text:
# Metric Diophantine approximation: The Khintchine–Groshev theorem for non-degenerate manifolds

## 1. Background and the main result

### 1.1. Notation

The Vinogradov symbol $``$ ($``$) means “$``$ ($``$) up to a positive constant multiplier”; $`ab`$ is equivalent to $`aba`$. The usual inner product in $`^n`$ of $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ will be denoted by $`𝐚𝐛`$; $`𝐚=\sqrt{𝐚𝐚}`$ is the Euclidean norm of $`𝐚`$. Also, $`𝐚_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{max}_{1in}|a_i|`$ and $`𝐚_1=_{i=1}^n|a_i|`$, where $`a_i`$ are the coordinates of $`𝐚`$ in the standard basis of $`^n`$. The Lebesgue measure of $`A^d`$ is denoted by $`|A|_d`$. We write $`|A|`$ instead of $`|A|_d`$ if there is no risk of confusion. Given a subset $`A`$ of $`^n`$, we define $`\mathrm{diam}(A)=sup_{𝐚,𝐛A}𝐚𝐛`$. Given two subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$ of $`^n`$, we define $`\mathrm{dist}(A,B)=inf_{𝐚A,𝐛B}𝐚𝐛`$; also $`\mathrm{dist}(𝐚,A)=\mathrm{dist}(\{𝐚\},A)`$. Given an $`𝐱^n`$, there is a unique point $`𝐚^n`$ such that $`𝐱𝐚(1/2,1/2]^n`$. This difference will be denoted by $`𝐱`$. Given a set $`A^d`$ and a number $`r>0`$, let $`(A,r)=\{𝐱^d:\mathrm{dist}(𝐱,A)<r\}`$. In particular, $`(𝐚,r)=(\{𝐚\},r)`$ is the open ball in $`^d`$ of radius $`r`$ centered at $`𝐚`$. Given a ball $`=(𝐱,r)`$ and a positive number $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda `$ will denote the ball $`(𝐱,\lambda r)`$. Given a map $`𝐟:U^n`$, where $`U`$ is an open subset of $`^d`$, we will denote by $`_i𝐟:U^n`$, $`i=\overline{1,d}`$, its partial derivative with respect to $`x_i`$. Also we define a map $`𝐟:UM_{n\times d}()`$, where $`M_{n\times d}()`$ is the space of $`n\times d`$ matrices over $``$, by setting $`𝐟(𝐱)=(_jf_i(𝐱))_{1in,1jd}`$. We will also need higher order differentiation: for a multiindex $`\beta =(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$, $`i_j_0`$, where $`_0=\{x:x0\}`$, we let $`_\beta =_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}_d^{i_d}`$. Throughout the paper, $`\psi :_+_+`$ is a non-increasing function unless a different condition is assumed.

### 1.2. Metric Diophantine approximation in $`^n`$.

Metric Diophantine approximation began with the works of E. Borel and A.J. Khintchine, who considered approximation to real numbers by rational numbers. In 1924 for $`n=1`$ Khintchine \[Khi24\] and in 1938 for $`n>1`$ A.V. Groshev \[Gro38\] established a criterion for the solubility of the inequality

$$|𝐚𝐲|<\psi (𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^n)$$
(1.1)
in $`𝐚^n`$ for generic $`𝐲^n`$. At this point we need the following

###### Definition 1.1.

The point $`𝐲^n`$ is called $`\psi `$-approximable if (1.1) has infinitely many solutions $`𝐚^n`$. The point $`𝐲^n`$ is called very well approximable (VWA) if it is $`\psi _\epsilon `$-approximable for some positive $`\epsilon `$, where $`\psi _\epsilon (h)=h^{(1+\epsilon )}`$.

In view of this definition, the Khintchine–Groshev theorem \[Khi24, Gro38\] asserts that if the sum

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi (h)$$
(1.2)
diverges (converges), then almost all (almost no) points $`𝐲^n`$ are $`\psi `$-approximable.

###### Remark 1.2.

Originally the inequality $`|𝐚𝐱|<\psi (𝐚_{\mathrm{}})`$ was considered instead of (1.1). In this setting $`_{q=1}^{\mathrm{}}q^{n1}\psi (q)`$ should be used instead of (1.2). Khintchine assumed that $`h\psi (h)`$ was non-increasing, and Groshev’s requirement was the monotonicity of $`h^{n1}\psi (h)`$. Later W.M. Schmidt succeeded to avoid the monotonicity restriction when $`n>1`$ (see Section 6).

###### Remark 1.3.

The Khintchine–Groshev theorem implies that almost all $`𝐲^n`$ are not VWA. The convergence case of the theorem can be easily derived from the Borel–Cantelli lemma. The main difficulty is contained in the divergence case.

### 1.3. The concept of Diophantine approximation on manifolds.

This concept emerges if one restricts the point $`𝐲`$ to lie on a submanifold $``$ of $`^n`$. Since the manifold $``$ of dimension $`<n`$ itself has zero measure, the Khintchine–Groshev theorem does not even guarantee the existence of a single $`\psi `$-approximable point on $``$. To make the theory rich in content one tries to establish if a given property holds for almost all points of this manifold with respect to the Lebesgue measure induced on the manifold. We will use the following terminology (more details can be found in \[BD99\] and Section 6).

###### Definition 1.4.

Let $``$ be a submanifold of $`^n`$. One says that $``$ is extremal if almost all points of $``$ are not VWA. One says that $``$ is of Groshev type for divergence $`(`$for convergence$`)`$ if almost all (almost no) points of $``$ are $`\psi `$-approximable whenever the sum (1.2) diverges (converges).

### 1.4. Diophantine approximation on the Veronese curves

In 1932 K. Mahler \[Mah32\] made a conjecture which in the terminology of this paper claimed that for any $`n`$ the Veronese curve

$$𝒱_n=\{(x,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n):x\}$$
(1.3)
was extremal. It arose in transcendental number theory in connection with a classification of real numbers suggested by Mahler himself. A great deal of work had been undertaken to prove Mahler’s conjecture by J. Kubilius, B. Volkmann, W. LeVeque, F. Kash and W.M. Schmidt. In particular, the problem was solved for $`n=2`$ by Kubilius \[Kub49\] and for $`n=3`$ by Volkmann \[Vol61\]. The complete solution was given by V.G. Sprindẑuk \[Spr69\] in 1964.

In 1966 A. Baker \[Bak66\] improved Sprindẑuk’s result by replacing the “powering” error function with a general monotonic function $`\psi `$ by showing that if

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\psi (k)^{1/n}}{k^{11/n}}<\mathrm{},$$
(1.4)
then almost all points on the curve (1.3) are not $`\psi `$-approximable. In the same paper Baker conjectured that (1.4) could be replaced with the convergence of (1.2), i.e. he conjectured that $`𝒱_n`$ is of Groshev type for convergence. This conjecture was proved by V.I. Bernik \[Ber89\] in 1989.

The divergence case was considered by V.V. Beresnevich \[Ber99b\] in 1999 who proved that the Veronese curves (1.3) are of Groshev type for divergence. The proof is based on a new method involving regular systems, introduced by Baker and Schmidt \[BS70\] and used for computing the Hausdorff dimension of sets of well approximable points.

### 1.5. Diophantine approximation on differentiable manifolds.

In the sixties of the last century the investigations related to the problem of Mahler eventually led to the development of a new branch of metric number theory, usually referred to as “Diophantine approximation of dependent quantities” or “Diophantine approximation on manifolds”. The first result involving manifolds defined by functions satisfying some mild and natural properties was obtained by Schmidt \[Sch64b\], who proved that any $`C^{(3)}`$ planar curve with curvature non-vanishing almost everywhere is extremal. Schmidt’s theorem was subsequently improved by R. Baker \[Bak78\], who has shown that almost all points on Schmidt’s curves are not $`\psi `$-approximable whenever $`(\text{1.4})_{n=2}`$ is satisfied. It has been recently shown that Schmidt’s curves are of Groshev type for convergence \[BDD98\] and for divergence \[BBDD99\].

Until the mid-nineties most of the results in metric Diophantine approximation dealt with manifolds of a special structure or of high enough dimension. M.M. Dodson, B.P. Rynne and J.A.G. Vickers \[DRV90b, DRV91, DRV96\] investigated a class of manifolds satisfying a geometric condition which for surfaces in $`^3`$ assumed two convexity (e.g. a cylinder does not satisfy that condition). Schmidt \[Sch64b\] has investigated certain straight lines in $`^n`$ for extremality, and recently such lines have been shown to be of Groshev type \[BBDD00\].

