Functions with non-zero derivative sending sets of positive measure to sets of positive measure

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












For the purposes of this question, assume that when "measure" is mentioned, we refer to the Lebesgue measure.



Suppose I have a function $f : mathbbR to mathbbR$ such that $fracdfdx$ is non-zero at every point. Is it then the case that for any set of positive measure $X$, $f(X)$ also has positive measure? If not, what precondition is required for this to be the case.



I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I would be satisfied with an answer for the case: $f : [a,b] rightarrow mathbbR$




real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-measure




share|cite|improve this question





















  • There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:17










  • This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:18










  • I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:28














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












For the purposes of this question, assume that when "measure" is mentioned, we refer to the Lebesgue measure.



Suppose I have a function $f : mathbbR to mathbbR$ such that $fracdfdx$ is non-zero at every point. Is it then the case that for any set of positive measure $X$, $f(X)$ also has positive measure? If not, what precondition is required for this to be the case.



I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I would be satisfied with an answer for the case: $f : [a,b] rightarrow mathbbR$




real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-measure




share|cite|improve this question





















  • There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:17










  • This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:18










  • I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:28












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











For the purposes of this question, assume that when "measure" is mentioned, we refer to the Lebesgue measure.



Suppose I have a function $f : mathbbR to mathbbR$ such that $fracdfdx$ is non-zero at every point. Is it then the case that for any set of positive measure $X$, $f(X)$ also has positive measure? If not, what precondition is required for this to be the case.



I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I would be satisfied with an answer for the case: $f : [a,b] rightarrow mathbbR$




real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-measure




share|cite|improve this question













For the purposes of this question, assume that when "measure" is mentioned, we refer to the Lebesgue measure.



Suppose I have a function $f : mathbbR to mathbbR$ such that $fracdfdx$ is non-zero at every point. Is it then the case that for any set of positive measure $X$, $f(X)$ also has positive measure? If not, what precondition is required for this to be the case.



I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I would be satisfied with an answer for the case: $f : [a,b] rightarrow mathbbR$





real-analysis measure-theory lebesgue-measure





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 30 at 3:04









Xander Henderson

13.1k83150




13.1k83150









asked Jul 30 at 2:47









Drathora

62




62











  • There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:17










  • This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:18










  • I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:28
















  • There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:17










  • This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
    – Xander Henderson
    Jul 30 at 3:18










  • I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:28















There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
– Xander Henderson
Jul 30 at 3:17




There are a couple of little technicalities that I am not sure of, but I think that the basic argument should follow from Darboux. It follows from Darboux's theorem that we may assume that $f'$ is positive (or negative, resp.) on $Bbb R$, from which it follows that $f$ is increasing (or decreasing, resp.). But then $f(a) < f(b)$ (or $f(a) > f(b)$, resp.) for any $a<b$, from which we can conclude that $mu(f([a,b])) = |f(b)-f(a)|$. So non-degenerate intervals are sent to non-degenerate intervals. I think that you ought to be able to finish the argument via some kind of appeal to regularity.
– Xander Henderson
Jul 30 at 3:17












This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
– Xander Henderson
Jul 30 at 3:18




This argument does assumes, however, that $f'(x)$ exists for all $x$ (not just almost all $x$), but this seems to be implied by the hypothesis that $f'(x) ne 0$ for all $x$.
– Xander Henderson
Jul 30 at 3:18












I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:28




I'm with you up until the end. The case that is unclear to me are when the positive-measure set is something that contains no positive length intervals. For example, the intersection of [a,b] with the irrationals. I assume that this is where the regularity comes into play, but I'm not familiar enough with the notion to know for sure. Is there any chance you could shed some light on this? Thanks
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













Yes. By Darboux's theorem, $f'$ must have constant sign, so $f$ is monotone. It follows that $f$ is locally absolutely continuous (see Non-decreasing and everywhere differentiable on $[0,1]$ implies absolutelly continuous?), and so for any interval $I$, $$mu(f(I))=int_I |f'|.$$ Both sides of this equation are measures when considered as functions of $I$ (here we use the fact that $f$ is injective so $f(cdot)$ preserves disjointness of sets), and it follows that the two sides are equal for all Borel sets as well: for any Borel set $X$, $$mu(f(X))=int_X|f'|.$$ If $X$ has positive measure, then the integral on the right is positive since $f'$ is always nonzero, so $mu(f(X))>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:53










  • Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 3:55










  • Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:58










  • I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:00










  • Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:01










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2866619%2ffunctions-with-non-zero-derivative-sending-sets-of-positive-measure-to-sets-of-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote













