Mixing
How did we resolve the Banach-Taraski paradox?
$begingroup$
I see that when Banach-Taraski paradox emerged we solved this problem by stating that not every subset is measurable so we restrict ourselves to nice sets which are measurable. But How? I'm confused a little about what nice sets should mean?
why the axioms of a sigma algebra ensure that Banach-Taraski paradox will not occur?
measure-theory euclidean-geometry geometric-measure-theory
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I see that when Banach-Taraski paradox emerged we solved this problem by stating that not every subset is measurable so we restrict ourselves to nice sets which are measurable. But How? I'm confused a little about what nice sets should mean?
why the axioms of a sigma algebra ensure that Banach-Taraski paradox will not occur?
measure-theory euclidean-geometry geometric-measure-theory
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I see that when Banach-Taraski paradox emerged we solved this problem by stating that not every subset is measurable so we restrict ourselves to nice sets which are measurable. But How? I'm confused a little about what nice sets should mean?
why the axioms of a sigma algebra ensure that Banach-Taraski paradox will not occur?
measure-theory euclidean-geometry geometric-measure-theory
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
$endgroup$
I see that when Banach-Taraski paradox emerged we solved this problem by stating that not every subset is measurable so we restrict ourselves to nice sets which are measurable. But How? I'm confused a little about what nice sets should mean?
why the axioms of a sigma algebra ensure that Banach-Taraski paradox will not occur?
measure-theory euclidean-geometry geometric-measure-theory
measure-theory euclidean-geometry geometric-measure-theory
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
edited Feb 1 at 19:08
Asaf Karagila♦
308k33441775
308k33441775
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
asked Feb 1 at 18:07
Dreamer123Dreamer123
33229
33229
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The axioms of a $sigma$-algebra itself do not guarantee that the sets can't produce the Banach-Tarski paradox. After all, the full power set of $mathbb R^3$ is a $sigma$-algebra and obviously allows Banach-Tarski.
What prevents it is the defining feature of the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra (the measurable sets). For any set $Esubseteq mathbb R^n$ to be in the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra, its Lebesgue outer measure $lambda^*(E)$ must satisfy $lambda^*(A) = lambda^*(Acap E) + lambda^*(A setminus E)$ for every $Asubseteq mathbb R^n$. This is the sense in which they are "nice" with respect to measure--they never divide sets in a way that their volume doesn't add up to the original. From this it can be proved that the Lebesgue outer measure is countably additive when restricted to the measurable sets. This prevents making a Banach-Tarski-like result out of measurable sets--they always add up to the volume of their union.
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3096550%2fhow-did-we-resolve-the-banach-taraski-paradox%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The axioms of a $sigma$-algebra itself do not guarantee that the sets can't produce the Banach-Tarski paradox. After all, the full power set of $mathbb R^3$ is a $sigma$-algebra and obviously allows Banach-Tarski.
What prevents it is the defining feature of the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra (the measurable sets). For any set $Esubseteq mathbb R^n$ to be in the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra, its Lebesgue outer measure $lambda^*(E)$ must satisfy $lambda^*(A) = lambda^*(Acap E) + lambda^*(A setminus E)$ for every $Asubseteq mathbb R^n$. This is the sense in which they are "nice" with respect to measure--they never divide sets in a way that their volume doesn't add up to the original. From this it can be proved that the Lebesgue outer measure is countably additive when restricted to the measurable sets. This prevents making a Banach-Tarski-like result out of measurable sets--they always add up to the volume of their union.
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The axioms of a $sigma$-algebra itself do not guarantee that the sets can't produce the Banach-Tarski paradox. After all, the full power set of $mathbb R^3$ is a $sigma$-algebra and obviously allows Banach-Tarski.
What prevents it is the defining feature of the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra (the measurable sets). For any set $Esubseteq mathbb R^n$ to be in the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra, its Lebesgue outer measure $lambda^*(E)$ must satisfy $lambda^*(A) = lambda^*(Acap E) + lambda^*(A setminus E)$ for every $Asubseteq mathbb R^n$. This is the sense in which they are "nice" with respect to measure--they never divide sets in a way that their volume doesn't add up to the original. From this it can be proved that the Lebesgue outer measure is countably additive when restricted to the measurable sets. This prevents making a Banach-Tarski-like result out of measurable sets--they always add up to the volume of their union.
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The axioms of a $sigma$-algebra itself do not guarantee that the sets can't produce the Banach-Tarski paradox. After all, the full power set of $mathbb R^3$ is a $sigma$-algebra and obviously allows Banach-Tarski.
What prevents it is the defining feature of the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra (the measurable sets). For any set $Esubseteq mathbb R^n$ to be in the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra, its Lebesgue outer measure $lambda^*(E)$ must satisfy $lambda^*(A) = lambda^*(Acap E) + lambda^*(A setminus E)$ for every $Asubseteq mathbb R^n$. This is the sense in which they are "nice" with respect to measure--they never divide sets in a way that their volume doesn't add up to the original. From this it can be proved that the Lebesgue outer measure is countably additive when restricted to the measurable sets. This prevents making a Banach-Tarski-like result out of measurable sets--they always add up to the volume of their union.
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
$endgroup$
The axioms of a $sigma$-algebra itself do not guarantee that the sets can't produce the Banach-Tarski paradox. After all, the full power set of $mathbb R^3$ is a $sigma$-algebra and obviously allows Banach-Tarski.
What prevents it is the defining feature of the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra (the measurable sets). For any set $Esubseteq mathbb R^n$ to be in the Lebesgue $sigma$-algebra, its Lebesgue outer measure $lambda^*(E)$ must satisfy $lambda^*(A) = lambda^*(Acap E) + lambda^*(A setminus E)$ for every $Asubseteq mathbb R^n$. This is the sense in which they are "nice" with respect to measure--they never divide sets in a way that their volume doesn't add up to the original. From this it can be proved that the Lebesgue outer measure is countably additive when restricted to the measurable sets. This prevents making a Banach-Tarski-like result out of measurable sets--they always add up to the volume of their union.
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
answered Feb 1 at 18:22
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
7,212633
7,212633
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3096550%2fhow-did-we-resolve-the-banach-taraski-paradox%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The measure of countable (in particular finite) unions is rather important here
$endgroup$
– Henry
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
It's not the axioms of $sigma$-algebra which guarantee it, but rather properties of measure - measurable sets have well-defined notion of volume which is preserved by isometries, so the intuitive argument "you can increase the volume" works.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Feb 1 at 18:11
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2365031/…
$endgroup$
– d.k.o.
Feb 1 at 18:19