Axiom of Choice and something I find to not be logical

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Quanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axiom Choice
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
I heard something along the lines of when you accept the axiom of choice as true, you can then prove using some abstract set theory that by dividing a sphere, you can divide it and then put it together so that it is bigger than it originally was?

Is the math behind this proof difficult? And is this true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
from Kuro5hin - Layman's Guide to the Banach-Tarski Paradox --->
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275

search "Banach-Tarski" for more stuff.

Feynman said phooey about B-T --->
http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/mathdigest/200112-choice.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IIRC, the proof uses surgery theory.

One of the main things to emphasize about the construction is that its intermediate steps involve sets that are not measurable. All of the clever work is done with sets for which you cannot define volume, so there isn't any reason to expect that you have the original volume when you're done.


And, incidentally, the big point about the construction is that it only uses five pieces. It's a trivial exercise to prove that you can rearrange all of the points in one sphere to form two spheres of the same size, if you do it one point at a time.
 
Last edited:
Hurkyl said:
IIRC, the proof uses surgery theory.

One of the main things to emphasize about the construction is that its intermediate steps involve sets that are not measurable. All of the clever work is done with sets for which you cannot define volume, so there isn't any reason to expect that you have the original volume when you're done.


And, incidentally, the big point about the construction is that it only uses three pieces. It's a trivial exercise to prove that you can rearrange all of the points in one sphere to form two spheres of the same size, if you do it one point at a time.


The "not measureable" subsets are disjoint and add up to the whole original ball. Therefore by linearity of measure their total measure is the original volume, even though that can't be allocated to them in any way.
 

Thread 'Roulette wheel physics and probability'

Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
View full post »
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
View full post »

Similar threads

I Axioms of Fuzzy Logic
Replies
7
Views
1K
A About the “Axiom of Dependent Choice”
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB About the “Axiom of Dependent Choice”
Replies
1
Views
2K
A First order logic and set theory: who comes first?
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Modus Ponens deduction rule
Replies
12
Views
2K
Is there a way to prove Axiom of Choice I from Axiom of Choice II?
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Is an algorithm for a proof required to halt?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Are existence proofs outlawed in multi-valued logics?
Replies
19
Views
3K
Confusion over Axiom of Choice.
Replies
6
Views
2K
MHB Is the Axiom of Choice Necessary to Well-Order Finite Sets?
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top