Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to show that if $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a Lebesgue measurable set where $\lambda(E)>0$, then $E-E=\{x-y:x,y\in E\}\supseteq\{z\in\mathbb{R}^n:|z|<\delta\}$ for some $\delta>0$, where $|z|=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n z_i^2}$.

My approach is this. Take some $J$, a box in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with equal side lengths such that $\lambda(E\cap J)>3\lambda(J)/4$. Setting $\epsilon=3\lambda(J)/2$, take $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $|x|\leq\epsilon$. Then $E\cap J\subseteq J$ and $$((E\cap J)+x)\cup(E\cap J)\subseteq J\cup(J+x).$$

Since Lebesgue measure is translation invariant, it follows that $\lambda((E\cap J)+x)=\lambda(E\cap J)$, and so $((E\cap J)+x)\cap(E\cap J)\neq\emptyset$.

If it were empty, then $$2\lambda(E\cap J)=\lambda(((E\cap J)+x)\cup(E\cap J))\leq\lambda(J\cup(J+x))\leq 3\lambda(J)/2,$$ thus $\lambda(E\cap J)\leq 3\lambda(J)/4$, a contradiction.

Then $((E\cap J)+x)\cap (E\cap J)\neq\emptyset$, and so $x\in (E\cap J)-(E\cap J)\subseteq E-E$. Thus $E-E$ contains the box of $x$ such that $|x|\leq \epsilon$.

Is this valid? If not, can it be fixed? Many thanks.

share|improve this question
    
I am suspicious about your first hypothesis : How can you take a box such that $\lambda(E \cap J) > 3 \lambda(J)/4$? I must say though, this is a very interesting question. –  Patrick Da Silva Nov 22 '11 at 7:13
    
1  
@PatrickDaSilva: $E$ has a subset $E'$ with positive and finite measure. There is an open set $U$ such that $E'\subseteq U$ and $\lambda(U)<\frac{4}{3}\lambda(E')$. Since $U$ is a countable union of nonoverlapping boxes, $U=\cup_k B_k$, it follows that $\sum_k\lambda(E'\cap B_k)>\sum_k\frac{3}{4}\lambda(B_k)$. Hence there exists $k$ such that $\lambda(E'\cap B_k)>\frac{3}{4}\lambda(B_k)$, and you can take $J=B_k$. –  Jonas Meyer Nov 22 '11 at 7:25
1  
You may want to have a look at this thread and also at this one as well as the links therein. –  t.b. Nov 22 '11 at 8:09
1  
I think this can be fixed if either OP justifies why this inequality holds, or just by taking a smaller epsilon. It might depend on $n$ though, but it seems to be just geometry at this point. I now accept that "this argument holds by the handwaving theorem". =P –  Patrick Da Silva Jan 31 '12 at 5:07

1 Answer 1

This is answered here, I will just post another approach that can be useful.

Lemma. If $K$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with positive measure, then the set $$D:=\{x-y:x,y\in K\}$$ contains an open ball centered at the origin.

Proof. Since $0\lt \lambda(K)\lt\infty$, there exist an open set $G$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $$K\subset G\text{ and } \lambda (G)\lt 2\lambda(K)$$ and as its complement $G^c:=\mathbb{R}^n\setminus G$ is closed and $K$ is compact, we have $$\delta:=d(K,G^c)\gt 0.$$ We claim that if $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ with $||x||\lt\delta$ then $K+x\subseteq G$. If not, there exist a $y\in K$ s.t. $y+x\not\in G$ and then $$\delta=d(K,G^c)\leq ||y-(x+y)||=||x||,$$ which is an absurd if we assume that $||x||\lt\delta$ to begin with. Now $K+x\subseteq G$ and $K\subseteq G$, thus $(K+x)\cup K\subseteq G$. If $(K+x)\cap K=\emptyset$, then $$\lambda(G)\geq \lambda((K+x)\cup K)=\lambda(K+x)+\lambda(K)=2\lambda(K)$$ which contradicts the choice of $G$. So, for all $x\in B(0,\delta)$ we have $(K+x)\cap K\neq\emptyset$, therefore $B(0,\delta)\subset D$. QED

Theorem. Let $E\subseteq\mathbb{R}^d$. If if $E$ is measurable and $\lambda(E)\gt 0$ then the set $$E-E:=\{x-y:x,y\in E\}$$ contains an open ball centered at the origin.

Proof. Since $\mathbb{R}^d=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}B(0,n)$ we have $$E=E\cap\mathbb{R}^d=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}E\cap B(0,n),$$ then $$0\lt\lambda(E)\leq \sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \lambda(E\cap B(0,n))$$ and then, there exist a $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\lambda(E\cap B(0,n))\gt 0$. Let $F=E\cap B(0,n)$. Thus $F\subseteq E$ is bounded and measurable, therefore there exist a closed set $K\subseteq F$ such that $$0\lt \frac{\lambda(F)}{2}\lt \lambda(K).$$ Notice that $K$ is closed and bounded, that means it is a compact set with positive measure. By the Lemma the set $K-K$ contains an open ball centered at the origin say $B$. Then $$B\subset K-K\subseteq E-E$$ as we wanted.

Note. The idea of proceed this way is taken from Robert Bartle, I don't remember right now the book where this come from.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.