^{}|>\frac{ϵ_0}{4}.`$ Thus,

$$(ϵ_0\tau )^2p_k>\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_k}{}}|a_{ik}a_{ik}^{}|^2>\frac{\mathrm{\#}(W_k^{}W_k)}{p_k}\frac{ϵ_0^2}{16}.$$

$`\mathrm{\#}(W^{}W_k)<16\tau ^2p_k^2.`$ So $`\mathrm{\#}W_k^{}<\mathrm{\#}W_k+16\tau ^2p_k^2.`$

Careful inspection of the chain of arguments in Lemma 6.2 now shows that for all $`0<ϵ<ϵ_0,\text{vol}(\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ(A_k^{}))>L_kϵ^{(\beta +16\tau )k^2}.`$ Again, Lemma 6.1 and the computations of the asymptotics of $`L_k`$ show that for $`\alpha _0=120\tau _{j=1}^lc_j^2,`$

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2H_{ϵ_0}^{\alpha _0k^2}(\mathrm{\Theta }(x_k))>\mathrm{log}ϵ_017\pi .$$

where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_k)`$ is the unitary orbit of $`x_k.`$ Denote by $`\mathrm{\Theta }(h_{1k},\mathrm{},h_{nk})`$ the set of all elements of the form $`(uh_{1k}u^{},\mathrm{},uh_{nk}u^{})`$ where $`uU_k`$ and observe that the map $`f`$ induces a function from $`\mathrm{\Theta }(h_{1k},\mathrm{},h_{nk})`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_k)`$ and that this map has a Lipschitz constant (when both the domain and range are endowed with $`||_2`$) $`C`$ where $`C`$ depends only upon $`R`$ and $`f.`$ It follows then that

$`_{ϵ_0,R}^{\alpha _0}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )`$ $``$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2H_{ϵ_0}^{\alpha _0k^2}(\mathrm{\Theta }(h_{1k},\mathrm{},h_{nk}))`$
$``$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2H_{ϵ_0}^{\alpha _0k^2}(\mathrm{\Theta }(x_k))\alpha _0\mathrm{log}C`$
$`>`$ $`\mathrm{log}ϵ_017\pi \mathrm{log}C.`$
$`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ being arbitrary $`\mathrm{}<_{ϵ_0,R}^{\alpha _0}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_R^{\alpha _0}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)^{\alpha _0}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n).`$ Now $`\alpha _0=120\tau _{j=1}^lc_j^2`$ and moreoever, $`ls`$ and $`\alpha _01_{j=1}^sc_j^2=(z)`$ as $`\tau 0.`$ it follows that $`^\alpha (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{}`$ for all $`\alpha <(z).`$ Thus for such $`z,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)(z).`$

Finally suppose $`z\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }.`$ Find a sequence $`b_k_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`b_kz`$ strongly. For each $`k`$ the preceding argument shows that $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)(b_k)`$ whence by Corollary 7.2 $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)lim\; inf_k\mathrm{}(b_k)(z).`$

###### Corollary 6.5.

If $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ has finite dimensional approximants and $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)<1,`$ then $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }`$ has a minimal projection.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }`$ is diffuse, i.e., has no minimal projections. Find a maximal abelian subalgebra $`N`$ of $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}^{\prime \prime }`$ and a single selfadjoint generator $`z`$ for $`N.`$ $`z`$ has no eigenvalues by maximality of $`N`$ and thus by Lemma 6.4 $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)(z)=1.`$

## 7. Additivity Properties of $``$

In this section we prove additive formulae for $``$ in the presence of freeness.

###### Theorem 7.1.

If $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ is set of freely independent, selfadjoint elements of $`M,`$ then

$$(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(z_i).$$

###### Proof.

Observe by Corollary 3.5 and Lemma 6.2 that

$$(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\delta _0(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _0(z_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(z_i).$$

Thus it remains to show that $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_{i=1}^n(z_i).`$

For $`1in`$ define $`\alpha _i=(z_i).`$ Set $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n.`$ Suppose $`m,`$ $`\tau ,\gamma >0,`$ and $`R>\mathrm{max}\{z_i\}_{1in}.`$ By Corollary 2.14 of  there exists an $`N`$ such that if $`kN`$ and $`\sigma `$ is a Radon probability measure on $`((M_k^{sa}())_R)^n`$ invariant under the $`(U_k)^{(n1)}`$-action given by $`(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)(\xi _1,u_1\xi _2u_1^{},\mathrm{},u_{n1}\xi _nu_{n1}^{})`$ where $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1})(U_k)^{(n1)},`$ then $`\sigma (\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}`$ where

$$\omega _k=\{(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)((M_k^{sa}())_{R+1})^n:\{\xi _i\}_{i=1}^n\text{are}(m,\frac{\gamma }{4^m})\text{ - free}\}.$$

