Axiom Tutoring

Tutor for Math, CompSci, Stats, Logic

Professional tutoring service offering individualized, private instruction for high school and college students.  Well qualified and experienced professional with an advanced degree from Columbia University.  Advanced/college mathematics, logic, philosophy, test prep, microeconomics, computer science and more.

Measure Theoretic Probaibility - Video 5.1 - Vitali's Proof of the Impossibility of a Measure of all Real Numbers

Link to the Video

Link to the Playlist

Vitali’s Impossibility Theorem

Claim: There is no measure function on the set of all subsets of real numbers. (To be understood somewhat intuitively for now, and made more formal later).

Proof: Suppose for contradiction that \( m:\mathcal P(\Bbb R)\to \Bbb R^* = \Bbb R\cup \{-\infty,\infty\}\) is a measure function on the set of all subsets of real numbers.

Define \(\sim\) to be a relation on the interval of real numbers \([0,1]\), by the condition \(x\sim y \) holds if and only if \(|x-y|\in\Bbb Q\).

Define \(F\) to be any complete set of representatives of the cells of the partition induced by \(\sim\). That is to say: For every cell \([\lambda]\) of the partition induced by \(\sim\), the set \(F\) has precisely one element (chosen arbitrarily) from the cell.

Define \(r:\Bbb N\to\Bbb Q\cap [-1,1]\) to be any arbitrary enumeration of the rational numbers in the interval \([-1,1]\). We will denote the mapping \(r(n) \) by the expression \(r_n\).

Define \(V=\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb N}(F+r_n)\).

Define \(m(F+r_n)=c\). Intuitively, these sets are mere translations of F, and so they should all share a common, constant measure which we can call c.

First we prove that \(1\le m(V)\le 3\) by showing that in fact \((0,1)\subseteq V\subseteq [-1,2]\).

Let \(x\in (0,1)\). Then x is in some cell of the partition induced by \(\sim\), call it \(x\in [\lambda]\), in which case we have that \(|x-\lambda|\in \Bbb Q\). This in turn entails that \(x=\lambda + s\) for some rational number s. Moreover, \(s\in[-1,1]\) which guarantees that s occurs in the enumeration r. That is to say, there must be some \(n\in\Bbb N\) such that \(s=r_n\). Then \(x\in F + r_n\subseteq V\). Therefore \((0,1)\subseteq V\).

Next let \(x\in V\) so that there is some \(F+r_n\) such that \(x\in F + r_n\). Then there is some \(\lambda\in F\) such that \(x=\lambda+r_n\). But we have \(0\le \lambda\le 1\) and \(-1\le r_n\le 1\) so that therefore \(-1\le x\le 2\). Therefore \(V\subseteq [-1,2]\).

The fact that \((0,1)\subseteq V\), now established, should intuitively imply that \(1\le m(V)\). This is because a reasonable measure of subsets of real numbers should assign the interval (0,1) a measure equal to the length, which is 1. And any set containing this interval, should then have measure at least 1. Likewise we should have that \(m(V)\le 3\) for a similar reason.

We now show that \(m(V)\in\{0,\infty\}\). Intuitively, if V is “made up of” a bunch of non-overlapping pieces, then its measure should be the sum of the measures of the pieces. (For a visualization, if you break a stick, then length of the stick was the sum of the lengths of the two pieces.) Therefore if we should that in fact \(V=\bigsqcup_{n\in\Bbb N}(F+r_n)\) is a disjoint union, it will follow that \(m(V)=\sum m(F+r_n)=\sum c\).

To prove disjointness, let \(x\in F+r_m\cap F+r_n\) so that there are \(\lambda,\mu\) such that \(x=\lambda+r_m = \mu+r_n\). In which case \(\lambda-\mu = r_n-r_m\), which also ensures that \(|\lambda-\mu|\in \Bbb Q\). By definition then \(\lambda\sim\mu\). But recall that F contains exactly one representative per cell of the associated partition, and therefore \(\lambda=\mu\). Using this in the earlier equations we also have \(r_m=r_n\) whence we further have \(F+r_m=F+r_n\). This proves that the collection of sets is disjoint (since if they share any element then they are equal).

We now have that \(m(V)=\sum c\). We then have two cases, \(c=0\) or \(c>0\). In the former case \(m(V)=0\) and in the latter case \(m(V)\). In either case, we obtain a contradiction with the earlier result \(1\le m(V)\le 3\).

Hence the proof by contradiction is now complete.

\(\blacksquare\)