First stated in , the Banach-Tarski paradox states that it is possible to decompose a ball into six pieces which can be reassembled by rigid motions to form. The Banach-Tarski paradox is a theorem in geometry and set theory which states that a. THE BANACH-TARSKI PARADOX. ALLISON WU. Abstract. Stefan Banach and Alfred Tarski introduced the phrase: “a pea can be chopped up.

Author: Tauktilar Yolabar
Country: Lithuania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 23 March 2009
Pages: 120
PDF File Size: 16.87 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.56 Mb
ISBN: 323-1-60637-788-9
Downloads: 57069
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tojaramar

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Moreover, since a countable set can be made into two copies of itself, one might expect that using countably many pieces could somehow do the trick. However, once one stops thinking of the oh!

The intuition that such operations preserve volumes is not mathematically absurd and it is even included in the formal definition of volumes. I know people define a given volume of water to be the same as the same volume of mercury because that’s how it appears at the macroscopic level but it actually contains less matter.

In tardki words, every point in S 2 can be reached in exactly one way by applying pagadox proper rotation from H to the proper element from M. Email required Address never made public.

Measure is, in a certain sense, analogous to volume.

A Layman’s Explanation of the Banach-Tarski Paradox

Otherwise its volume doesn’t exist. Then J is countable. As a consequence of this paradox, it is not possible to create a finitely additive measure on that is both translation and rotation invariant, which can measure every subset ofand which gives the unit ball a non-zero measure. The mathematical sphere has infinite density.

A Layman’s Explanation of the Banach-Tarski Paradox – A Reasoner’s Miscellany

Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count.


Tarski proved that amenable groups are precisely those for which no paradoxical decompositions exist.

I’ve been studying measure theory for a little while and that statement intrigued me. This explains the paradox. Soke Ah, it seems like you are taking about connections between set theory on the one hand, and on the other hand, some idealized physical theory that includes a notion of volume and says that every object has a volume that is preserved under physical transformations but excludes some other aspects of the physical world like pressure.

The heart of the proof of the “doubling the ball” form of the paradox presented below is the remarkable fact that by a Euclidean isometry and renaming of elementsone can divide a certain set essentially, banaxh surface of a unit sphere into four parts, then rotate one of them to become itself plus two of the other parts. The action of H on a given orbit is free and transitive and so each orbit can be identified with H. Hahahaha, this is why I love Mathematics. According to the principle of mass—energy equivalencetarwki process of cutting up a physical object and separating its pieces adds mass to the system if the pieces are attracted to one another which is often the case with physical objects.

Unfortunately you also get consistency of ZF. A stronger form of the theorem implies that given any two “reasonable” solid objects such as a small ball and a huge ballthe cut pieces of either one can be reassembled into the other. It can be proven using the axiom of choicewhich allows for the construction of non-measurable setsi.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Mon Dec 31 I agree that “one could easily imagine performing set operations in a universe where there is no binding energy”, but I think that one could imagine this in many different ways. As Stan Wagon points out at the end of his monograph, the Banach—Tarski paradox has been more significant for its role in pure mathematics than for foundational questions: The paradox addresses aspects of the usual pafadox of the continuum that don’t fit very well with our physical intuition.


Mathematically, even when finite becomes infinite, you still usually have measurable sets. Published by Sean Li. Thank you for your interest in this question.

I think your last paragraph gets to the point better. In fact, the group SA 2 contains as a subgroup the special linear group SL 2, Rwhich in its turn contains the free group F 2 with two generators as a subgroup. In fact, it can be shown that it can be split into just FIVE pieces, one of them being the point farski the center. Then bsnach I understand correctly we take the ball to not be a solid, but rather an infinite scattering of points?

Where in reality you can find a continuous ball which is not made of atoms? Paraxox Tao on C, Notes 2: This sketch glosses over some details.

They proved the following more general statement, the strong form of the Banach—Tarski paradox:. For one the sets you are using are very much scattered. We shouldn’t expect the Banach—Tarski theorem to apply to physical objects, simply because it makes no claim to apply to physical objects.