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

Why does a Lipschitz function $f:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d$ map measure zero sets to measure zero sets?

It is easy to prove this statement if the domain is bounded. Is there any way to extend the argument to unbounded domains? Can anyone give me some hint, or show me a simple proof sketch?

share|cite|improve this question
If $A\subseteq \mathbb R^d$ has measure zero, so does $A_n := A \cap B_n(0)$ for $n\in \mathbb N$ and $A = \bigcup_n A_n$ ... – martini May 2 '12 at 12:33
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Let $N$ be a set of measure zero. Then for every $\varepsilon \gt 0$ we can write $N \subset \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty B_k$ where each $B_k$ is a ball of radius $r_k$ and $\sum_k \mu B_k \lt \varepsilon$. But then by Lipschitz continuity $f(B_k)$ is contained in a ball of radius $L\cdot r_k$ where $L$ is the Lipschitz constant of $f$, and thus $\mu^\ast f(B_k) \leq L^d \mu B_k$ so that $$ \mu^\ast f(N) \leq L^d \sum\nolimits_k \mu B_k \lt L^d \varepsilon. $$ As $\varepsilon \gt 0$ was arbitrary, we see that $f(N)$ must have zero outer measure and hence it is a null set.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't understand why the result for the bounded case should be any easier and the reduction is entirely unnecessary. – t.b. May 2 '12 at 12:46
Thanks. This is much simpler than my solution. – mysterious May 2 '12 at 13:58

so let $A \subseteq \mathbb R^d$ be a set with measure zero. For $n \in \mathbb N$ let $A_n := B_n(0) \cap A$. Then $A_n$ has measure zero as $A_n \subseteq A$ for each $n$ and we have $A = \bigcup_n A_n$. From your bounded case you get that $f(A_n)$ is of measure zero for each $n$. But as \[ f(A) = f\left(\bigcup_n A_n\right) = \bigcup_n f(A_n) \] $f(A)$ is a countable union of sets of measure zero and has therefore measure zero.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. But the solution given by t.b. is much simpler than mine. So I chose his answer as the correct answer. – mysterious May 2 '12 at 14:01

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.