The preceding section provided for each $`i`$ a sequence $`y_{ik}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for any $`m^{}`$ and $`\gamma ^{}>0`$ $`y_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_i;m^{},k,\gamma ^{})`$ for sufficiently large $`k.`$ Write $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y_{ik})`$ for the unitary orbit of $`y_{ik}`$ and $`g_{ik}`$ for the topological dimension of this orbit. The proof of Lemma 6.2 yields a $`1>ϵ_0>0`$ such that for each $`i`$ and $`k`$ sufficiently large there exist constants $`L_{ik}`$ and $`b_{ik},p_{ik}`$ such that for $`ϵ_0>ϵ>0`$

$$P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Theta }(y_{ik}))L_k^{(i)}\frac{ϵ^{(b_{ik}p_{ik}^2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}\sqrt{\pi k}^{p_{ik}^2}}$$

We may arrange it so that if $`\beta _k=_{i=1}^np_{ik}^2b_{ik},`$ then for sufficiently large $`k`$ $`\beta _k>(\alpha \tau )k^2.`$

For each $`k`$ denote by $`\mu _k`$ the probability measure on $`((M_k^{sa}())_{R+1})^n`$ obtained by restricting $`_{i=1}^ng_{ik}`$-Hausdorff measure (with respect to the $`||_2`$ norm) to the smooth $`_{i=1}^ng_{ik}`$-dimensional manifold $`T_k=\mathrm{\Theta }(y_{1k})\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Theta }(y_{nk})`$ and normalizing appropriately. $`\mu _k`$ is a Radon probability measure invariant under the $`(U_k)^{n1}`$-action in the sense described above (such an action is isometric and thus does not alter Hausdorff measure). $`\mu _k(\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}.`$ Define $`F_k=\omega _kT_k.`$ It is clear that $`\mu _k(F_k)=\mu _k(\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`F_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R+1}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma ).`$ It remains to make lower bounds on the Hausdorff quantities of $`F_k.`$

$`T_k`$ is a locally isometric smooth manifold of dimension $`_{i=1}^ng_{ik}.`$ From the preceding paragraph it follows that for all $`0<ϵ<ϵ_0`$

$$P_ϵ(T_k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^nP_ϵ(\mathrm{\Theta }(y_{ik}))\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^nL_{ik}\left(\frac{ϵ^{(b_{ik}p_{ik}^2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}\sqrt{\pi k}^{p_{ik}^2}}\right).$$

By Lemma 6.1

$$H_{ϵ_0}^{\beta _k}(F_k)>\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\frac{L_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}\sqrt{\pi k}^{p_{ik}^2}}\frac{1}{2}.$$

For any $`m,\gamma >0`$ $`_{ϵ_0,R}^{\alpha \tau }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,\gamma )`$ dominates

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2\mathrm{log}(H_{ϵ_0}^{\beta _k}(F_k))`$ $``$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}+1)}{4^{k^2}\sqrt{\pi k}^{p_{ik}^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[k^2\left(\mathrm{log}L_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}}+1\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_{ik}^2}{2k^2}}\mathrm{log}k16\pi \right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left[\left(k^2\mathrm{log}\left(L_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{ik}^2}{2}}+1\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_{ik}^2}{2k^2}}\mathrm{log}k\right)16\pi \right]`$
$`>`$ $`n\mathrm{log}ϵ_017n\pi .`$
$`^{\alpha \tau }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)_{ϵ_0,R}^{\alpha \tau }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)>\mathrm{}.`$ $`\tau >0`$ being arbitrarily small $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\alpha =(z_1)+\mathrm{}+(z_n).`$

We now turn to the situation where we have free products of finite dimensional algebras. We obtain a slightly stronger result. The arguments proceed as in Theorem 7.1 but the issues are a bit more delicate. First we rephrase Lemma 5.4 in terms of $`ϵ`$ packings.