A new method, based on combinatorics of the space of lattices, was developed in \[KM98\] by D.Y. Kleinbock and G.A. Margulis111See also \[KM99\] and \[Kle01\] for more on interactions between dynamics on the space of lattices and metric Diophantine approximation., who proved the extremality of the so-called non-degenerate manifolds (also they proved these manifolds to be strongly extremal, see Section 6).

###### Definition 1.5.

Let $`𝐟:U^n`$ be a map defined on an open set $`U^d`$. We say that $`𝐟`$ is $`l`$-non-degenerate at $`𝐱_0U`$ if $`𝐟`$ is $`l`$ times continuously differentiable on some sufficiently small ball centered at $`𝐱_0`$ and partial derivatives of $`𝐟`$ at $`𝐱_0`$ of orders up to $`l`$ span $`^n`$. We say that $`𝐟`$ is non-degenerate at $`𝐱_0`$ if it is $`l`$-non-degenerate at $`𝐱_0`$ for some $`l`$. We say that $`𝐟`$ is non-degenerate if it is non-degenerate almost everywhere on $`U`$.

The non-degeneracy of a manifold is naturally defined via the non-degeneracy of its appropriate parameterization. Geometrically the $`l`$-non-degeneracy of a manifold $`^n`$ at a point $`𝐲_0`$ means that for any hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in $`^n`$, $`lim\; sup_{𝐲𝐲_0,𝐲}\mathrm{dist}(𝐲,\mathrm{\Pi })𝐲𝐲_0^l>0;`$ that is, the manifold can not be approximated by a hyperplane “too well” (see \[Ber02, Ber99a\]).

Recently Beresnevich \[Ber02\] (also a short version published in \[Ber00a, Ber00b\]), and independently Bernik, Kleinbock and Margulis \[BKM01\] using different techniques, have proved that any non-degenerate manifold is of Groshev type for convergence (also there is a multiplicative analogue and a more general version of the result in \[BKM01\], see Section 6).

Non-degenerate curves have been proved to be of Groshev type for divergence \[Ber00d\] (also \[Ber00a, Ber00c\] contain auxiliary parts of the proof). Moreover, by Pyartli’s method \[Pya69\] one can extend this result to analytic non-degenerate manifolds. The goal of the present paper is to show that any non-degenerate manifold is of Groshev type for divergence. The proof makes use of a new technique, which involves a multidimensional analogue of regular systems and extends the ideas of \[Ber99b\].

### 1.6. The main result and the structure of the paper

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`U`$ be an open subset of $`^d`$ and let $`𝐟:U^n`$ be a non-degenerate map. Also let $`\psi :_+_+`$ be a non-increasing function such that the sum (1.2) diverges. Then for almost all $`𝐱U`$ the point $`𝐟(𝐱)`$ is $`\psi `$-approximable, i.e. for almost all $`𝐱U`$ there are infinitely many solutions $`𝐚^n`$ to the inequality

$$|𝐟(𝐱)𝐚|<\psi (𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^n).$$
(1.5)
The proof of Theorem 1.6 is based on a method of regular systems first suggested in \[Ber99b\] for dimension one. In particular, we generalize it for any dimension. In Section 3 we construct a regular system of resonant sets corresponding to a given non-degenerate map. In Section 4 we prove a general theorem on approximation by resonant sets. And finally, Section 5 will complete the proof of Theorem 1.6.

## 2. Effective upper bounds

The result of this section will be applied to construct a regular system of resonant sets. We show the following

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`𝐟:U^n`$ be non-degenerate at $`𝐱_0U`$. Then there exists a sufficiently small ball $`_0U`$ centered at $`𝐱_0`$ and a constant $`C_0>0`$ such that for any ball $`_0`$ and any $`\epsilon >0`$ for all sufficiently big $`Q`$, one has

$$|_𝐟(;\epsilon ;Q)|C_0\epsilon ||,$$
(2.1)
where

$$_𝐟(;\epsilon ;Q)=\underset{𝐚^n:0<𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q}{}\{𝐱:|𝐟(𝐱)𝐚|<\epsilon Q^n\}.$$
(2.2)
The proof of Theorem 2.1 will rely on considering two special cases: when the norm of the gradient $`𝐚𝐟(x)`$ is big, or, respectively, not very big. Theorem 2.2 below is essentially due to Bernik and for $`d=1`$ has appeared earlier \[Ber00d\]. Its proof relies on the ideas of the method of essential and inessential domains developed by Sprindẑuk, when he solved the problem of Mahler. Theorem 2.3 below is due to Kleinbock and Margulis \[BKM01\] and is proved by means of the method involving lattices, which was first developed in \[KM98\]. The dichotomy of big/small derivatives has been extensively used; in particular, it is used in \[Ber00a, Ber02, BKM01\] to prove the convergence case.

###### Theorem 2.2 (Theorem 1.3 in \[BKM01\]).

Let $`_0^d`$ be a ball, and let $`𝐟C^{(2)}(3_0)`$. Fix $`\delta >0`$ and define

$$L_1=\underset{\beta _1=2}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐱2_0}{\mathrm{max}}_\beta 𝐟(𝐱)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(2.3)
Then for every ball $`_0`$ and any $`𝐚^n`$ such that

$$𝐚_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{nL_1(\mathrm{diam})^2},$$
(2.4)
the set

$$_𝐟^{(1)}(;\delta ;𝐚)=\{𝐱:\left\{\begin{array}{c}|𝐟(𝐱)𝐚|<\delta ,\\ 𝐚𝐟(𝐱)_{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{ndL_1𝐚_{\mathrm{}}}\end{array}\right\}$$
(2.5)
has measure at most $`C_1\delta ||`$, where $`C_1>0`$ is a constant depending on $`d`$ only.

###### Theorem 2.3 (Theorem 1.4 in \[BKM01\]).

Let $`U^d`$ be an open set, $`𝐱_0U`$, and let $`𝐟:U^n`$ be a map $`l`$-non-degenerate at $`𝐱_0`$. Then there exists a ball $`_0U`$ centered at $`𝐱_0`$ such that $`3_0U`$ with the following property: there exist a constant $`C_2>1`$ such that for any ball $`_0`$, any $`\epsilon `$ with $`0<\epsilon <1`$ and any $`Q1`$ the set

$$_𝐟^{(2)}(;\epsilon ;Q)=\underset{𝐚^n:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q}{}\{𝐱:\left\{\begin{array}{c}|𝐟(𝐱)𝐚|<\epsilon Q^n,\hfill \\ 𝐚𝐟(𝐱)_{\mathrm{}}<\sqrt{ndL_1Q}\hfill \end{array}\right\}$$
(2.6)
satisfies

$$|_𝐟^{(2)}(;\epsilon ;Q)|C_2(\epsilon Q^{1/2})^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{d(n+1)(2l1)}}}||,$$
(2.7)
where $`L_1`$ is defined in (2.3).

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

Fix a ball $`_0`$ as in the statement of Theorem 2.3 and fix any ball $`_0`$. It is easy to see that the set $`_𝐟(;\epsilon ;Q)`$ is expressed as the following union of three subsets

$$_𝐟(;\epsilon ;Q)=\left(\underset{𝐚^n:Q_1𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q}{}_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)\right)$$

$$_𝐟^{(2)}(;\epsilon ;Q)\left(\underset{𝐚^n:𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q_1}{}_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)\right),$$
(2.8)
where $`Q_1=[1/(nL_1(\mathrm{diam})^2)]+1`$. The measure of the first subset is estimated by Theorem 2.2:

$$\left|\underset{𝐚^n:Q_1𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q}{}_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)\right|C_1\epsilon Q^n||(2Q+1)^n.$$
(2.9)
Next, for every $`𝐚^n`$ such that $`0<𝐚_{\mathrm{}}<Q_1`$ we obviously have

$$_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^nQ_1;𝐚_1),$$
(2.10)
where $`𝐚_1=Q_1𝐚`$. It is clear that $`𝐚_1_{\mathrm{}}Q_1`$. Therefore, we can apply Theorem 2.2 to the set in the right hand side of (2.10). Thus,

$$|_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)||_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^nQ_1;𝐚_1)|C_1\epsilon Q^nQ_1||$$
(2.11)
Since the number of points $`𝐚^n`$ with $`0<𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q_1`$ is less than $`(2Q_1+1)^n`$, we get

$$\left|\underset{𝐚^n:𝐚_{\mathrm{}}Q_1}{}_𝐟^{(1)}(;\epsilon Q^n;𝐚)\right|(2Q_1+1)^nC_1\epsilon Q^nQ_1||.$$
(2.12)
On combining (2.7), (2.9), (2.12) and (2.8) and letting $`C_0>2^nC_1`$, we obtain (2.1) for all sufficiently big $`Q`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.

