You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
In this chapter, we prove Theorem 1.4. As in the original work of Weiss (see [52]), we will use the so-called Federer’s dimension reduction principle, which first appeared in [32].
This chapter is organized as follows.
-
In Sect. 10.1 we give the definitions of the Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff dimension; we also state and prove the main properties of the Hausdorff measure, which we will need for the proof of Theorem 1.4.
-
In Sect. 10.2 we give a general result for the convergence of the singular sets of a sequence of functions.
-
In Sect. 10.3 we study the structure of the singular set of the one-homogeneous global minimizers of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \).
-
Finally, in Sect. 10.4, we use the results of the previous subsections (Lemmas 10.7 and 10.12) to prove Theorem 1.4.
10.1 Hausdorff Measure and Hausdorff Dimension
In this section we define the notions of Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff dimension and we also give their main properties. For more details, we refer to the book [31].
We recall that, for every s > 0, δ ∈ (0, +∞] and every set \(E\subset \mathbb {R}^d\),
where, for any s ∈ (0, +∞), the constant ω s is defined as
Definition 10.1 (Hausdorff Measure)
For any s ≥ 0, \(\mathcal {H}^s(E)\) denotes the s-dimensional Hausdorff measure of a set \(E\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) and is defined as:
Remark 10.2
The constant in (10.1) is chosen in such a way that we have
Definition 10.3
The Hausdorff dimension of a set \(E\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) is defined as
The following elementary properties of the Hausdorff measure are an immediate consequence of the definitions of \(\mathcal H^s\), \(\mathcal H^s_\delta \) and \(\mathcal H^s_\infty \).
Proposition 10.4 (Properties of the Hausdorff Measure)
-
(i)
For every s > 0 and δ ∈ (0, ∞], the set functionals \(\mathcal H^s\) and \(\mathcal H^s_\delta \) are translation invariant and increasing with respect to the set inclusion. Moreover, we have
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}^s(rE)=r^s\mathcal{H}^s(E)\quad \mathit{\text{and}}\quad \mathcal{H}^s_\infty(rE)=r^s\mathcal{H}^s_\infty(E)\quad \mathit{\text{for any}}\quad E\subset\mathbb{R}^d\quad \mathit{\text{and}}\quad r>0. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
The function \(\delta \mapsto \mathcal {H}^s_\delta \) is non-decreasing in δ. In particular, we have
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}^s(E)\le \mathcal{H}^s_\delta(E)\le \mathcal{H}^s_\infty(E)\quad \mathit{\text{for any}}\quad E\subset\mathbb{R}^d\quad \mathit{\text{and any}}\quad \delta>0. \end{aligned}$$ -
(iii)
Given s > 0 and \(E\subset \mathbb {R}^{d}\) , we have that
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}^s(E)=0\quad \mathit{\text{if and only if}}\quad \mathcal{H}^{s}_\infty(E)=0. \end{aligned}$$ -
(iv)
Given a sequence of sets \(E_j\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) , s > 0 and δ ∈ (0, +∞] we have that
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}^s_\delta(E)\le \sum_{j=1}^\infty \mathcal{H}^s_\delta(E_j)\qquad \mathit{\text{where}}\qquad E=\bigcup_{j=1}^\infty E_j. \end{aligned}$$In particular, \(\mathcal {H}^s(E)=0\) if and only if \(\mathcal {H}^{s}(E_j)=0\) , for every j ≥ 1.
Lemma 10.5 (Existence of Points of Positive Density)
Let s > 0 and let \(K\subset \mathbb {R}^{d}\) be a given set. If \(\mathcal {H}^s(K)>0\) , then there is a point x 0 ∈ K such that
Proof
Suppose that (10.2) does not hold. Then, we have
Let K δ,ε ⊂ K be the set
By (10.3), we have that
Let now δ and ε be fixed and let {U i}i≥1 be a family of sets of diameter diam U i ≤ δ such that K δ,ε ⊂⋃ iU i. Then, the subadditivity of \(\mathcal {H}^s_\delta \) gives that
where the last inequality holds since the set U i ∩ K is contained in a ball of radius
Taking the infimum over all coverings C i with sets of diameter less than or equal to δ, we get that
and so, for ε small enough, \(\mathcal {H}^s_\delta (K_{\delta ,{\varepsilon }})=0\), which implies that \(\mathcal {H}^s(K_{\delta ,{\varepsilon }})=0\). Finally, (10.4) and the subadditivity of \(\mathcal {H}^s\) imply that \(\mathcal {H}^s(K)=0\), which is a contradiction. □
Lemma 10.6 (Dimension Reduction: Lemma I)
Let s > 0. Let \(E\subset \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) be a given set and let \(\tilde E=E\times \mathbb {R}\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) . If \(\mathcal {H}^s(E)=0\) , then also \(\mathcal {H}^{s+1}(\tilde E)=0\).
