I know that if $I_1, \dots, I_n$ are finite index sets and for every $i \in \bigcup_{j=1}^n I_j$ there exists $v_i \in \mathbb{R}$, then holds
$$ \prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{i \in I_j} v_i = \sum_{(i_1, \dots, i_n) \in I_1 \times \dots, \times I_n} \prod_{j=1}^n v_{i_j}. $$
I am trying to use this statement to prove the following claim: Let $N \in \mathbb{N}$, $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Then holds
$$ \sum_{v \in \big\{0, \frac{1}{N}, \frac{2}{N}, \dots, 1\big\}^n} \prod_{j=1}^r (1 - N|x_j - v_j|) = \prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{i=0}^N (1 - N|x_j - i/N|), $$
but I'm unsure where to start or how to translate the notation. I don't think that I can take $I_1, \dots, I_n := \{0, \frac{1}{N}, \dots, 1\}$, since in this case, we can't define $v_i$ meaningfully.
Given finite index sets $I_1,I_2,\ldots,I_n$ we can apply the generalised distributive law \begin{align*} \prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{i \in I_j} v_{i_j} = \sum_{(i_1, \dots, i_n) \in I_1 \times \dots, \times I_n} \prod_{j=1}^n v_{i_j}\tag{1} \end{align*}
Comment:
In (2) we just use a different representation of the index set of the inner sum and do not longer necessarily use the summation order $0\leq i\leq n$.
In (3) we introduce $v_j=\frac{q}{N}$ as new index variable for the inner sum. Note we use the sub-index $j$ in $v_j$ to indicate the relationship with the scope of the index variable $j$.
In (4) we apply the generalised distributive law (1) and write $(v_j)_{1\leq j\leq n}=\left(v_1,\ldots,v_n\right)$.