Can the Unit Interval be Measurably Split into Two Sets of Equal Length?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of splitting the unit interval into two measurable sets that each measure 1/2 and have specific properties regarding intersections with sub-intervals. The Lebesgue density theorem is mentioned as evidence that this may not be possible. The conversation continues with the exploration of potential proofs and counterexamples. The concept of using the Axiom of Choice to partition the interval into two disjoint isometric dense sets is also mentioned, but it is noted that this cannot be done measurably.
  • #1
mathman
Science Advisor
8,140
572
TL;DR Summary
Splitting Unit interval into two measurable sets.
Can the unit interval be split into two measurable sets (A and B each measure 1/2), so that for any sub-interval [c,d] the intersections ##A\cap [c,d]## and ##B\cap [c,d]## each measure half the length of [c,d]? I doubt it, but I would like to see a proof, one way or the other.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
I think it could be done for the rationals, but perhaps not for the reals. A partition of the rational unit interval ##J\triangleq [0,1]\cap\mathbb Q## that I think might work is as follows:

Let ##f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb Q## be the enumeration of the rationals that considers them in maximally reduced form (no common factors of numerator and denominator) and orders them first by denominator, then numerator, viz: 0/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5,...
Consider the partition ##P:\{1,2\}\to 2^J## such that ##q\in J## is in ##P(1)## if ##f^{-1}(q)## is odd, otherwise it is in ##P(2)##. So our two parts are, showing just the numerators in columns two and three:

DenominatorNumerators in P(1)Numerators in P(2)
101
21
321
431
52, 41, 3
631,5
71,3,52,4,6
...

Neither part of this partition contains any intervals and I cannot see any biases in it that would cause accumulation points of other material variations in density for either P(1) or P(2). There would be work in proving it satisfied the sought criterion, but I guess that it could be done.

For the real case, I would imagine trying a non-constructive proof by contradiction. Let ##\mathscr P## be the set of all two-way partitions of ##I##, ##\mathscr K## be the set of all sub-intervals of [0,1] and define ##h:\mathscr P\to [0,1]## by
$$h(P) =\sup_{\alpha\in\mathscr K} \frac{\max(|\alpha\cap P(1)|, |\alpha\cap P(2)|)}{|\alpha|}$$
where ##|S|## indicates the measure of set S, and
$$r =\inf_{P\in\mathscr P} h(P)$$

If ##r>0.5## we try to construct a partition P such that ##0.5<h(P)<r##, thereby giving a contradiction and proving that ##r=0.5##.

If we can prove that ##r=0.5## then we try to prove that the inf is a min by constructing the min, and that min will be a partition that satisfies the criterion. I think that would be the hardest bit, and the most likely place where the attempt fails.

I'm moderately confident we could make ##\mathscr K## the set of intervals with rational endpoints without invalidating the proof. That could make it easier because then ##\mathscr K## will be enumerable and we might use the enumeration function for things like constructing maxima or minima or generating contradictions.

EDIT: I didn't see the post about the Lebesgue Density Theorem until I had finished posting this. It sounds like we will have ##r=1##.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
@andrewkirk What do you mean by ##|\alpha\cap P(1)|##? These sets will be infinite, so it doesn't make sense to just count elements. But there's also not a good measure to put on ##[0,1]\cap\mathbb{Q}## since it's countable and infinite.
 
  • #5
Infrared said:
@andrewkirk What do you mean by ##|\alpha\cap P(1)|##? These sets will be infinite, so it doesn't make sense to just count elements. But there's also not a good measure to put on ##[0,1]\cap\mathbb{Q}## since it's countable and infinite.
I am using the mod signs to indicate the measure. I meant to write that in but forgot. Will put it in now.
 
  • #6
What measure are you using? You can't use the usual measure if you're only working with rationals (or else everything will have measure zero)
 
  • #7
This is something I thought about a long time ago. It's very interesting that the half-open interval [0,1) is not the disjoint union of two measurable sets that intersect each subinterval [a,b) in half its measure, (b-a)/2.

I believe that by using the Axiom of Choice it is possible to partition [0,1) into two disjoint isometric dense sets A and B , that are in fact metrically homogeneous (in the sense that for any L > 0 they each intersect each interval of length L in isometric sets A ∩ L and B ∩ L). But this cannot be done measurably.
 

1. What is a split unit interval in half?

A split unit interval in half refers to dividing a unit interval, which is a line segment with a length of 1, into two equal parts. This can be represented as 0.5 or 1/2 on a number line.

2. Why is splitting a unit interval in half important?

Splitting a unit interval in half is important in mathematics and science because it allows for more precise measurements and calculations. It also helps to create a standard unit of measurement that can be easily divided and multiplied.

3. How is a unit interval split in half?

A unit interval can be split in half by finding the midpoint, which is halfway between the two endpoints. This can be done by adding the two endpoints and dividing by 2, or by using the formula (a+b)/2, where a and b are the endpoints.

4. Can a split unit interval be divided into more than two equal parts?

Yes, a split unit interval can be divided into any number of equal parts. This is known as partitioning. For example, a unit interval can be divided into 4 equal parts by finding the points 1/4, 2/4, and 3/4 on the number line.

5. How is a split unit interval used in science?

A split unit interval is used in science to measure and represent quantities such as time, distance, and temperature. It is also used in data analysis and graphing to show the relationship between two variables on a number line.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
210
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
3
Views
182
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
757
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
756
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top