2
$\begingroup$

Question: Prove that if $E$ is a set of real numbers with Lebesgue measure $m(E)>1$, then there are two distinct points $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in $E$ such that $\alpha - \beta$ is an integer. Hint: Let $E_{n}=(E-n) \cap [0,1)$.

What I've done: for each $n\in \mathbb{Z}$, put $E_{n}=(E-n) \cap [0,1)$. Then by translation, $E_{n}=(E\cap [n,n+1))-1$ and $E=\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} E\cap (n,n+1)=\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} E_{n}+n$. Each $n$ is measurable and whenever $n\neq m$, $E_{n}\cap E_{m}=\emptyset$. Also, we have $E_{n}\subset [0,1)$ for each n and so $\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}E_{n}\subset[0,1)$. By the translation invariance of Lebesgue measure, $m(E_{n}+n)=m(E_{n})$ for each n. Now, suppose that $E_{n}+n \cap E_{m}+m =\emptyset$ if $n\neq m$. By the sigma-additivity of measure, $m(E)=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}E_{n}+n)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}m(E_{n}+n)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}m(E_{n})=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}E_{n})\leq m([0,1))=1$ (*)

which contradicts $m(E)>1.$ Therefore, there must be some m,n in $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $E_{n}+n \cap E_{m}+m \neq\emptyset$. Take z in $E_{n}+n \cap E_{m}+m $. We can find two points $\alpha\in E_{n}\subset E$ and $\beta\in E_{m}\subset E$ with $\alpha\neq \beta$ such that $z=\alpha+n=\beta+m$, i.e., $\alpha-\beta=m-n$, which is an integer.

My question is the following: Is it justifiable to use sigma-additivity of the measure in equality (*) when n ranges from $-\infty$ to $\infty$? If not, Is there any other way around to avoid this step, but reach the same conclusion as above? Any suggestion or correction is very much appreciated. Thank you!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

First , I will modify your proof slightly.

Let $E_{n}=(E-n) \cap [0,1)$ for each $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then by translation, $E_{n}=(E\cap [n,n+1))-n$. Then $E=\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} (E\cap [n,n+1))=\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} (E_{n}+n)$. If $E_{n} \cap E_{m} \neq \emptyset$ for some $n,m$ satisfying $n\neq m$, we can easily see that $ \exists$ two distinct $\alpha,\beta \in E$ such that $\alpha-\beta \in \mathbb{Z}.$ Indeed, $\exists x \in E_n \cap E_m$ for some $n,m$ with $n \neq m,$ then $\alpha=x+n \in E_n +n \subseteq E$ and $\beta=x+m \in E_m +m \subseteq E.$ Thus $\alpha-\beta \in \mathbb{Z}$ and thus the proof is complete.

Now, we assume, on the contrary, that $E_{n} \cap E_{m} = \emptyset$ for any $n,m$ satisfying $n\neq m$.

For each $n$, $E_n+n$ is measurable. By the subadditivity, the translation invariance and the sigma-additivity, $m(E)=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}(E_{n}+n))\le\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}m(E_{n}+n)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}m(E_{n})=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}E_{n})\leq m([0,1))=1$, which contradicts $m(E)>1.$

For your question, the answer is yes. You should check the definition of doubly infinite series.

Doubly infinite series

$$ \sum_{k = -\infty}^\infty a_k, $$

is a pair of two (ordinary infinite) series, its negative part $\sum_{k = -1}^\infty a_{-k}$ and its positive part $\sum_{k = 0}^\infty a_k$. A doubly infinite series converges if each of its constituent parts (positive and negative), converges; the sum of the series is then, by definition, the sum of the limits of the two series.

In the proof, $\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}m(E_{n})=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1}m(E_{n})+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}m(E_{n})=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{-1}E_{n})+m(\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}E_{n})=m(\bigcup_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}E_{n})$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.