Sign up ×
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.

This is a question from Stromberg related to Steinhaus' Theorem:

If $A$ is a set of positive Lebesgue measure, show that $A + A$ contains an interval.

I can't quite see how to modify the Steinhaus proof though.

share|cite|improve this question
possible duplicate: –  t.b. Dec 1 '11 at 7:28

2 Answers 2

up vote 24 down vote accepted

I don't know what proof of Steinhaus theorem is used, but we can show the following result:

If $A$ and $B$ have a positive Lebesgue measure, then $A+B$ contains an interval.

We can assume that $A$ and $B$ have finite measure. Indeed, if $\lambda(A)$ is infinite, $A=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}A\cap\left[-n,n\right]$ and we only have to pick $n_0$ such that $\lambda(A\cap \left[-n_0,n_0\right])>0$. If $n_1$ is such that $\lambda(B\cap \left[-n_1,n_1\right])>0$, and we have shown the result for $A$ and $B$ of finite measure, then $A+B\supset (A\cap \left[-n_0,n_0\right])+(B\cap \left[-n_1,n_1\right])\supset I$ and we are done.

Thank to the fact the indicator functions are in $L^2$ and the density of the continuous functions with compact support in $L^2(\mathbb R)$ $$f\colon x\mapsto \mathbf{1}_A*\mathbf{1}_B(x)=\int_{\mathbb R}\mathbf{1}_A(x-t)\mathbf {1}_B(t)d\lambda(t)$$ is continuous . Hence the set $O:=\left\{x\in\mathbb R,f(x)>0\right\}$ is open. Since $\int_{\mathbb R}f(x)d\lambda(x)=\lambda(A)\cdot\lambda(B)>0$, $O$ is non-empty and therefore contains an open non-empty interval $I$. If $x\notin A+B$, $A\cap(-B+x)=\emptyset$. Indeed, if $y\in A\cap(-B+x)$ then $y=a$ for some $a\in A$, and $y=-b+x$ for some $b\in B$, hence $x=a+b$. So if $x\notin A+B$, $f(x)=0$, and taking the complement, if $f(x)\neq 0$ then $x\in A+B$, hence we got $$I\subset O\subset A+B.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
extremely clear. Thanks. –  Bombyx mori Jul 28 '12 at 7:04

A proof using metric density is outlined in Exercise 5 of Chapter 7 (Differentiation) of Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd edition. I present my version.

We generalize to possibly distinct sets $A$ and $B$ of positive measure. The set $A$ has a point $a$ of metric density where

$$m(A\cap (a-\delta, a +\delta ))/2\delta > 3/4,$$

and it suffices to prove the proposition with $A$ is replaced by this intersection. Similarly, we may replace $B$ by some set concentrated in a length $2\delta$ interval near a point $b$.

Let $a_0=a+b \in A+B$. The point is that for small enough $\epsilon$ (positive or negative!), $a_0 +\epsilon \in A+B$. If not, then $a_0+\epsilon -B$ does not intersect $A$. But $A$ and $a_0+\epsilon -B$ both lie in the interval

$$(a_0-(\delta+\epsilon), a_0 + (\delta +\epsilon)),$$

which has measure $2(\delta+\epsilon)$. Together $A$ and $a_0+\epsilon -B$ have measure $3\delta$, so they must intersect for small $\epsilon$.

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.