Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

A locally finite translation-invariant Borel measure on Rd is a multiple of Lebesgue measure

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. Let m be a Borel measure on Rd that is finite on compact sets and translation invariant. Put Q=[0,1)d and c=m(Q). Then

m(B)=c λd(B)

for every Borel B⊆Rd, where λd is Borel Lebesgue measure. In particular, if c=0 then m is the zero measure.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A natural number d≥1, Countable Choice, a locally finite Borel measure m on Rd, translation invariance m(B+x)=m(B), and Q=[0,1)d.

[A1]

Countable Choice: for every sequence of nonempty sets (Xn)n∈N there is a sequence xn∈Xn. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

[F1]

A measure is countably additive on disjoint measurable sequences, and local finiteness means finite measure on every compact set. (Measures on sigma-algebras)

[F2]

Under Countable Choice, a translation-invariant Borel measure on Rd that assigns mass 1 to (0,1]d agrees with λd on all Borel sets. (A translation-invariant measure on the Borel sets of Rn giving the unit cube measure one is the restriction of Lebesgue measure)

Proof

Given: Countable Choice and a locally finite translation-invariant Borel measure m on Rd.

1.1givenF1constructalgebra

Fix a coordinate i and either face F of [0,1]d in that coordinate. For each integer n≥1, translate the lower face by j/(n+1)ei, or the upper face by −j/(n+1)ei, for j=1,…,n. These n translates are pairwise disjoint compact subsets of [0,1]d, each has measure m(F) by translation invariance, and m([0,1]d)<∞ by local finiteness. Hence nm(F)≤m([0,1]d) for every n, which forces m(F)=0. The boundary of [0,1]d is a finite union of such faces.

2.1step 1.1F1

The symmetric difference of Q and (0,1]d is contained in that boundary, so [F1] and step 1.1 give m(Q)=m((0,1]d)=c.

3.1step 2.1F1algebra

If c=0, the integer translates Q+k, k∈Zd, are a countable disjoint partition of Rd. Translation invariance gives m(Q+k)=0 for every k, and countable additivity gives m(Rd)=0. Monotonicity then gives m(B)=0 for every Borel B.

3.2A1step 2.1F2algebra

If c>0, m/c is a translation-invariant Borel measure and, by step 2.1, (m/c)((0,1]d)=1. Applying [F2] gives m/c=λd, hence m(B)=cλd(B) for every Borel B.

4.1A1F2step 3.1step 3.2∎

The cases c=0 and c>0 exhaust the nonnegative value m(Q), proving the statement. The proof uses Countable Choice only through [F2]; no stronger choice principle is used.

Sources

Last and Penrose, Chapter 8, Proposition 8.7 proof; Baddeley, Lecture 2, §2.4. The local face argument supplies the normalization change from [0,1)d to the source theorem's (0,1]d convention.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

29 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources