Existence of x,y so that x-y is in Z-{0}.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the existence of elements x and y in a measurable subset E of the real line, where the difference x-y belongs to the set of integers excluding zero (ℤ-{0}). The argument utilizes the properties of Lebesgue measure and the translation invariance of measurable sets. By constructing disjoint translated sets F_k from E_k, the discussion demonstrates that the measure of the union of these sets contradicts the assumption that no such x and y exist, thereby confirming the existence of such elements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue measure and its properties
  • Familiarity with measurable sets and their characteristics
  • Knowledge of quotient spaces, specifically ℝ/ℤ
  • Basic concepts of set theory and disjoint unions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Lebesgue measure and its applications in real analysis
  • Explore the properties of quotient spaces, particularly ℝ/ℤ
  • Learn about translation invariance in measure theory
  • Investigate the implications of the Birkhoff theorem in ergodic theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in measure theory, real analysis, and set theory, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of measurable sets and their properties.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,778
Reaction score
13,019
Hi, let E be a measurable subset of the Real line with m(E)>1 . I want to show
there are x,y in E so that x-y is in ## \mathbb Z-{0} ##. My idea is to restrict the
quotient ## \mathbb R / \mathbb Z |_E ##. This quotient cannot be contained in
[0,1], since m([0,1])=1 and m(E)>1. From this I want to show that there must be
more than one representative of each clase of the quotient in E , but I am having
trouble tightening up the argument. Any ideas?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose there are no such ##x,y \in E##.

For each integer ##k##, let ##E_k = E \cap [k, k+1)##. Then the ##E_k##'s are measurable and pairwise disjoint, with ##\sum m(E_k) = m(E)##.

Now consider the translated sets ##F_k = E_k - k##, in other words, ##F_k## is ##E_k## translated by ##k##, so ##F_k \subset [0,1)##.

If ##F_k \cap F_m \neq \emptyset## for some ##k \neq m##, then there are ##x_k \in E_k## and ##x_m \in E_m## such that ##x_k - k = x_m - m##, so ##x_k - x_m \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}##, contrary to our assumption above. So the ##F_k##'s are pairwise disjoint.

Now Lebesgue measure is translation-invariant, so each ##F_k## is measurable with ##m(F_k) = m(E_k)##. By countable additivity,
$$m\left(\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k\right) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} m(F_k) =\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} m(E_k) = m(E) > 1$$
But on the other hand, each ##F_k \subset [0,1)## for each ##k##, and therefore also ##\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k \subset [0,1)##, which means that
$$m\left(\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k\right) \leq 1$$
So we have a contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K