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

Hi, I was trying to do it the different, please tell me if it is OK.

Since $m(A)>0$, there is a closed $K$ in $A$, with $m(K)>0$. Then $m(K) = m(\text{boundary of }K) + m(\mathrm{int}(K)) = m(\mathrm{int}(K))>0$. Since there is an open subset of $A$ with positive measure. Since in $\mathbb{R}$, every open set countable union of open intervals then we've $(a,b)$ in $A$.

Thus $(-b,-a) \in -A \implies (-(b-a),b-a) \in A-A$.

share|cite|improve this question

It is false that a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ of positive measure must contain an open subset of positive measure, or that the measure of a closed set equals the measure of its interior.

A counterexample is given by a fat Cantor set, which is closed, has empty interior, but positive Lebesgue measure. So your assertion that $m(K) = m(\mathrm{int}(K))$ is unwarranted. So your argument does not hold.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your mistake is $m(\text{boundary of }K)+m(\text{int}(K))=m(\text{int}(K))$. There are compact sets (e.g. "fat Cantor sets") with positive measure but empty interior.

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.