Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: grubb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Grubb)
- Date: 5 Sep 2006 15:15:44 GMT
1.- It is a "pure existence" statement, that is it tells something
exists but not what it is. Is math not full of these kinds of
statements?
It is now. Until relatively recently, an existence proof was required
to give a method of construction.
2.- Some of its implications are weird or counterintuitive. Can
someone please explain some of these?
My favorite is the Banach-Tarski paradox: it is possible to take
the unit ball (i.e. radius 1) in three dimensional euclidean space,
divide it into a finite number of pieces, move those pieces around
via rigid motions (i.e. translations and rotations), and re-assemble
them into a ball of radius 2.
--Dan Grubb
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Michael Hennebry
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: agapito6314
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- References:
- Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: agapito6314
- Questions about Axiom of Choice
- Prev by Date: Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- Next by Date: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Previous by thread: Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- Next by thread: Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading