Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: agapito6314@xxxxxxx
- Date: 5 Sep 2006 09:25:28 -0700
Daniel Grubb wrote:
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
Thank you and everyone who replied. This is a really dumb question but
is it not possible to prove or disprove this physically? That is we
can construct a solid unit radius ball, cut it up into a finite number
of pieces (according to some procedure) and produce the new (solid?)
bigger ball? Thanks again.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Butch Malahide
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: José Carlos Santos
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Jeremy Boden
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- References:
- Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: agapito6314
- Re: Questions about Axiom of Choice
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Questions about Axiom of Choice
- Prev by Date: Re: Statistical modeling of novel chemical systems( AKA Chemist with lots of stats questions)
- 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
|