Proof
We will prove that \(\mathcal {H}^{s+1}(E\times [0,T])=0\) for every T > 0. In fact, this implies that \(\mathcal {H}^{s+1}(E\times [-T,T])=0\) and since
we get \(\mathcal {H}^{s+1}(\tilde E)=0\).
Since \(\mathcal {H}^s(E)=0\), for every ε > 0, there is a family of balls \(B^{\prime }_{r_i}(x_i)\subset \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) such that
Let now T be fixed. For every \(i\in \mathbb {N}\), we consider the point \(x_{i,k}\in \mathbb {R}^d\) of coordinates x i,k = (x i, kr i), for k = 0, 1, …, K i, where \(K_i:=\left [{T}/{r_i}\right ]+1\) and the family of balls \(B_{2r_i}(x_{i,k})\). Notice that
Thus, the family of balls \(\{B_{2r_i}(x_{i,k})\}_{i,k}\) is a covering of E × [0, T]. We now estimate,
where the last inequality follows by the fact that, for T large enough,
Thus, we get
which concludes the proof. □
10.2 Convergence of the Singular Sets
In this section we will prove a general result (Lemma 10.7) for the convergence of the singular sets, which applies both to minimizers of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) (Theorem 1.4) and to measure-constrained minimizers (Theorem 1.9). Recall that, if \(D\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) is an open set, \(u:D\to \mathbb {R}\) a given (continuous and non-negative) function, then for every ball B r(x 0) ⊂ D, we define
We say that a boundary point x 0 ∈ ∂ Ωu ∩ D is regular (and we write x 0 ∈ Reg(∂ Ωu)), if there is a sequence r n → 0 such that
where for simplicity we set
and we recall that
We say that a point x 0 is singular if it is not regular, that is, if
Lemma 10.7 (Convergence of the Singular Sets)
Suppose that \(D\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) is a bounded open set. Let \(u_n:D\to \mathbb {R}\) be a sequence of continuous non-negative functions satisfying the following conditions:
-
(a)
Uniform ε -regularity. There are constants ε > 0 and R > 0 such that the following holds:
if \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(x_0\in \partial \Omega _{u_n}\cap D\) and r ∈ (0, R) are such that B r(x 0) ⊂ D and
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \|u_n-h_\nu(\cdot-x_0)\|{}_{L^\infty(B_r(x_0))}\le{\varepsilon} r \quad \mathit{\text{for some}}\quad \nu\in\partial B_1, \end{aligned}$$then \(\partial \Omega _{u_n}=\mathit{\text{Reg}}\,(\partial \Omega _{u_n})\) in B r∕2(x 0).
-
(b)
Uniform non-degeneracy. There are constants κ > 0 and r 0 > 0 such that the following holds: if \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(x_0\in \partial \Omega _{u_n}\cap D\) and r ∈ (0, r 0) are such that B r(x 0) ⊂ D, then
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \|u_n\|{}_{L^\infty(B_r(x_0))}\ge \kappa\,r\,. \end{aligned}$$ -
(c)
Uniform convergence. The sequence u n converges locally uniformly in D to a (continuous and non-negative) function \(u_0:D\to \mathbb {R}\).
Then, for every compact set K ⊂ D, the following claim does hold:
In particular, for every s > 0,
Proof
The semicontinuity of the Hausdorff measure (10.6) follows by (10.5) and the definition of \(\mathcal {H}^s_\infty \). Thus, it is sufficient to prove (10.5). Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there are a compact set K ⊂ D and an open set U ⊂ D such that
but (up to extracting a subsequence of u n) there is a sequence
Up to extracting a further sequence we may assume that there is a point x 0 such that
We claim that \(x_0\in \partial \Omega _{u_0}\). Indeed, the uniform convergence of u n implies that u 0(x 0) = 0. On the other hand, the non-degeneracy hypothesis (b) implies that, for every r > 0 small enough,
which gives that \(x_0\in \partial \Omega _{u_0}\).
