Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question about the Banach–Tarski paradox.

  1. Aug 7, 2011 #1
    I was reading a little bit about the Banach–Tarski theorem. Is this similar to a line segment of length 1 having the same points as a square with side lengths of 1. And then also a cube with sides of length 1. So then I should be able to take a square and pick out all the points and construct a cube with the same side length. And I should be able to construct as many cubes as I want from that square just by picking out points and constructing my cube. Is this related to the Banach–Tarski theorem or am I crazy.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2011 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Hi cragar! :smile:

    The Banach-Tarski paradox is a little bit stronger. When you have a line, you can indeed form a square out of this line. However, what we do there is we take every point separately and map it to a point in the square. So we have to cut our line into an infinite number of pieces and then reassemble it.
    Banach-Tarski is a lot stronger: it says we can cut our sphere into [itex]\mathbf{5}[/itex] pieces, and then reassemble it to form two balls. You can't do this with the line: you can't take 5 line pieces and reassemble it to form a square!! But you can do it with a ball.
     
  4. Aug 7, 2011 #3
    so we can do it with a ball but not a line or square.
     
  5. Aug 7, 2011 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Indeed, it has been proven that we can't do this in one or two dimensions.
     
  6. Aug 7, 2011 #5
    thanks for your answers by the way. Ok lets say I have a sphere of radius 1, can i view the points as infinitesimally small cubes? Then from these cubes I could construct 2 other spheres of radius 1. You said that the theorem cuts the sphere into 5 parts. Why cant I just say when I pick my little cubes from the sphere that I do it 2, 3, or how ever many ways and I put these cubes in a box. So I have an infinite amount of cubes in each box and I might have 3 boxes, then I use these 3 boxes to construct 2 other spheres of radius 1, And the boxes represent my finite area partitions of the original sphere.
     
  7. Aug 7, 2011 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The two key qualitative facts of the Banach-Tarski paradox are:
    • The motions are simple -- it uses Euclidean translations and rotations (volume-preserving operations) on finitely many objects
    • The sets involved are so "complicated" that the notion of volume doesn't have any meaning for them (they're called non-measurable sets)

    (aside: there are lots of "measures" -- notions like "how many", "length", "area", and "volume" are all different sorts of measures)

    The first point is rather important -- without it (or something similar), there's no reason to believe that such an argument would preserve measure. As you point out, it's a rather simple matter to take the points of a line and rearrange them into a square -- but the way you do it gives us no reason to think that it should preserve measure*


    Previous pseudo-paradoxes that properly use measure-preserving transformations had other factors against them that make it easy for people to mentally brush off the use of non-measurable sets and simply ascribe any poor behavior of measure to the ways in which the argument is complicated.


    The Banach-Tarski (pseudo-)paradox is significant because there is pretty much no room to rationalize things away -- it really does a good job of forcing people to acknowledge non-measurable sets and just how badly the idea of measure behaves in their presence.

    (Of course, this acknowledgement leads some people to adopt versions of set theory in which non-measurable sets don't exist)


    *: well, we have reason to believe the counting measure is preserved, and it is. ([itex]+\infty[/itex] for both a line and for a square)
     
  8. Aug 7, 2011 #7
    I guess I need to read more about the theorem and measure.
     
  9. Aug 7, 2011 #8

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Maybe read my blog post about it: https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2993 [Broken]
    It might help...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Question about the Banach–Tarski paradox.
  1. Banach-Tarsky Paradox (Replies: 12)

  2. Banach-Tarsky paradox (Replies: 4)

  3. Banach-Tarski paradox (Replies: 5)

Loading...