are you sure there is no typo?
1. how come you have a set of real numbers that is "unbounded and (countably) finite"? please note that finiteness implies boundedness. are you talking about "unbounded and countably infinite set \Lambda"?
2. what is the difference between "Condition 3. Λ 是 有界可數無限" and "a bounded, countably infinite set of real numbers Λ"? they should be the same except that one is in Chinese and the other in English, right? so do you really mean "bounded and uncountably infinite"?
I am assuming that you are talking about Lebesgue measure (denoted by m as you have suggested). (Actually the lemma should hold for any Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure on R, i.e. bounded on compact subsets and translation invariant.) The lemma itself is easy to show, and if you read the proof, you should notice that boundedness is necessary given countably infinity. So if Condition 1, the conclusion is not true. Indeed, consider E=(0,1), the unit interval in R, where E is bounded measurable with m(E)=1 \neq 0. Let \Lambda = Z, the set of all integers. Obviously \Lambda is unbounded and countably infinite, while \lambda+E = (\lambda, \lambda+1) are disjoint for distinct \lambda's. Thus, replacing the original condition with Condition 1 does not yield the same conclusion.
Let's look at Condition 3 first. It is easy that Condition 3 implies the original condition. Simply pick a countably infinite subset A of \Lambda (which always exists), and A is automatically bounded. Also by the property of \Lambda, the collection {a+E: a \in A} is pairwise disjoint as well. Hence by the lemma, (existence of) A implies m(E)=0.
Finally, let's show that Condition 2 implies Condition 3. Suppose that \Lambda is uncountable, then there is one n>0 such that the intersection of (-n,n) and \Lambda is uncountable. Otherwise, if each intersection of (-n,n) and \Lambda were countable, then \Lambda would be countable as a countable union of countable sets, contradicting the assumption (Condition 2). Hence Condition 3 is true given Condition 2. From above, m(E)=0.
In summary, only Condition 1 does not yield the same conclusion.
|