Now, we notice that, since U contains \(Sing(\partial \Omega _{u_0})\cap K\) and x 0∉U, we have that
By definition of \(Reg(\partial \Omega _{u_0})\), there is a sequence r n → 0 and a unit vector ν ∈ ∂B 1 such that
In particular, there exists r ∈ (0, R) such that B r(x 0) ⊂ D and
By the continuity of u 0 and h ν, we get that, for n large enough,
Since, u n converges to u 0 locally uniformly in D, we get that, for n large enough,
Thus, (a) implies that \(x_n\in \mathrm {Reg}\,(\partial \Omega _{u_n})\), in contradiction with the initial assumption. □
10.3 Dimension Reduction
In this section, we study the singularities of the global one-homogeneous minimizers of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \). In particular, we prove Theorem 1.4 in the case when u is one-homogeneous. This (significant) simplification is essential for the proof of Theorem 1.4 since we already know that the blow-up limits of a local minimizer are global one-homogeneous minimizers and we will prove (see Lemma 10.7) that the dimension of the singular set of a blow-up limit does not decrease if we choose the free boundary point to have non-zero Hausdorff density (see Lemma 10.5).
Remark 10.8 (The Singular Set of a One-Homogeneous Function Is a Cone)
Suppose that \(z:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\) is a non-negative one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^d\). Then, for any singular free boundary point , we have that \(\{tx_0\, :\, t\in \mathbb {R}\}\subset \mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _z).\) This claim follows by the fact that Reg (∂ Ωu) is a cone. and that
Lemma 10.9 (Blow-Up Limits of One-Homogeneous Functions)
Let \(z:\mathbb {R}^d\,{\to }\,\mathbb {R}\) be a one-homogeneous locally Lipschitz continuous function. Let 0 ≠ x 0 ∈ ∂ Ω z . Let r n → 0 and \(z_{r_n,x_0}\) be a a blow-up sequence converging locally uniformly to a function \(z_0:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\) . Then z 0 is invariant in the direction x 0 , that is,
Proof
Let \(t\in \mathbb {R}\) be fixed. Then, we have
where the third inequality follows by the homogeneity of z and the fourth inequality follows by the Lipschitz continuity of z. Precisely, setting \(L=\|\nabla z\|{ }_{L^\infty (B_1(x_0))}\), we have
which converges to zero as n →∞. □
Lemma 10.10 (Translation Invariant Global Minimizers)
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\to \mathbb {R}\) be a non-negative function, \(u\in H^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{d-1})\) and let \(\tilde u:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\) be the function defined by
Then, u a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) if and only if \(\tilde u\) a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{d}\).
Proof
Suppose first that \(\tilde u\) is not a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \). Then, there is a function \(\tilde v:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\) such that \(\tilde u=\tilde v\) outside the cylinder \(\mathcal C_R:=B_R^{\prime }\times (-R,R)\subset \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\times \mathbb {R}\) and such that \(\mathcal F_\Lambda (\tilde u,\mathcal C_R)>\mathcal F_\Lambda (\tilde v,\mathcal C_R)\).
for some t ∈ (−R, R), which exists due to the mean-value theorem. Thus, also u is not a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \).
Conversely, suppose that u is not a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \). Then, there is a function \(v:\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\to \mathbb {R}\) such that u = v outside a ball \(B_R^{\prime }\subset \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) and \(\mathcal F_\Lambda (u,B_R^{\prime })>\mathcal F_\Lambda (v,B_R^{\prime })\). We now define the function
where for any t > 0, we define the function \(\phi _t:\mathbb {R}\to [0,1]\) as
Then,
where \(\mathcal C_{R,t}:=B_R^{\prime }\times (-t,t)\). Thus, we have
Choosing t large enough, we have that
Since,
we get that
which concludes the proof. □
Lemma 10.11 (Singular One-Homogeneous Global Minimizers in \(\mathbb {R}^{d^\ast }\))
Let \(z:\mathbb {R}^{d^\ast }\to \mathbb {R}\) be a non-negative one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{d^\ast }\) . Then, one of the following does hold:
-
(1)
\(z(x)=\sqrt {\Lambda }\,(x\cdot \nu )\) for some \(\nu \in \mathbb {R}^{d^\ast }\) (in this case Sing (∂ Ω z) = ∅);
-
(2)
Sing (∂ Ω z) = {0}.
