Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be a dense subset of $\mathbb{R}$ and let $D \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ be a measurable set such that $m(D \triangle (D + b_n))=0$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ (here, the $\triangle$ denotes the symmetric difference of the two sets, $D+ b_n = \{d + b_n : d \in D\}$, and $m$ stands for the Lebesgue measure). Prove that $m(D)=0$ or $m(D^c)=0$ (here $D^c$ is the complement of $D$ in $\mathbb{R}$).

I am having trouble getting a proof off the ground! In particular, it is not clear to me how and where the dense hypothesis would come in. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted


1) $m(D \Delta (D + x))$ is a continuous function of $x$.

2) If $x$ and $y$ are Lebesgue points of $D$ and $D^c$ respectively, what can you say about $m(D \Delta (D + x - y))$?

share|cite|improve this answer
I am engaging measure theory for the first time, and I am unfamiliar with the term "Lebesgue point of a set," and thus I don't see the connection you intend in 2). Could you clarify what this term means? Then perhaps I can make sense of 2). – Vulcan Jan 26 '12 at 21:00
Actually I should have said "point of density" - or "Lebesgue point of the indicator function". The Lebesgue density theorem says that for almost every $x \in D$, $\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{m(D \cap (x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon))}{2\varepsilon} = 1$. – Robert Israel Jan 27 '12 at 2:32
For a further hint, if $m(D \cap (x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon))$ and $m(D^c \cap (y-\varepsilon, y+\varepsilon))$ are both very close to $2 \varepsilon$, what can you say about $m(D \Delta (D + x - y))$? – Robert Israel Jan 27 '12 at 2:39
I am not yet familiar enough with Lebesgue differentiation to make the argument go through. However, a fellow graduate student in my program suggested that the above result follows via contradiction by making smart uses of an interesting result: Let $A$ be Lebesgue measurable, with $m(A)>0$ (here $m$ denotes the Lebesgue measure). Then for any $0<\rho<1$, there exists an open interval $I$ such that $m(A \cap I)> \rho \cdot m(I)$. I was wondering if you would be up for offering some hints on how this argument might proceed. – Vulcan Jan 29 '12 at 17:18
An even further hint: using the Lebesgue density theorem, there are $x \in D$ and $y \in D^c$ and $\epsilon > 0$ such that $m(D \cap (x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)) > \epsilon$ and $m(D^c \cap (y-\epsilon,y+\epsilon)) > \epsilon$. What does this say about $m((D - x) \cap(-\epsilon,\epsilon))$ and $m((D^c-y) \cap (-\epsilon,\epsilon))$? What can you conclude about $m((D-x) \cap (D^c - y))$? – Robert Israel Jan 29 '12 at 21:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.