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

For $k\gt 0$ and a subset $A$ of $\mathbb{R}$, let $k\,A=\{kx\mid x∈A\}$. Show that $$\mu^*(k\,A)=k \mu^*(A)$$ and that $A$ is measurable if and only if $k\,A$ is measurable.

share|cite|improve this question
assuming A is measurebale, I tried to use the outer measure definition.And I know that, if a set A is covered by an interval [a, b], then the corresponding set kA is covered by the interval [ka, kb].but I can't recall any path to find the answer for this. – ccc Oct 21 '12 at 15:08
Denote by $l([a,b])$ the length of the interval $[a,b]$. Is it clear that $l([ka, kb])= k\cdot l([a,b])$? – Giovanni De Gaetano Oct 21 '12 at 15:13

To show the equality, you can try showing each is $\leq$ the other by using the definition of outer measure, i.e. let $A$ be covered by a countable union of intervals $I_{n}$ such that $\mu^{*}(A)+\varepsilon<\sum_{n}l(I_{n})$, then go on to say something about $\mu^{*}(kA)$, and vice versa.

Take a subset $B$ of $\mathbb{R}$. Then by the equality to be shown, you can get $\mu^{*}(B\cap A)+\mu^{*}(B\cap A^{c})=\mu^{*}(k(B\cap A))+\mu^{*}(k(B\cap A^{c}))=\mu^{*}(kB\cap kA)$ $+\mu^{*}(kB\cap kA^{c})$ which may be useful for the second statement.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.