In other words,
In particular, this means that \(\dim _{\mathcal H}\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _z)=0\).
Proof
Suppose that there is a point such that x 0 ∈Sing (∂ Ωz). Then, by Remark 10.8 we have that tx 0 ∈Sing (∂ Ωz) for every \(t\in \mathbb {R}\). In particular, we can suppose that |x 0| = 1 and, without loss of generality, we set x 0 = e d. Let now z 0 be a blow-up limit of z at x 0. Then, z 0 is a one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \). Moreover, by Lemma 10.9 we have that z 0(x ′, t) = z 0(x ′, 0) for every \(x'\in \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\). Now, Lemma 10.10 implies that the function \(z_0^{\prime }:=z_0(\cdot ,0):\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\to \mathbb {R}\) is still a local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \). Moreover, the origin \(0'\in \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) is a singular point for \(\partial \Omega _{z_0^{\prime }}\) in contradiction with the definition of d ∗. □
Lemma 10.12 (Dimension Reduction: Lemma II)
Suppose that d ≥ d ∗ and that \(z:\mathbb {R}^{d}\to \mathbb {R}\) is a non-negative one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{d}\) . Then,
Proof
Let s > 0 be fixed. The claim in the case d = d ∗ follows by Lemma 10.11. We will prove the claim by induction. Indeed, suppose that the claim holds in dimension d − 1, with d − 1 ≥ d ∗, and let \(z:\mathbb {R}^{d}\to \mathbb {R}\) be a non-negative one-homogeneous local minimizer. If such that \(\mathcal {H}^{d-d^\ast +s}\big (\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _z)\big )>0\), then, by Lemma 10.5, there is a point x 0 ∈Sing (∂ Ωz), a constant ε > 0 and a sequence r n → 0 such that
which can be re-written as
where we have set \(z_n(x):=\frac 1{r_n}z(x_0+r_nx)\).
Without loss of generality, we can assume that x 0 = e d. Now, up to a subsequence, z n converges to a blow-up limit z 0 of z. By Lemma 10.9 and Lemma 10.10, we have that:
-
(1)
z 0(x′, x d) = z 0(x′, 0) for every \(x'\in \mathbb {R}^{d-1}\) and every \(x_d\in \mathbb {R}\);
-
(2)
\(z_0^{\prime }:=z_0(\cdot ,0):\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\to \mathbb {R}\) is one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{d-1}\).
By hypothesis, we have that
The translation invariance of z 0 now implies that
so, Lemma 10.6 gives
which is a contradiction with (10.6) of Lemma 10.7 and (10.7). □
10.4 Proof of Theorem 1.4
In this section, we will give an estimate on the dimension of the singular set. The result is more general and applies to different situations, for instance to almost-minimizers and measure-constrained minimizers.
Proposition 10.13 (Dimension of the Singular Set)
Let \(D\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) be a bounded open set and \(u:D\to \mathbb {R}\) a continuous non-negative function. Let the regular and singular sets Reg(∂ Ω u) and Sing(∂ Ω u) of the free boundary ∂ Ω u ∩ D be defined as in the beginning of Sect. 10.2 . Suppose that u satisfies the following hypotheses:
-
(a)
ε -regularity. There are constants ε > 0 and R > 0 such that the following holds:
If x 0 ∈ ∂ Ω u ∩ D and r ∈ (0, R) are such that B r(x 0) ⊂ D and
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \|u(x)-\sqrt{\Lambda}\, ((x-x_0)\cdot\nu)_+\|{}_{L^\infty_x(B_r(x_0))}\le{\varepsilon} r \quad \mathit{\text{for some}}\quad \nu\in\partial B_1, \end{aligned} $$(10.8)then ∂ Ω u = Reg (∂ Ω u) in B r∕2(x 0).