###### Lemma 7.2.

Suppose $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\}`$ generates a finite dimensional unital subalgebra $`A`$ of $`M,`$ $`\alpha =\delta _0(A),`$ and $`R>\mathrm{max}\{z_i\}_{1in}.`$ There exists constants $`K>0`$ and $`ϵ_0>0`$ such that for any given $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ there exists an integer $`N`$ such that for $`kN`$ there is a locally isometric smooth manifold $`T_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ of dimension $`g_k\alpha k^2`$ and for any $`0<ϵ<ϵ_0`$

$$P_ϵ(T_k)\left(\frac{K}{ϵ}\right)^{\alpha k^2}$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 5.4 there exist $`\lambda ,r,\zeta ,D,L>0,N`$ such that for any $`ϵ<\lambda (DL)^1,m,\gamma >0`$ and any $`kN`$ there exists a locally isometric smooth manifold $`T_k`$ (obtained by smearing the images of the $`z_i`$ under a representation with $`U_k`$) with $`T_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ and

$$H_ϵ^{\alpha k^2}(T_k)\left(\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{DL}\right)^{\alpha k^2}.$$

Thus

$$P_{\frac{ϵ}{2}}(T_k)ϵ^{\alpha k^2}\left(\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{DL}\right)^{\alpha k^2}$$

whence,

$$P_{\frac{ϵ}{2}}(T_k)\left(\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{DLϵ}\right)^{\alpha k^2}.$$

Set $`K=\frac{\lambda r\zeta }{2DL}.`$

Suppose $`Z_1,\mathrm{}Z_n`$ are finite ordered sets of selfadjoint elements in $`M.`$ We write $`Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n`$ for the ordered set obtained by listing the elements of $`Z_1`$ in order, then $`Z_2,`$ etc. It is in this way that we interpret $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ and all the asymptotic dimensions and measurements associated to $`Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n.`$

###### Lemma 7.3.

If $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n`$ are ordered sets of selfadjoint elements in $`M`$ with $`\alpha _i=\delta _0(Z_i)`$ and $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n,`$ then

$$^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)^{\alpha _1}(Z_1)+\mathrm{}+^{\alpha _n}(Z_n)+\alpha \mathrm{log}(4\sqrt{n}).$$

###### Proof.

For any $`R,\gamma >0`$ and $`m,k`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,k,\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1;m,k,\gamma )\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_n;m,k,\gamma )$$

The proof now follows from going through the definitions and using subadditivity of $`P_ϵ`$ on products. We have

$`P_{4ϵ\sqrt{n}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ $``$ $`P_{4ϵ\sqrt{n}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1;m,k,\gamma )\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_n;m,k,\gamma ))`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^nP_ϵ(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_i;m,k,\gamma )).`$
Thus $`_{4ϵ\sqrt{n},R}(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_N;m,\gamma )_{i=1}^n_{ϵ,R}(Z_i;m,\gamma )_{4ϵ\sqrt{n}}(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)_{i=1}^n_ϵ(Z_i).`$ Consequently,

$`^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}\left(_{4ϵ\sqrt{n}}(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)+\alpha \mathrm{log}(8ϵ\sqrt{n})\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; sup}\left(_ϵ(Z_i)+\alpha _i\mathrm{log}(8ϵ\sqrt{n})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`^{\alpha _1}(Z_1)+\mathrm{}+^{\alpha _n}(Z_n)+\alpha \mathrm{log}(4\sqrt{n}).`$
###### Theorem 7.4.

Suppose $`\{Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n\}`$ is a freely independent family of ordered sets of selfadjoint elements in $`M`$ such that each $`Z_i=\{z_{i1},\mathrm{},z_{ip_i}\}`$ generates a finite dimensional unital subalgebra $`A_i.`$ If for each $`i`$ $`\alpha _i=(A_i)`$ and $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n,`$ then $`Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n`$ is an $`\alpha `$-set and

$$(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(Z_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _0(Z_i).$$

###### Proof.

It suffices to show that $`\{Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n\}`$ is an $`\alpha `$-set for the second assertion is an immediate consequence of this.

