proof of Hausdorff paradox
We start by outlining the general ideas, followed by the strict proof.
General approach
The unit sphere in the Euclidean space is finite in the sense that it is http://planetmath.org/node/4826bounded and has a finite volume: .
On the other hand, is an infinite point set. As everyone who has ever visited Hilbert’s Hotel knows, it is possible to split an infinite set, such as the natural numbers, in pieces and all pieces are, in a sense, equal to the original set, for example if
then naïvely has a third of the size of , and half of the size of . There exists, however, a bijection from to , so has, again naïvely, both half and a third of the size of .
To do the same thing with , bijections won’t suffice, however: we need isometries to establish congruence. We can almost reduce this problem to the case of bijections in the following way. The group of rotations (rotations are isometries) in acts on (say, from the right). Given an countably infinite subgroup of which acts freely (or almost so) on , take a set of http://planetmath.org/node/1517orbit representatives of the action of on (this requires the http://planetmath.org/node/310axiom of choice). Then a disjoint decomposition of into countable sets acting on yields a disjoint decomposition of . Doing similar juggling with as we did with , and above should yield the result, if all the are related by fixed isometries, for example if for some isometry , and similar relations for the other pieces. This last restriction will make the proof possible only in three or more dimensions, and indeed, Banach and Tarski later showed in [BT] that analogous theorems on the line or in the plane do not hold.
The proof
Let be the subgroup of rotations of generated by a half rotation and a one third rotation around different axes. We fix an orthonormal basis for the rest of the proof, so we may identify and with their rotation matrices acting from the right on the row vectors of , such that without restriction
where , and is arbitrary for now.
Since and , there exists for each element from other than the unity, , or a positive integer and numbers , , such that can be written in one of the following ways:
-
()
,
-
()
,
-
()
,
-
()
().
To have complete control over the structure of , we fix in such a way, that can be written uniquely in one of the ways ()–(), with fixed and . In other words: we fix such that the unity cannot be written in one of the ways ()–().
To see how to do that, let us see to where the vector is transported by a transformation of type (). It is easily verified that
so that and . More generally, let be a positive integer, polynomials of degree and a polynomial of degree , then
By induction, it follows that is transported by a transformation of type () to a vector whose third component is a nonconstant polynomial in . If we restrict such that , there are only finitely many values for such that . Given all possible combinations of and , , there are in total only countably many problematic values for , so we can easily fix hereby an unproblematic one. Now that the case () has been dealt with, so have been the others automatically. For assume one could write a of type (), one could convert it to type () by , and from type to type () or type () by , and lastly from type () to type () by , completing the contradiction.
Now that we know the structure of , how does it act on ? Certainly not freely, since every rotation other than the unity has its axis as fixed point set, which in case of the sphere makes two fixed points per rotation. The product of two rotations is again a rotation. Furthermore is finitely generated and so is countable. So there are only countably many points of where the action of fails to be free. Denote the set of these points by , so that acts freely on . The action creates a partition on into orbits. The allows us to choose a set , such that meets any orbit in precisely one element. We have then the disjoint union
where is the image of under the action of the group element . We now define three sets , , to be the smallest sets satisfying:
-
•
;
-
•
if is a subset of , or , then is a subset of , or , respectively;
-
•
if is a subset of , or , then is a subset of , or , respectively;
-
•
if is a subset of , or , then is a subset of , or , respectively.
The sets , and are well-defined because we ensured the uniqueness of the representations ()–() above.
The sets , , and are all congruent by virtue of
Since , a disjoint union, and is countable, the theorem is proven.
References
- BT St. Banach, A. Tarski, Sur la décomposition des ensembles de points en parties respectivement congruentes, Fund. math. 6, 244–277, (1924).
- H F. Hausdorff, Bemerkung über den Inhalt von Punktmengen, Math. Ann. 75, 428–433, (1915).
Title | proof of Hausdorff paradox |
---|---|
Canonical name | ProofOfHausdorffParadox |
Date of creation | 2013-03-22 15:16:18 |
Last modified on | 2013-03-22 15:16:18 |
Owner | GrafZahl (9234) |
Last modified by | GrafZahl (9234) |
Numerical id | 6 |
Author | GrafZahl (9234) |
Entry type | Proof |
Classification | msc 03E25 |
Classification | msc 51M04 |
Classification | msc 20F05 |
Related topic | ChoiceFunction |
Related topic | BanachTarskiParadox |