We will also use the following

###### Lemma 2.4 (Lemma 6 in \[Ber02\]).

Let $`\alpha ,\beta _+`$, $`d`$, $``$ be a ball in $`^d`$, $`f:`$ be a function such that $`fC^{(k)}`$ and for some $`j`$ with $`1jd`$ one has

$$\underset{𝐱}{inf}|_j^kf(𝐱)|\beta .$$
(2.13)
Then

$$\left|\{𝐱:|f(𝐱)|\alpha \}\right|3^{(k+1)/2}(k(k+1)/2+1)(\mathrm{diam})^{d1}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right)^{1/k}.$$

## 3. Regular systems of resonant sets

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`U`$ be an open subset of $`^d`$, $``$ be a family of subsets of $`^d`$, $`N:_+`$ be a function and let $`s`$ be a number satisfying $`0s<d`$. The triple $`(,N,s)`$ is called a regular system in $`U`$ if there exist constants $`K_1,K_2,K_3>0`$ and a function $`\lambda :_+_+`$ with $`lim_{x+\mathrm{}}\lambda (x)=+\mathrm{}`$ such that for any ball $`U`$ and for any $`T>T_0`$, where $`T_0=T_0(,N,s,)`$ is a sufficiently large number, there exist sets

$$R_1,\mathrm{},R_t\text{ with }\lambda (T)N(R_i)T\text{ for }i=\overline{1,t}$$
(3.1)
and disjoint balls

$$_1,\mathrm{},_t\text{ with }2_i\text{ for }i=\overline{1,t}$$
(3.2)
such that

$$\mathrm{diam}(_i)=T^1\text{ for }i=\overline{1,t},$$
(3.3)
$$tK_1||T^d$$
(3.4)
and such that for any $`\gamma `$ with $`0<\gamma <T^1`$ one has

$$K_2\gamma ^{ds}T^s|(R_i,\gamma )_i|,$$
(3.5)
$$|(R_i,\gamma )2_i|K_3\gamma ^{ds}T^s.$$
(3.6)
The elements of $``$ will be called resonant sets.

This definition generalizes the concept of regular system of points of Baker and Schmidt. In fact, it is equivalent to the Baker–Schmidt definition when $`U=`$, $``$ consists of points in the real line, and $`s=0`$ \[BS70\]. In this situation conditions (3.5) and (3.6) hold automatically. Also this definition covers the multidimensional concept of a regular system of points \[Ber00c\] when $`s=0`$. Definition 3.1 is closely related to ubiquitous systems \[DRV90a\].

The goal of this section is to establish the following

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`𝐟=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n):U^n`$ be a non-degenerate map, where $`U`$ is an open subset of $`^d`$. Given an $`𝐚^n`$, $`𝐚0`$ and an $`a_0`$, let

$$R_{𝐚,a_0}=\{𝐱U:𝐚𝐟(𝐱)+a_0=0\}.$$

Define the following set

$$_𝐟=\{R_{𝐚,a_0}:𝐚^n,𝐚0,a_0\}$$

and the following function

$$N(R_{𝐚,a_0})=(𝐚_{\mathrm{}})^{n+1}.$$

Then for almost every point $`𝐱_0U`$ there is a ball $`_0U`$ centered at $`𝐱_0`$ such that $`(,N,d1)`$ is a regular system in $`_0`$.

###### Proof.

There is no loss of generality in assuming that $`f_1(𝐱)=x_1`$. In fact, using the non-degeneracy of $`𝐟`$, it is possible to show that $`𝐟^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{𝟎}`$ almost everywhere (see \[Ber02, Section 5\]). Thus we can take a sufficiently small neighborhood of a point $`𝐱_0`$ with $`𝐟^{}(𝐱_0)\mathrm{𝟎}`$ instead of the original domain $`U`$, and then make $`f_1(𝐱)`$ equal $`x_1`$ by an appropriate change of variables. Also, as $`𝐟`$ is non-degenerate, we can take $`U`$ to be a sufficiently small neighborhood of a point $`𝐱_0`$ such that $`𝐟`$ is non-degenerate at this point. Moreover, we can take $`_0`$ satisfying Theorem 2.1. Thus, in view of that theorem, for any ball $`_0`$ the set

$$𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)=\frac{3}{4}_𝐟(\frac{3}{4};(4C_0)^1;Q)$$

will satisfy the estimate

$$|𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)|\frac{1}{2}||$$
(3.7)
for all sufficiently large $`Q`$.

Note also that there is no loss of generality in assuming that

$$\underset{1jn}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐱_0}{sup}f_j(𝐱)_{\mathrm{}}L_2,$$
(3.8)
for some constant $`L_2>0`$.

The proof of Theorem 3.2 will be completed with the help of

###### Proposition 3.3.

There is a sufficiently big number $`Q_0`$ such that for any $`QQ_0`$ for any $`𝐱𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)`$ there is an integer point $`𝐚^n`$, $`𝐚\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and an integer $`a_0`$ with

$$Q^{n+1}=T/C_3N(R_{𝐚,a_0})T=C_3Q^{n+1},$$
(3.9)
where $`C_3=\left(4C_0(nL_2)^{n1}\right)^{n+1}`$, and a point $`𝐳R_{𝐚,a_0}`$ such that

$$𝐱𝐳<C_4T^1,$$
(3.10)
where $`C_4=C_3n/(2C_0)`$, and such that for any $`\gamma `$ with $`0<\gamma <T^1`$ we have

$$K_2\gamma T^{(d1)}|(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )(𝐳,T^1/2)|,$$
(3.11)
$$|(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )(𝐳,T^1)|K_3\gamma T^{(d1)},$$
(3.12)
where $`K_2,K_3>0`$ are some constants which depend on neither $``$ nor $`T`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.3.

Let $`𝐱𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)`$. By Minkowski’s linear forms theorem, there are integers $`𝐚^n`$, $`𝐚\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`a_0`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|𝐟(𝐱)𝐚+a_0|(4C_0)^1Q^n,\hfill \\ |a_1|4C_0(nL_2)^{n1}Q,\hfill \\ |a_i|Q/(nL_2)i=\overline{2,n}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.13)
Define the function $`F(𝐱)=𝐟(𝐱)𝐚+a_0`$. It follows from (3.13) that

$$𝐚_{\mathrm{}}4C_0(nL_2)^{n1}Q=T^{1/(n+1)}.$$
(3.14)
Since $`𝐱𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)`$, $`𝐚_{\mathrm{}}`$ must be $`>Q`$, which, combined with (3.14), gives (3.9).

As $`|a_j|<Q`$ for $`j=\overline{2,n}`$, we have $`|a_1|>Q`$. Now, using (3.8) and the condition $`f_1(𝐱)=x_1`$, we get

$$|_1F(𝐱)|=|a_1||_1f_1(𝐱)|\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}|a_i||_1f_j(𝐱)|>Q\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}Q/(nL_2)L_2=\frac{Q}{n}.$$
(3.15)
Since $`_1𝐟`$ is uniformly continuous on $`_0`$, there is a sufficiently small number $`r_1>0`$ such that for any $`𝐱_1,𝐱_2U`$ with $`𝐱_1𝐱_2<r_1`$ we have

$$_1𝐟(𝐱_1)_1𝐟(𝐱_2)_{\mathrm{}}<\frac{1}{8n^2C_0(nL_2)^{n1}}.$$

It follows that

$$|_1F(𝐱_1)_1F(𝐱_2)|n𝐚_{\mathrm{}}_1𝐟(𝐱_1)_1𝐟(𝐱_2)_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{8nC_0(nL_2)^{n1}}𝐚_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Applying (3.14) now gives $`|_1F(𝐱_1)_1F(𝐱_2)|Q/(2n)`$ for all $`𝐱_1,𝐱_2U`$ with $`𝐱_1𝐱_2<r_1`$. This and (3.15) imply

$$|_1F(𝐲)||_1F(𝐱)||_1F(𝐱)_1F(𝐲)|>Q/(2n)$$

for all $`𝐲U`$ with $`𝐱𝐲<r_1`$.