First we show that $`^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)>\mathrm{}.`$ We will write elements of $`((M_k^{sa}())^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n}`$ as $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ where $`X_i(M_k^{sa}())^{p_i}.`$ Moreover, for any $`uU_k`$ $`uX_iu^{}`$ denotes the element of $`(M_k^{sa}())^{p_i}`$ obtained by conjugating each entry of $`X_i`$ by $`u.`$ Suppose $`m,`$ $`\gamma >0,`$ and $`R`$ exceeds the operator norm of any element in one of the $`Z_i.`$ Again Corollary 2.14 of  yields an $`N`$ such that if $`kN`$ and $`\sigma `$ is a Radon probability measure on $`((M_k^{sa}())_{R+1})^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n}`$ invariant under the $`(U_k)^{(n1)}`$-action given by

$$(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)(X_1,u_1X_2u_1^{},\mathrm{},u_{n1}X_nu_{n1}^{})$$

where $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1})(U_k)^{(n1)},`$ then $`\sigma (\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}`$ where

$$\omega _k=\{(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)((M_k^{sa}())_{R+1})^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n}:X_i_{i=1}^n\text{are}(m,\frac{\gamma }{4^m})\text{ - free}\}.$$

By Lemma 7.2 there exists for each $`i`$ constants $`K_i>0`$ and $`ϵ_i>0`$ such that for a given $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ there exists $`N_i`$ such that for $`kN_i`$ there exists a locally isometric smooth manifold $`T_{ik}`$ of dimension $`g_{ik}\alpha _ik^2`$ with $`T_{ik}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_i;m,k,\frac{\gamma }{(8(R+1))^m})`$ and for any $`0<ϵ<ϵ_i`$

$$P_ϵ(T_k)\left(\frac{K_i}{ϵ}\right)^{\alpha _ik^2}.$$

For any $`k>N_1+\mathrm{}+N_n`$ set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=T_k^1\times \mathrm{}\times T_k^n`$ and denote by $`\mu _k`$ the probability measure on $`((M_k^{sa}())_{R+1})^{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n}`$ obtained by restricting $`_{i=1}^ng_{ik}`$-Hausdorff measure (with respect to the $`||_2`$ norm) to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and normalizing appropriately. As in Theorem 7.1 $`\mu _k`$ is a Radon probability measure invariant under the $`(U_k)^{n1}`$ -action described above, whence $`\mu _k(\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}.`$ Define $`F_k=\omega _k\mathrm{\Omega }_k.`$ $`\mu _k(F_k)=\mu _k(\omega _k)>\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`F_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R+1}(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,k,\gamma ).`$

For each $`k`$ sufficiently large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is a locally isometric smooth manifold of dimension $`g_k=_{i=1}^ng_{ik}`$. Moreover setting $`K=\mathrm{min}\{K_i\}_{1in}`$ for all $`0<ϵ<\mathrm{min}_{1in}\{ϵ_i\}`$

$$P_ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega }_k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^nP_ϵ(T_k^i)\left(\frac{K}{ϵ}\right)^{\alpha k^2}$$

By Lemma 6.1 for $`ϵ_0=\mathrm{min}_{1in}\{ϵ_i\}`$

$$H_{ϵ_0}^{\alpha k^2}(F_k)>\left(\frac{K}{2}\right)^{\alpha k^2}\frac{1}{2}.$$

Thus,

$$k^2\mathrm{log}H_{ϵ_0}^{\alpha k^2}(F_k)>\alpha \mathrm{log}K\mathrm{log}4.$$

Given $`m`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ there exists for each $`k`$ large enough a set $`F_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,k,\gamma )`$ satisfying the outer Hausdorff measure lower bound above. Consequently, $`_{ϵ_0,R}^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n;m,\gamma )`$ dominates

$$\alpha \mathrm{log}K4>\mathrm{}$$

This lower bound is independent of $`m`$ and $`\gamma `$ so it follows that the above expression is a lower bound for $`_{ϵ_0}^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n).`$ It follows that $`^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)>\mathrm{}`$ as promised.

It remains to show that $`^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)<\mathrm{}.`$ We have by Lemma 7.3 and Lemma 5.1 that

$$^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)\alpha \mathrm{log}(8\sqrt{n})^\alpha (Z_1\mathrm{}Z_n)\alpha \mathrm{log}(4\sqrt{n})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}^{\alpha _i}(Z_i)<\mathrm{}.$$

Acknowledgements. Part of this research was conducted during the 2002 PIMS conference on asymptotic geometry in Vancouver. I thank Stanislaw Szarek and Gilles Pisier for their hospitality. The former made a helpful remark on the relation between Hausdorff dimension and Minkowski content on smooth manifolds. Another part of this research took place at UCLA and I thank Dimitri Shlyakhtenko and the UCLA mathematics department for their hospitality.