-
(b)
Non-degeneracy. There are constants κ > 0 and r 0 > 0 such that the following holds: if \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) , x 0 ∈ ∂ Ω u ∩ D and r ∈ (0, r 0) are such that B r(x 0) ⊂ D, then
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \|u\|{}_{L^\infty(B_r(x_0))}\ge \kappa\,r\,. \end{aligned}$$ -
(c)
Convergence of the blow-up sequences. Every blow-up sequence
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} u_{r_n,x_0}(x)=\frac 1{r_n}u(x_0+r_nx), \end{aligned}$$with x 0 ∈ ∂ Ω u ∩ D and r n → 0, admits a subsequence that converges locally uniformly to a blow-up limit \(u_0:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\).
-
(d)
Homogeneity and minimality of the blow-up limits. Every blow-up limit of u is a one-homogeneous global minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^d\).
Then,
-
(i)
if d < d ∗ , then Sing (∂ Ω u) is empty;
-
(ii)
if d = d ∗ , then Sing (∂ Ω u) is locally finite;
-
(iii)
if d > d ∗ , then \(\dim _{\mathcal {H}}\,\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _u)\le d-d^\ast \).
Proof
Suppose first that d < d ∗. Let x 0 ∈ ∂ Ωu ∩ D and let r n → 0 be a infinitesimal sequence such that \(u_{r_n,x_0}\) converges locally uniformly to a blow-up limit u 0 (such a sequence exists by the hypothesis (b)). By (c), u 0 is a one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^d\). By definition of d ∗, we get that \(\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _{u_0})=\emptyset \). This means that every blow-up limit of u 0 is of the form \(\sqrt {\Lambda }\,(x\cdot \nu )_+\), for some ν ∈ ∂B 1. In particular, it holds for every blow-up limit in zero. Since u 0 is one-homogeneous, the blow-up of u 0 in zero is u 0 itself and so,
Thus, for n large enough, we get that
which, by the definition of \(u_{r_n,x_0}\) gives precisely (10.8). Thus, by (a), we get that x 0 is a regular point, x 0 ∈Reg (∂ Ωu). Since x 0 is arbitrary, we conclude that Sing (∂ Ωu) = ∅.
Let now d = d ∗. Suppose by contradiction that there is a sequence of points x n ∈Sing (∂ Ωu) converging to a point x 0 ∈ D ∩Sing (∂ Ωu). Let r n := |x n − x 0|. Up to extracting a subsequence, we can assume that the blow-up sequence \(u_n:= u_{r_n,x_0}\) converges to a blow-up limit \(u_0:\mathbb {R}^d\to \mathbb {R}\). By (c), u 0 is a one-homogeneous local minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^d\). On the other hand, notice that for every n > 0 the point \(\xi _n=\frac {x_n-x_0}{r_n}\in \partial B_1\) is a singular point for u n. Up to extracting a subsequence, we may assume that ξ n converges to a point ξ 0 ∈ ∂B 1. By Lemma 10.7, we get that \(\xi _0 \in \mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _{u_0})\), in contradiction with Lemma 10.11.
Finally, we consider the case d > d ∗. Let s > 0 be fixed. We will prove that \(\mathcal {H}^{d-d^\ast +s} \big (\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _{u})\big )=0\). Suppose that this is not the case and \(\mathcal {H}^{d-d^\ast +s}\big (\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _{u})\big )>0\). By Lemma 10.5 we have that there is a point x 0 ∈Sing (∂ Ωu) and a sequence r n → 0 such that
Taking, \(u_n=u_{r_n,x_0}\), we get that
Using (b), we can suppose that, up to extracting a subsequence, u n converges to a blow-up limit u 0. By (c), u 0 is a one-homogeneous minimizer of \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in \(\mathbb {R}^d\). Now, Lemma 10.7, we get that \(\mathcal {H}^{d-d^\ast +s}\big (\mathrm {Sing}\,(\partial \Omega _{u_0})\cap B_{1}\big )\ge {\varepsilon }\), which is in contradiction with Lemma 10.12. □
References
L.C. Evans, R.F. Gariepy, Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions, 2nd revised edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2015)
H. Federer, The singular sets of area minimizing rectifiable currents with codimension one and of area minimizing flat chains modulo two with arbitrary codimension. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 76, 767–771 (1970)
G.S. Weiss, Partial regularity for a minimum problem with free boundary. J. Geom. Anal. 9(2), 317–326 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Velichkov, B. (2023). Dimension of the Singular Set. In: Regularity of the One-phase Free Boundaries. Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13238-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13238-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13237-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13238-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)