As $`𝐱\frac{3}{4}`$, we have $`(𝐱,\mathrm{diam}/8)`$. Define $`r_0=\mathrm{min}(r_1,\mathrm{diam}/8)`$. Thus,

$$|_1F(𝐲)|>Q/(2n)\text{ for all }𝐲(𝐱,r_0).$$
(3.16)
Let $`|\theta |<r_0`$. Then $`𝐱_\theta =(x_1+\theta ,x_2,\mathrm{},x_d)(𝐱,r_0)`$, where $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$. By the Mean Value Theorem, we have $`F(𝐱_\theta )=F(𝐱)+_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta )\theta `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta (𝐱,r_0)`$. This can equivalently be written as

$$\frac{F(𝐱_\theta )}{_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta )}=\frac{F(𝐱)}{_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta )}+\theta .$$
(3.17)
Assume that $`Q>(n/(2r_0C_0))^{1/(n+1)}`$. This condition implies that for any

$$\theta [n/(2C_0)Q^{n1},n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}]$$

we have $`|\theta |<r_0`$, and therefore $`𝐱_\theta ,\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta (𝐱,r_0)`$. Now using (3.13) and (3.16) we get

$$|F(𝐱)/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta )|<n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}.$$

It follows from this and (3.17) that $`F(𝐱_\theta )/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_\theta )`$ is positive at $`\theta =n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}`$ and negative at $`\theta =n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}`$. By continuity, there is a number $`\theta _0`$ with

$$|\theta _0|<n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}$$

such that $`F(𝐱_{\theta _0})/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}_{\theta _0})=0`$, or, equivalently, $`F(𝐱_{\theta _0})=0`$. Define $`𝐳`$ to be $`𝐱_{\theta _0}`$. By construction, $`𝐳R_{𝐚,a_0}`$, and $`𝐱𝐳=|\theta _0|<n/(2C_0)Q^{n1}`$. This proves (3.10).

Now we are going to show (3.12). Assume that $`T>(C_4+1)/r_0`$. This condition and (3.10) imply that

$$(𝐳,T^1)(𝐱,r_0).$$

Let $`0<\gamma <T^1`$. By definition, for any point $`𝐲(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )`$ there is a point $`𝐲_0R_{𝐚,a_0}`$ such that $`𝐲𝐲_0<\gamma `$.

Assume that $`𝐲𝐲_0`$. Then, by the Mean Value Theorem, we have

$$F(𝐲)=F(𝐲_0)+F(𝐲_1)(𝐲𝐲_0)=F(𝐲_1)(𝐲𝐲_0)=(𝐚𝐟(𝐲_1))(𝐲𝐲_0),$$

where $`𝐲_1`$ is a point between $`𝐲_0`$ and $`𝐲`$. Using (3.14), we find that

$$|F(𝐲)|d𝐚f(𝐲_1)_{\mathrm{}}𝐲𝐲_0_{\mathrm{}}dn𝐚_{\mathrm{}}L_2\gamma C_5Q\gamma ,$$

where $`C_5=dn4C_0(nL_2)^{n1}L_2`$. It follows that

$$(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )(𝐳,T^1)\{𝐲(𝐳,T^1):|F(𝐲)|C_5Q\gamma \}.$$

Now using Lemma 2.4, this inclusion, (3.16), and the fact that $`(𝐳,T^1)(𝐱,r_0)`$, we obtain

$$|(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )(𝐳,T^1)|12nC_5\gamma T^{(d1)}.$$

This implies inequality (3.12) with $`K_3=12nC_5`$.

It remains to show (3.11). If $`d=1`$, then (3.11) holds with $`K_2=1/2`$. Thus we assume that $`d>1`$.

Define the constant

$$C_6=\mathrm{min}\{1/8,\frac{1}{16(d1)n^2L_2C_3^{1/(n+1)}}\}.$$

Let $`𝐳^{}=(z_2,\mathrm{},z_d)`$, where $`𝐳=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$. Fix any point $`𝐲^{}=(y_2,\mathrm{},y_d)^d`$ such that $`𝐲^{}𝐳^{}<C_6T^1`$. Given $`y_1`$, we define the point $`𝐲=(y_1,𝐲^{})=(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_d)`$. If $`|y_1z_1|T^1/8`$ then

$$𝐲𝐳=\sqrt{|y_1z_1|^2+𝐲^{}𝐳^{}^2}|y_1z_1|+𝐲^{}𝐳^{}<T^1/8+C_6T^1=T^1/4.$$
(3.18)
It follows that $`𝐲(𝐳,T^1/4)`$ whenever $`|y_1z_1|T^1/8`$. By the Mean Value Theorem,

$$F(𝐲)=F(𝐳)+F(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})(𝐲𝐳),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐲}(𝐳,T^1/4)`$. Since $`F(𝐳)=0`$, we obtain

$$F(𝐲)/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})=(y_1z_1)+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}_iF(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})(y_iz_i).$$
(3.19)
Using (3.14), (3.16) and the inequality $`𝐳^{}𝐲^{}<C_6T^1`$, we find that

$$\left|\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}_iF(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})(y_iz_i)\right|<T^1/8.$$

Therefore, the expression on the right of (3.19) is positive when $`y_1z_1=T^1/8`$ and is negative when $`y_1z_1=T^1/8`$. Thus, the function $`f(y_1)=F(𝐲)/_1F(\stackrel{~}{𝐲})`$ has different signs at $`\pm T^1/8`$. By the continuity, there is a point $`y_1(T^1/8,T^1/8)`$ such that $`f(y_1)=0`$, or, equivalently, $`F(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)=0`$.

Thus, we have proved that for any $`𝐲^{}`$ with $`𝐲^{}𝐳^{}<C_6T^1`$ there is a point $`y_1(𝐲^{})`$ such that $`𝐲=(y_1(𝐲^{}),𝐲^{})R_{𝐚,a_0}(𝐳,T^1/4)`$. It is now easy to see that for any $`\theta `$ with $`|\theta |T^1/4`$ we have $`(y_1(𝐲^{})+\theta ,𝐲^{})(𝐳,T^1/2)`$. Thus, for any positive $`\gamma `$ with $`\gamma <T^1`$ the set

$$A(\gamma )=\{(y_1(𝐲^{})+\theta ,𝐲^{}):𝐲^{}𝐳^{}<C_6T^1,|\theta |\gamma /4\}$$

satisfies

$$A(\gamma )(R_{𝐚,a_0},\gamma )(𝐳,T^1/2).$$
(3.20)
By the theorem of Fubini, it is easy to calculate that

$$|A(\gamma )|=|_{d1}(𝐳^{},C_6T^1)|_{d1}\gamma /2=|_{d1}(\mathrm{𝟎},C_6)|_{d1}/2\gamma T^{(d1)}.$$

Applying (3.20) now gives inequality (3.11) with $`K_2=|_{d1}(\mathrm{𝟎},C_6)|_{d1}/2`$. ∎

Now we proceed to prove Theorem 3.2.

Assume that $`Q>Q_0`$. Choose a collection

$$(𝐚_1,a_{0,1},𝐳_1),\mathrm{},(𝐚_t,a_{0,t},𝐳_t)(^n\{\mathrm{𝟎}\})\times \times \text{ with }𝐳_iR_{𝐚_i,a_{0,i}}$$

such that

$$Q^{n+1}=T/C_3N(R_{𝐚_i,a_{0,i}})T=C_3Q^{n+1}(1it)$$
(3.21)
and such that for any $`\gamma `$ with $`0<\gamma <T^1`$ we have

$$K_2\gamma T^{(d1)}|(R_{𝐚_i,a_{0,i}},\gamma )(𝐳_i,T^1/2)|(1it)$$
(3.22)
$$|(R_{𝐚_i,a_{0,i}},\gamma )(𝐳_i,T^1)|K_3\gamma T^{(d1)}(1it)$$
(3.23)
$$(𝐳_i,T^1/2)(𝐳_j,T^1/2)=\mathrm{}\text{ for all different }i,j\text{ (}1i,jt\text{)}$$
(3.24)
and the number $`t`$ is maximal possible.

By Proposition 3.3, for any point $`𝐱𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)`$ there is a triple

$$(𝐚,a_0,𝐳)(^n\{\mathrm{𝟎}\})\times \times \text{ with }𝐳R_{𝐚,a_0}$$

satisfying (3.9) — (3.12). By the maximality of $`t`$ there is an index $`i\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$ such that

$$(𝐳_i,T^1/2)(𝐳,T^1/2)\mathrm{}.$$

It follows that $`𝐳𝐳_i<T^1`$. This inequality and (3.10) imply that $`𝐱𝐳_i<(C_4+1)T^1`$. Therefore,

$$𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}(𝐳_i,(C_4+1)T^1).$$

By this inclusion and (3.21), we obtain

$$||/2|𝒢(;(4C_0)^1;Q)|t|(\mathrm{𝟎},C_4+1)|T^d.$$

Therefore, $`tK_1||T^d`$ with $`K_1=(2|(\mathrm{𝟎},C_4+1)|)^1`$.

Let $`\lambda (x)=x/C_3`$. Now, setting $`R_i=R_{𝐚_i,a_{0,i}}`$ and $`_i=(𝐳_i,T^1/2)`$ gives the required collections of resonant sets and balls in the definition of regular system. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2. ∎

## 4. Approximation by resonant sets

In this section we prove the following general result, which is an extension of Theorem 2 in \[Ber99b\].