Yes. By Darboux's theorem, $f'$ must have constant sign, so $f$ is monotone. It follows that $f$ is locally absolutely continuous (see Non-decreasing and everywhere differentiable on $[0,1]$ implies absolutelly continuous?), and so for any interval $I$, $$mu(f(I))=int_I |f'|.$$ Both sides of this equation are measures when considered as functions of $I$ (here we use the fact that $f$ is injective so $f(cdot)$ preserves disjointness of sets), and it follows that the two sides are equal for all Borel sets as well: for any Borel set $X$, $$mu(f(X))=int_X|f'|.$$ If $X$ has positive measure, then the integral on the right is positive since $f'$ is always nonzero, so $mu(f(X))>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:53










  • Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 3:55










  • Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:58










  • I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:00










  • Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:01














up vote
2
down vote













Yes. By Darboux's theorem, $f'$ must have constant sign, so $f$ is monotone. It follows that $f$ is locally absolutely continuous (see Non-decreasing and everywhere differentiable on $[0,1]$ implies absolutelly continuous?), and so for any interval $I$, $$mu(f(I))=int_I |f'|.$$ Both sides of this equation are measures when considered as functions of $I$ (here we use the fact that $f$ is injective so $f(cdot)$ preserves disjointness of sets), and it follows that the two sides are equal for all Borel sets as well: for any Borel set $X$, $$mu(f(X))=int_X|f'|.$$ If $X$ has positive measure, then the integral on the right is positive since $f'$ is always nonzero, so $mu(f(X))>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:53










  • Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 3:55










  • Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:58










  • I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:00










  • Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:01












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









Yes. By Darboux's theorem, $f'$ must have constant sign, so $f$ is monotone. It follows that $f$ is locally absolutely continuous (see Non-decreasing and everywhere differentiable on $[0,1]$ implies absolutelly continuous?), and so for any interval $I$, $$mu(f(I))=int_I |f'|.$$ Both sides of this equation are measures when considered as functions of $I$ (here we use the fact that $f$ is injective so $f(cdot)$ preserves disjointness of sets), and it follows that the two sides are equal for all Borel sets as well: for any Borel set $X$, $$mu(f(X))=int_X|f'|.$$ If $X$ has positive measure, then the integral on the right is positive since $f'$ is always nonzero, so $mu(f(X))>0$.






share|cite|improve this answer















Yes. By Darboux's theorem, $f'$ must have constant sign, so $f$ is monotone. It follows that $f$ is locally absolutely continuous (see Non-decreasing and everywhere differentiable on $[0,1]$ implies absolutelly continuous?), and so for any interval $I$, $$mu(f(I))=int_I |f'|.$$ Both sides of this equation are measures when considered as functions of $I$ (here we use the fact that $f$ is injective so $f(cdot)$ preserves disjointness of sets), and it follows that the two sides are equal for all Borel sets as well: for any Borel set $X$, $$mu(f(X))=int_X|f'|.$$ If $X$ has positive measure, then the integral on the right is positive since $f'$ is always nonzero, so $mu(f(X))>0$.







share|cite|improve this answer















share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jul 30 at 4:00


























answered Jul 30 at 3:41









Eric Wofsey

162k12188298




162k12188298











  • Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:53










  • Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 3:55










  • Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:58










  • I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:00










  • Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:01
















  • Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:53










  • Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 3:55










  • Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
    – Drathora
    Jul 30 at 3:58










  • I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:00










  • Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 30 at 4:01















Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:53




Thank you. I suppose this also holds for open intervals by simply taking a suitably large sub-interval that is closed?
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:53












Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 3:55




Not sure what you mean by "this". I'm not assuming any interval is closed here. In any case, everything in this question is local, so it doesn't matter.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 3:55












Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:58




Apologies, I should have been more verbose. The preconditions for Darboux's theorem stated that $I$ should be a closed interval, which was the motivation behind the followup question. The question you linked also used a closed interval as an example, so I just wanted to make sure that everything still held when talking about open intervals.
– Drathora
Jul 30 at 3:58












I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 4:00




I guess maybe I should have said "locally absolutely continuous", since it seems that definitions of absolute continuity on non-compact intervals vary and may be stronger than what I am asserting here.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 4:00












Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 4:01




Right, everything here is local (we only need all these statements to hold in some neighborhood of every point), so we can freely use theorems that are stated only for closed intervals.
– Eric Wofsey
Jul 30 at 4:01












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2866619%2ffunctions-with-non-zero-derivative-sending-sets-of-positive-measure-to-sets-of-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
Read more

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
Read more