Kenneth A. answered 2d
Experienced Tutor in Criminal Justice, Law, History, math, and writing
Here’s a clean, human-readable proof using the definition of Lebesgue outer measure.
Let E ⊂ R and k > 0. Recall
∞ ∞
m^* (A) = inf { ∑ ℓ ( In ) : A ⊂ ∪ In, In intervals },
n = 1 n = 1
where ℓ ([ a, b ]) = b - a (same length for open/half-open variants).
We’ll prove both inequalities and conclude equality.
( ≤ ) Direction
Take any interval cover { In } of E. Then { kIn } (scale each interval by k) covers kE. Lengths scale linearly:
ℓ ( k In ) = k ℓ ( In ).
Hence
m^* ( k E ) ≤ ∑ ℓ ( k In ) = k ∑ ℓ ( In).
n n
Infimizing over all covers { In } of E gives
m^* ( k E ) ≤ k m^* ( E ).
≥ Direction
Now take any interval cover { Jn } of k E. Then { ( 1/k ) Jn } covers E, and
ℓ (( 1 / k ) Jn ) = 1/k ℓ ( Jn ).
Thus
m^* ( E ) ≤ ∑ ℓ (( 1/ k ) Jn ) = 1/k ∑ ℓ ( Jn ).
Multiply by k:
k m^* ( E ) ≤ ∑ ℓ (Jn ).
n
Infimizing over all covers { Jn } of kE yields.
k m^* ( E ) ≤ m^* (k E).
Combining,
m^* ( k E ) = k m^* ( E ).
(Edge cases: if m^* ( E ) = ∞ the statement is immediate; for completeness, when k = 0.
we’d have 0 E = { 0 } and m^* ({0}) = 0 = 0 • m^* ( E ), but the problem assumes k > 0. )