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`U`$ be an open set in $`^d`$, and let $`(,N,s)`$ be a regular system in $`U`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:_+_+`$ be a non-increasing function such that the sum

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^{ds1}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(h)$$
(4.1)
diverges. Then for almost all points $`𝐱U`$ the inequality

$$\mathrm{dist}(𝐱,R)<\mathrm{\Psi }(N(R))$$
(4.2)
has infinitely many solutions $`R`$.

### 4.1. Auxiliary lemmas

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`E^d`$ be a measurable set, and let $`U^d`$ be an open subset. Assume that there is a constant $`\delta >0`$ such that for any finite ball $`U`$ we have $`|E|\delta ||`$. Then $`E`$ has full measure in $`U`$, i.e. $`|UE|=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{E}=UE`$. As $`U\stackrel{~}{E}=UE`$, for any ball $`U`$ we have $`|\stackrel{~}{E}|\delta ||`$. Next, for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a cover of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ consisting of balls $`_i`$ such that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i|\epsilon |\stackrel{~}{E}|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i|.$$

Notice that the sets $`_i\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`_i\stackrel{~}{E}`$ are disjoint and satisfy $`_i=(_i\stackrel{~}{E})(_i\stackrel{~}{E})`$. Then we get

$$|\stackrel{~}{E}|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i|\epsilon =\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i\stackrel{~}{E}|+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i\stackrel{~}{E}|\epsilon $$

$$\delta \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|_i|+\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_i\stackrel{~}{E}\right|\epsilon \delta |\stackrel{~}{E}|+|\stackrel{~}{E}|\epsilon .$$

Therefore, $`|\stackrel{~}{E}|\epsilon /\delta 0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is null and $`E`$ has full measure in $`U`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3 (Lemma 5, Chapter 1 in \[Spr79\]).

Let $`E_i^d`$ be a sequence of measurable sets, and let the set $`E`$ consist of points $`𝐱`$ belonging to infinitely many $`E_i`$. If there is a sufficiently large ball in $`^d`$ which contains all the sets $`E_i`$, and the sum $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}|E_i|`$ diverges, then

$$|E|\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|E_i|\right)^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|E_iE_j|}.$$
(4.3)
###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem 4.1, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(h)=\mathrm{min}\{ch^1,\mathrm{\Psi }(h)\}`$, where $`c>0`$ is a constant. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is non-increasing and the sum

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^{ds1}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{ds}(h)$$
(4.4)
diverges.

###### Proof.

The monotonicity of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is easily verified. Assume that (4.4) converges. Then, by the monotonicity, we have

$$l^{ds}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{ds}(l)\underset{l/2hl}{}h^{ds1}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{ds}(h)0\text{ as }l\mathrm{}.$$

It follows that $`l\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(l)=\mathrm{min}\{c,l\mathrm{\Psi }(l)\}0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$. This is possible only if $`l\mathrm{\Psi }(l)0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$. It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(l)=\mathrm{\Psi }(l)`$ for all sufficiently large $`l`$. Therefore, the sum (4.1) converges, contrary to the conditions of Lemma 4.4.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:_+_+`$ be non-increasing. Fix any $`d>0`$. Then the sums

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^{d1}\mathrm{\Psi }^d(h)\text{ and }\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{kd}\mathrm{\Psi }^d(2^k)$$

converge or diverge simultaneously.

###### Proof.

Using the monotonicity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we get the following inequalities

$$2^{(k+1)d}\mathrm{\Psi }^d(2^{k+1})\underset{2^kh<2^{k+1}}{}h^{d1}\mathrm{\Psi }^d(h)2^{kd}\mathrm{\Psi }^d(2^k).$$

Summing these over all $`k`$ gives the required property. ∎

### 4.2. Proof of Theorem 4.1

By Lemma 4.4, there is no loss of generality in assuming that for all $`h>0`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(h)h^1/2.$$
(4.5)
Fix any ball $`U`$ and set $`T=2^k`$. By Definition 1.5, there are constants $`K_1,K_2,K_3>0`$, which do not depend on $``$, and there is a sufficiently big number $`k_0`$ satisfying the following properties: for any natural number $`kk_0`$ there are resonant sets $`R_k^{(i)}`$ ($`1it_k`$) and balls $`_k^{(i)}`$ with $`2_k^{(i)}`$ ($`1it_k`$) such that

$$\lambda (2^k)N(R_k^{(i)})2^k(1it_k),$$
(4.6)
$$\mathrm{diam}_k^{(i)}=2^k(1it_k),$$
(4.7)
$$_k^{(i)}_k^{(j)}=\mathrm{}(1i,jt_k,ij),$$
(4.8)
$$K_2\gamma ^{ds}2^{sk}|(R_k^{(i)},\gamma )_k^{(i)}|,$$
(4.9)
and

$$|(R_k^{(i)},\gamma )2_k^{(i)}|K_3\gamma ^{ds}2^{sk}$$
(4.10)
for any $`\gamma `$, $`0<\gamma <2^k`$,

$$K_12^{dk}||t_k2^{dk}||.$$
(4.11)
For every natural number $`kk_0`$ and $`i\{1,\mathrm{},t_k\}`$ we define the sets

$$E_k^{(i)}=(R_k^{(i)},\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k))_k^{(i)}$$

and

$$E_k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t_k}{}}E_k^{(i)}.$$
(4.12)
It follows from (4.9) and (4.10) that

$$K_2\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)2^{sk}|E_k^{(i)}|K_3\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)2^{sk}.$$
(4.13)
It follows from (4.8) that

$$E_k^{(i)}E_k^{(j)}=\mathrm{}\text{ if }ij\text{}1i,jt_k.$$
(4.14)
Therefore, $`|E_k|=_{i=1}^{t_k}|E_k^{(i)}|`$. Using (4.11) and (4.13), we find that

$$K_1K_2\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)2^{(ds)k}|||E_k|2K_1K_3\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)2^{(ds)k}||.$$

Let $`\varphi _k=2^{(ds)k}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)`$. Then we have

$$K_1K_2||\varphi _k|E_k|2K_1K_3||\varphi _k.$$
(4.15)
Using the divergence of (4.1) and applying Lemma 4.5, we obtain

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _k=\mathrm{}.$$
(4.16)
It follows from (4.15) and (4.16) that $`_{k=k_0}^{\mathrm{}}|E_k|=\mathrm{}`$. Since $``$ is bounded and all the sets $`E_k`$ are contained in $``$, Lemma 4.3 can be applied to the sequence $`E_k`$. We are now going to obtain estimates for the numerator and the denominator in (4.3).

When $`K>k_0`$, inequalities (4.15) imply that

$$\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}|E_k|K_1K_2||\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _k.$$
(4.17)
Now we proceed to estimate the measure of $`E_kE_l`$. Let $`k_0k<lK`$, where $`K>k_0`$. Using (4.12), we can write

$$E_lE_k^{(i)}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{t_l}{}}E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}.$$

By (4.13), we find that $`|E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}|K_3\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^l)2^{sl}`$. Hence,

$$|E_lE_k^{(i)}|K_3\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^l)2^{sl}q(l,k,i),$$
(4.18)
where $`q(l,k,i)`$ is the number of different indices $`j`$ such that $`E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}\mathrm{}`$.

Now we will estimate $`q(l,k,i)`$. Using (4.7) and (4.8), we get

$$\left|\underset{j=1,\mathrm{},t_l:E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}\mathrm{}}{}_l^{(j)}\right|=|(\mathrm{𝟎},2^l/2)|q(l,k,i)=$$

$$=|(\mathrm{𝟎},1/2)|2^{dl}q(l,k,i).$$
(4.19)
Consider any ball $`_l^{(j)}`$ such that $`E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}\mathrm{}`$. Fix a point $`𝐱E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}`$. By the definition of $`E_k^{(i)}`$, there is a point $`𝐳R_k^{(i)}`$ such that

$$𝐱𝐳<\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k).$$
(4.20)
Next, since $`𝐱E_l^{(j)}_l^{(j)}`$, for any point $`𝐲_l^{(j)}`$ we have

$$𝐲𝐱<\mathrm{diam}_l^{(j)}=2^l.$$
(4.21)
Then, using (4.20) and (4.21), we obtain

$$𝐲𝐳<𝐲𝐱+𝐱𝐳<2^l+\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k).$$

Therefore,

$$\mathrm{dist}(𝐲,R_k^{(i)})<2^l+\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k),$$

whence

$$_l^{(j)}(R_k^{(i)},2^l+\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k)).$$
(4.22)
Let $`𝐱_0`$ denote the center of $`_k^{(i)}`$. For $`𝐱E_k^{(i)}_k^{(i)}`$, we have

$$𝐱𝐱_0<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}_k^{(i)}.$$
(4.23)
Using the inequality $`l>k`$ and (4.21), we obtain

$$𝐱𝐲<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}_k^{(i)}.$$

On combining the last inequality with (4.23), we get

$$𝐲𝐱_0<𝐲𝐱+𝐱𝐱_0<\mathrm{diam}_k^{(i)}.$$

Thus, $`_l^{(j)}2_k^{(i)}`$. Using this inclusion and (4.22) gives

$$\underset{j=1,\mathrm{},t_l:E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}\mathrm{}}{}_l^{(j)}(R_k^{(i)},2^l+\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k))2_k^{(i)}.$$
(4.24)
Now, applying (4.10), (4.24), and the monotonicity of the measure, we derive

$$\left|\underset{j=1,\mathrm{},t_l:E_l^{(j)}E_k^{(i)}\mathrm{}}{}_l^{(j)}\right|K_3(2^l+\mathrm{\Psi }(2^k))^{ds}2^{sk}$$

$$K_32^{ds}(2^{l(ds)}+\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k))2^{sk}.$$

