Null or Conull Conclusion — Lemma 6 #
Completes Lemma 6: a translation-invariant indicator on an open interval is either ae-null or ae-conull. Uses Lebesgue differentiation on compact subsets to establish the dichotomy, then exhaustion by increasing compact intervals for the global result.
Reference: lamportform.tex, Section 6, Lemma 6, Steps 8–10 (lines 617–639).
Helper lemmas #
Exhaustion of Ioo by Icc #
Null or conull on compact subintervals #
On any compact [c, d] ⊂ (α, β), either B is ae-null or ae-conull.
Proof by contradiction: suppose both B ∩ [c, d] and [c, d] \ B have
positive measure. By localAverage_const_of_indicator_invariant, the local
average of 1_B is constant on [c+η, d-η]. By localAverage_tendsto_ae,
this constant converges to 1_B(x) ae. At a point of B, the limit is 1;
at a point outside B, it is 0. But the convergent sequence is the same,
so 1 = 0 by tendsto_nhds_unique. Contradiction.
Main theorem #
Lemma 6 (Null or Conull): If the indicator 1_B is ae
translation-invariant on an open interval I, then either B is
ae-null (volume B = 0) or B is ae-conull (volume (I \ B) = 0).
Proof: Pick an anchor interval [c₀, d₀] ⊂ I. By the compact-case
theorem, either B ∩ [c₀, d₀] or [c₀, d₀] \ B is null. Exhaust I
by increasing compact intervals K_n ⊇ [c₀, d₀]. For each K_n, the
compact-case alternative must agree with the anchor (otherwise the anchor
interval would have zero measure). Countable union gives the global result.
Reference: lamportform.tex, Lemma 6 conclusion.