On combining this inequality and (4.19), we obtain

$$q(l,k,i)2^{s(lk)}+2^{dl}2^{sk}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k).$$
(4.25)
It follows from (4.18) and (4.25) that

$$|E_lE_k^{(i)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^l)2^{sk}+2^{(ds)l}2^{sk}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k)\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^l).$$
(4.26)
Since the number of different sets $`E_k^{(i)}`$ does not exceed $`t_k`$, we have

$$|E_lE_k|t_k\underset{1it_k}{\mathrm{max}}|E_lE_k^{(i)}|.$$

Using this inequality, (4.11), and (4.26), we get

$$|E_lE_k|||\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^l)2^{(ds)k}\times $$

$$\times (1+2^{(ds)l}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(2^k))=||(2^{(ds)(lk)}\varphi _l+\varphi _k\varphi _l).$$
(4.27)
For arbitrary $`l,k`$ with $`k_0l,kK`$, we have

$$|E_lE_k|||(2^{(ds)|lk|}\varphi _l+\varphi _k\varphi _l).$$
(4.28)
By (4.16), there is a sufficiently big number $`K^{}`$ such that for all $`K>K^{}`$

$$\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _k>1.$$
(4.29)
Let $`K>K^{}`$. Now using (4.15), (4.27), and (4.29), we calculate

$$\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}|E_lE_k|||\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _k\varphi _l+||\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}2^{(ds)|lk|}\varphi _l$$

$$||\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _k\varphi _l+||\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _l\underset{k}{}2^{(ds)|lk|}=$$

$$=||\left(\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _l\right)^2+(1+2^{sd})/(12^{sd})||\underset{l=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _l||\left(\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{K}{}}\varphi _k\right)^2$$

where the implicit constant in this estimate does not depend on either $``$ or $`K`$. Using (4.17) now gives

$$\frac{\left(_{k=k_0}^K|E_k|\right)^2}{_{l=k_0}^K_{k=k_0}^K|E_lE_k|}||$$
(4.30)
when $`K>K^{}`$. By Lemma 4.3, the set $`E`$ consisting of points $`𝐱`$ which belong to infinitely many sets $`E_k`$ has measure $`(K_1K_2)^2/C_{10}||`$.

Using the monotonicity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and inequalities (4.6), it is easy to see that for any point $`𝐱E`$ inequality (4.2) has infinitely many solutions. Let $`(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ denote the set of points $`𝐱U`$ such that inequality (4.2) has infinitely many solutions. Then

$$E(\mathrm{\Psi }).$$

It follows that

$$|(\mathrm{\Psi })||E|||.$$

By Lemma 4.2, the set $`(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ has full measure in $`U`$. The proof of Theorem 4.1 is completed.

## 5. Proof of the main theorem

It is obvious that we can restrict ourselves to a sufficiently small ball $`_0`$ centered at a point belonging to a set with full measure in $`U`$. By Theorem 3.2 we can take $`_0`$ to be such that $`(,N,s)`$ is a regular system in $`_0`$, where $`s=d1`$, $`N`$ and $``$ are defined in the statement of Theorem 3.2. Define the sequence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by setting

$$dnL_2h\mathrm{\Psi }(h^{n+1})=\psi (h^n).$$

Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k)=k^{1/(n+1)}\psi (k^{n/(n+1)})/dnL_2`$. Since $`\psi `$ is non-increasing, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is non-increasing as well. Next, we calculate

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^{ds1}\mathrm{\Psi }^{ds}(h)=\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(h)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{dnL_2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{(k1)^{(n+1)/n}<hk^{(n+1)/n}}{}h^{1/(n+1)}\psi (h^{n/(n+1)})$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{(k1)^{(n+1)/n}<hk^{(n+1)/n}}{}k^{1/n}\psi (k)\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi (k)=\mathrm{}.$$

By Theorem 4.1, for almost all $`𝐱U`$ there are infinitely many $`(𝐚,a_0)^n\times `$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{dist}(𝐱,R_{𝐚,a_0})<\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^{n+1}).$$
(5.1)
It follows from (5.1) that there is a point $`𝐳R_{𝐚,a_0}`$ such that

$$𝐱𝐳<\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^{n+1}).$$
(5.2)
By the definition of $`R_{𝐚,a_0}`$, we have $`F(𝐳)=𝐚𝐟(𝐳)+a_0=0`$. Using the Mean Value Theorem, we obtain

$$F(𝐱)=F(𝐳)+F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱})(𝐱𝐳)=F(\stackrel{~}{𝐱})(𝐱𝐳)=(𝐚𝐟(\stackrel{~}{𝐱}))(𝐱𝐳).$$
(5.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐱}`$ is a point between $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐳`$. Using (3.8), we find that

$$|𝐚𝐟(𝐱)|=|F(𝐱)|d𝐚f(\stackrel{~}{𝐱})_{\mathrm{}}𝐱𝐳_{\mathrm{}}<dn𝐚_{\mathrm{}}L_2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^{n+1})=\psi (𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^n).$$
(5.4)
As we have shown above, for almost all $`𝐱U`$ there are infinitely many $`(𝐚,a_0)^n\times `$ satisfying (5.1). Therefore, for almost all $`𝐱U`$ there are infinitely many $`𝐚`$ satisfying (5.4). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.6.

## 6. Concluding remarks

In this section we give a brief account of other results in metric Diophantine approximation and state the most important problems in this field. Also we discuss possible developments of the theory of regular systems and difficulties that prevent us from proving multiplicative divergence Khintchine type results.

### 6.1. Simultaneous approximation

The point $`𝐲^n`$ is called simultaneously $`\psi `$-approximable if

$$q𝐲_{\mathrm{}}^n<\psi (q)$$
(6.1)
has infinitely many solutions $`q`$. By the Khintchine transference principle, a point $`𝐲^n`$ is very well approximable if and only if it is simultaneously $`\psi _\epsilon `$-approximable for some positive $`\epsilon `$, where $`\psi _\epsilon (h)=h^{(1+\epsilon )}`$. Unfortunately there is no such connection between simultaneous and dual approximation for general approximation functions $`\psi `$ that would make it possible to derive a Khintchine type theorem for the simultaneous case from the dual and visa verse. However, it has been known since the 1926 paper of Khintchine that almost all (almost no) points of $`^n`$ are simultaneously $`\psi `$-approximable if the sum (1.2) diverges (converges).

Let $``$ be a submanifold of $`^n`$. One says that $``$ is of Khintchine type for divergence $`(`$for convergence$`)`$ if almost all (almost no) points of $``$ are simultaneously $`\psi `$-approximable whenever the sum (1.2) diverges (converges).

We mostly deal with monotonic approximation errors. However, it is worth saying that for $`n>1`$ an analogue of Khintchine’s theorem for non-monotonic error function has been obtained by A. Pollington and R. Vaughan \[PV90\], who proved a multidimensional analogue of the Duffin–Schaeffer conjecture.

Only special manifolds have been proved to be of Khintchine type. Bernik \[Ber79\] has shown that the parabola $`\{(x,x^2):x\}`$ is of Khintchine type for convergence. He has also proved with a method of trigonometric sums that any manifold given as a topological product of at least 4 planar curves with curvatures non-vanishing almost everywhere is of Khintchine type for both convergence and divergence \[Ber73\]. A class of manifolds in $`^n`$ with a special geometrical property, which substantially restricts the dimension of the manifolds, has been proved to be of Khintchine type for both convergence and divergence \[DRV91, DRV96\].

In the Khintchine type theory for simultaneous Diophantine approximation the following is regarded as the main problem.

Problem 1. Prove that a non-degenerate manifold $``$ in $`^n`$ is of Khintchine type for convergence and for divergence.

It is of interest to consider some special cases of Problem 6.1 such as the circle, the sphere and others. There remain two classical special cases of Problem 6.1: to prove that for $`n3`$ the curve $`𝒱_n`$ is of Khintchine type for convergence and to prove that for $`n2`$ the curve $`𝒱_n`$ is of Khintchine type for divergence.

One difficulty in the simultaneous Diophantine approximation is that there is no longer the dichotomy of big/small derivative (the derivative is always big) but the investigated sets are quite rare. Thus one needs a considerably new technique to break through the problem.

A much deeper problem is to prove asymptotic formulae for the number of solutions of Diophantine inequalities under consideration. This remains unsettled for both linear and simultaneous approximation.

### 6.2. Multiplicative results

The point $`𝐲^n`$ is said to be $`\psi `$-multiplicatively approximable if the inequality

$$|𝐚𝐱|<\psi (\mathrm{\Pi }_+(𝐚))$$
(6.2)
has infinitely many solutions $`𝐚^n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(𝐚)=_{i=1}^n\mathrm{max}(|a_i|,1).`$ One can define very well multiplicatively approximable points to be $`\psi _\epsilon `$-multiplicatively approximable for some positive $`\epsilon `$, with $`\psi _\epsilon (h)=h^{1\epsilon }`$.

By the Borel–Cantelli lemma, almost all points of $`^n`$ are not $`\psi `$-multiplicatively approximable whenever the sum

$$\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{log}h)^{n1}\psi (h)$$
(6.3)
converges. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(𝐚)`$ is not greater than $`𝐚_{\mathrm{}}^n`$, any $`\psi `$-approximable point is automatically $`\psi `$-multiplicatively approximable. Therefore, a very well approximable point is also very well multiplicatively approximable.

A manifold $``$ is said to be of multiplicative Groshev type for divergence $`(`$convergence$`)`$ if almost all (almost no) points of $``$ are multiplicatively $`\psi `$-approximable whenever the sum (6.3) diverges (converges). A manifold $``$ is said to be strongly extremal if almost all points of $``$ are not very well multiplicatively approximable.

The problem of proving strong extremality in connection with multiplicative approximation was first raised by Baker in \[Bak90, Ch. 9, p. 96\]. The question, as initially proposed, related to the Veronese curve and it was later generalized to any non-degenerate manifold by Sprindzuk. Baker was motivated in part by the non-metrical instances of specific points known to have the property of strong extremality, i.e. the algebraic numbers and powers of $`e`$ \[Bak90, Ch. 7 and Ch. 10\].

Kleinbock and Margulis \[KM98\] proved that any non-degenerate manifold is strongly extremal, and later jointly with Bernik \[BKM99\] they have shown a stronger result that these manifolds are of multiplicative Groshev type for convergence. They even proved a more general result, to be stated in Section 6.3. No manifold (except $`^n`$ itself) has ever been shown to be of multiplicative Groshev type for divergence.

The difficulty of proving multiplicative Groshev type theorems for divergence with the method of this paper is that Minkowski’s theorem on convex bodies cannot be efficiently extended to non-convex bodies, e.g. star bodies, which appear in the context of multiplicative approximation. One might try to relax the definition of regular system used in this paper by taking a multi-valued function $`N`$ to control any possible difference in the magnitude of integer coefficients. But in this way one would loose a sufficient estimate for denominators in (4.3). Thus more investigation is required to prove a multiplicative Groshev type theorem for divergence.

Problem 2. Prove that any non-degenerate manifold is of multiplicative Groshev type for divergence.

One can also consider a multiplicative version of simultaneous Diophantine approximation when one replaces the right hand side of (6.1) with $`_{i=1}^n|qy_i|`$. Khintchine type theorems for this type of approximation have never been proved for convergence or for divergence.

### 6.3. A general approximation function

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:_+`$, $`n,m`$. The point $`𝐲^{nm}`$ is said to be $`(\mathrm{\Psi },n,m)`$-approximable if the inequality

$$\mathrm{𝐚𝐲}_{\mathrm{}}^m<\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚)$$
(6.4)
has infinitely many solutions $`𝐚^n`$. The point $`𝐲`$ is considered to be a matrix with $`n`$ rows and $`m`$ columns.

Due to Schmidt \[Sch60, Sch64a\] one knows the following most general result on Diophantine approximation of independent quantities.

Let $`m,n`$, $`n2`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }:^n_+`$. Almost all (almost no) points $`𝐲^{nm}`$ are $`(\mathrm{\Psi },n,m)`$-approximable whenever the sum

$$\underset{𝐚^n}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚)$$
(6.5)
diverges (converges).

For the case of $`m=1`$ and under some monotonicity restrictions on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, Bernik, Kleinbock and Margulis extended the convergence part of this result to non-degenerate manifolds. More precisely, assuming that for every $`i=\overline{1,n}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(q_1,\mathrm{},q_i,\mathrm{},q_n)\mathrm{\Psi }(q_1,\mathrm{},q_i^{},\mathrm{},q_n)\text{whenever}|q_i||q_i^{}|\text{ and }q_iq_i^{}>0,$$
(6.6)
they proved that almost no point $`𝐲`$ is $`(\mathrm{\Psi },n,1)`$-approximable whenever the sum (6.5)m=1 converges, where $``$ is a given non-degenerate manifold.

Problem 3. Assuming (6.6), prove that almost all points $`𝐲`$ are $`(\mathrm{\Psi },n,1)`$-approximable whenever the sum (6.5) diverges, where $``$ is a given non-degenerate manifold.

It is also of interest to investigate Diophantine approximation (of any type) with non-monotonic error function (right hand side of inequalities).

Another interesting problem is to find reasonable conditions of the entries of the matrix $`𝐲`$ in (6.4) when they are dependent, so that one would have an extremality type or Khintchine–Groshev (or Schmidt) type theorem.

### 6.4. Hausdorff dimension

The first results on the Hausdorff dimension of sets arising in Diophantine approximation are due to V. Jarnik and A.S. Besicovitch. They found the exact value of the Hausdorff dimension of the set of $`w`$-approximable points (i.e. $`\psi _{w/n1}`$-approximable points with $`\psi _\epsilon (h)=h^{1\epsilon }`$) in the real line.

The first general method for obtaining lower bounds for the Hausdorff dimension was suggested by Baker and Schmidt. They introduced the concept of regular systems, which made it possible to efficiently describe the distribution of objects that were used for approximation. Baker and Schmidt have proved with their method that the set of $`w`$-approximable points on $`𝒱_n`$ has dimension at least $`\frac{n+1}{w+1}`$, and conjectured that this number is the right upper bound as well. The Baker–Schmidt conjecture was proved by Bernik \[Ber83\] in 1983. Extending the ideas of Baker and Schmidt, Dodson and H. Dickinson \[DD00\] have shown that for any extremal manifold $``$ in $`^n`$ the set of $`w`$-approximable points on the manifold has Hausdorff dimension at least $`\frac{n+1}{w+1}+dim1`$. Thus we’ve got a very natural

Problem 4. Let $`w>n`$ and $``$ be a non-degenerate manifold in $`^n`$. Prove that the Hausdorff dimension of $`w`$-approximable points on $``$ is exactly $`\frac{n+1}{w+1}+dim1`$.

Also, Dodson \[Dod92, Dod93\] has investigated the Hausdorff dimension of the set of $`(\mathrm{\Psi },n,m)`$-approximable points when $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐚)=\psi (𝐚_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`\psi :_+_+`$ and Dickinson and S. Velani \[DV97\] answered a very general question of the Hausdorff measure (with respect to a general dimension function) of this set and proved a Khintchine–Groshev type theorem.

The problem of calculating the Hausdorff dimension in the case of simultaneous Diophantine approximation seems to be even more complicated (see \[BD99, pp. 92–98\]). The Hausdorff dimension of simultaneously $`v`$-approximable points (i.e. simultaneously $`\psi _{(nv1)}`$-approximable with $`\psi _\epsilon (h)=h^{1\epsilon }`$) with $`v`$ big enough seems to depend on arithmetic and other properties of the manifold one would like to approximate (see \[BD99, pp. 90–98\]). However there might be a general formula for $`v`$ close to the extremal exponent $`1/n`$.

### 6.5. Beyond the non-degeneracy condition

Looking for new classes of extremal, Khintchine or Groshev type manifolds is a challenging task. The simplest ones for which the non-degeneracy condition fails are proper affine subspaces of $`^n`$. They have been studied in several papers in the past, and some conditions (written in terms of Diophantine properties of coefficients of parametrizing equations) have been found sufficient for their extremality \[Sch64b, Spr79\] and, in the case of straight lines passing through the origin, for being of Groshev type for both convergence and divergence \[BBDD00\].

Recently, in a preprint \[Kle02\] by Kleinbock, using the dynamical approach of \[KM98\], necessary and sufficient conditions for extremality and strong extremality of any affine subspace of $`^n`$ have been written down. Also it has been shown there that a smooth submanifold $``$ of an affine subspace $``$ of $`^n`$ is extremal (resp. strongly extremal) whenever $``$ is such, provided $``$ is non-degenerate in $``$. The latter notion is a straightforward generalization of Definition 1.5, so that a submanifold $``$ of $``$ is non-degenerate in $``$ if it can not be “too well” approximated by hyperplanes contained in $``$.

This naturally leads to the following

Problem 5. Find criteria for an affine subspace $``$ of $`^n`$ being of Groshev type for convergence or divergence; or, given a specific function $`\psi `$ such that the sum (1.2) diverges (converges), find necessary and sufficient conditions for almost all (almost no) points of $``$ being $`\psi `$-approximable. Also, prove that the aforementioned properties of $``$ are inherited by its submanifolds which are non-degenerate in $``$.

It is also worthwhile to mention that one can investigate Diophantine properties of almost all (almost no) points with respect to measures other than Lebesgue measures on smooth manifolds. The latter can be supported on fractal subsets of $``$ (see \[Wei01\]) or $`^n`$ (\[KLW02\], the work currently in progress).

Acknowledgments. Bernik, Kleinbock and Margulis are grateful to SFB-343 and Humboldt Foundation for the support of their 1999 stay at the University of Bielefeld, where a preliminary form of this paper was discussed. Beresnevich is grateful to EPSRC for the support of his stay at the University of York in 2000, where a part of the paper was written, and to Prof. Maurice Dodson for his hospitality and making arrangements for this stay.


format: text

text:
# Right-handed Neutrinos in Low-Energy Neutrino-Electron Scattering

## Appendix A Muon neutrino observables

The formulas for the transverse components of neutrino polarization (T-odd and T-even, respectively) in case of non-vanishing neutrino mass $`(m_\nu 0)`$, when the induced couplings are enclosed and $`\widehat{𝐏}_\mu `$, $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ are perpendicular to each other, are as follows:

$`<𝐒_\nu (\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})>_f`$ $``$ $`Tr\{𝐒_\nu (\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})\rho _f\}={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}|𝐏_\mu |({\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})Im((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R),`$ (19)
$`<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐏}_\mu >_f`$ $``$ $`Tr\{𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐏}_\mu \rho _f\}={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}|𝐏_\mu |\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }}(|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2+C_S^R^2)\},`$
where $`g_V^L,g_A^L`$ \- the induced couplings of the left-handed neutrinos, i.e. the weak magnetism and induced pseudoscalar, respectively; $`m_\mu ,q,E_\nu ,m_\nu ,M`$ \- the muon mass, the value of the neutrino momentum, its energy, its mass and the nucleon mass. If $`m_\nu 0,q/E_\nu 1`$ and the mass terms vanish in all the observables.

## Appendix B General form of muon neutrino observables

General results for the transverse components of the neutrino polarization, in the limit of vanishing neutrino mass $`(m_\nu 0)`$, when the induced couplings are enclosed and $`\widehat{𝐏}_\mu `$, $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ are not perpendicular to each other, are as follows:

$`<𝐒_\nu (\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}|𝐏_\mu |((\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})^\mathrm{𝟐}1)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})Im((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R),`$ (21)
$`<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐏}_\mu >_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}\{|𝐏_\mu |((\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})^\mathrm{𝟐}1)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R)`$
$`+|𝐏_\mu |(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})^\mathrm{𝟐}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_S^R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}1)|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2]`$
$`+(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_S^R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2]\}.`$
It can be seen that if $`\widehat{𝐏}_\mu ||\widehat{𝐪}`$, $`m_\nu 0`$, one gives $`<𝐒_\nu (\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})>_f0`$ (Eq. B1), and $`<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐏}_\mu >_f\text{(Eq. B2) }<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐪}>_f`$ (Eq. D3).

## Appendix C Nuclear observables and longitudinal neutrino polarization

The formulas for the longitudinal and transverse components of neutron polarization (T-even and T-odd components respectively), and for the longitudinal neutrino polarization (T-even quantity), in the case of non-vanishing neutrino mass $`(m_\nu 0)`$, when the induced couplings are enclosed and $`\widehat{𝐏}_\mu `$, $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ are perpendicular to each other, are as follows:

$`<𝐉_𝐧\widehat{𝐪}>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2Re[(2{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }})(C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L)C_S^R]\},`$
$`<𝐉_𝐧(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}|𝐏_\mu |Im\{({\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})(C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}(C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R\},`$
$`<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐪}>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}\{({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}})|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{E_\nu }}C_S^R^2+Re[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}(C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L){\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}(C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)C_S^R]\}.`$
It can be seen that in these observables the occurrence of the interference term between the standard $`C_{V,A}^L`$ couplings and exotic $`C_S^R`$ coupling depends explicitly on the neutrino mass. This dependence causes the ”conspiracy” of the interference term and makes the measurement of the relative phase between the standard $`C_{V,A}^L`$ and exotic $`C_S^R`$ impossible because $`(m_\nu /E_\nu )(q/2M)`$ is very small.

## Appendix D General form of nuclear observables and of longitudinal neutrino polarization

General results for the longitudinal and transverse components of neutron polarization and for the longitudinal neutrino polarization, in the limit of vanishing neutrino mass $`(m_\nu 0)`$, when the induced couplings are enclosed and $`\widehat{𝐏}_\mu `$, $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ are not perpendicular to each other, are as follows:

$`<𝐉_𝐧\widehat{𝐪}>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}\{[(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))+|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2]`$ (26)
$`+|𝐏_\mu |(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})[Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))+|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2]\},`$
$`<𝐉_𝐧(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \times \widehat{𝐪})>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}|𝐏_\mu |((\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})^\mathrm{𝟐}1)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})Im((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L)),`$ (27)
$`<𝐒_\nu \widehat{𝐪}>_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\mu (0)^2}{4\pi }}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_S^R^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2]`$
$`+|𝐏_\mu |(\widehat{𝐏}_\mu \widehat{𝐪})[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}Re((C_V^L+2Mg_V^L)(C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(C_S^R^2+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}})|C_V^L+2Mg_V^L|^2+({\displaystyle \frac{q}{M}}1)|C_A^L+m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2M}}g_A^L|^2)]\}.`$
## Appendix E Four-vector neutrino polarization and Michel-Wightman density matrix

The formulas for the 4-vector initial neutrino polarization in its rest frame and for the initial neutrino moving with the momentum $`𝐪`$, respectively, are as follows:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`(0,𝜼_𝝂),`$ (29)
$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜼_𝝂𝐪}{E_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\nu }}\left(\begin{array}{c}E_\nu \\ 𝐪\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 𝜼_𝝂\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝜼_𝝂𝐪}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 𝐪\end{array}\right),`$ (36)
where $`𝜼_𝝂`$ \- the full 3-vector of the initial neutrino polarization in its rest frame. The formulas for the Michel-Wightman density matrix in the case of the polarized neutrinos with the non-zero neutrino mass and in the limit of vanishing neutrino mass, respectively, are as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^{(s)}={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}u_\nu \overline{u}_\nu [1+\gamma _5(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )][(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )+m_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`[(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )+m_\nu +\gamma _5(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )+\gamma _5(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )m_\nu ],`$ (37)
$`(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜼_𝝂𝐪}{E_\nu m_\nu }}(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )(𝜼_𝝂{\displaystyle \frac{(𝜼_𝝂𝐪)𝐪}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}})𝜸,`$ (38)
$`(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }}𝜼_𝝂𝐪(𝜼_𝝂{\displaystyle \frac{(𝜼_𝝂𝐪)𝐪}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}})𝜸(q^\mu \gamma _\mu ),`$ (39)
$`(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )m_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜼_𝝂𝐪}{E_\nu }}(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )m_\nu (𝜼_𝝂{\displaystyle \frac{(𝜼_𝝂𝐪)𝐪}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}})𝜸,`$ (40)
$`\underset{m_\nu 0}{lim}[1+\gamma _5(S^{}_{}{}^{}\mu \gamma _\mu )][(q^\mu \gamma _\mu )+m_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`[1+\gamma _5[{\displaystyle \frac{𝜼_𝝂𝐪}{|𝐪|}}(𝜼_𝝂{\displaystyle \frac{(𝜼_𝝂𝐪)𝐪}{|𝐪|^2}})𝜸]](q^\mu \gamma _\mu ).`$ (41)
###### Acknowledgements.

I am greatly indebted to Prof. S. Ciechanowicz for many useful and helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Foundation for Polish Science.