April 6th, 2017, 10:53 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,400 Thanks: 100  BanachTarski Paradox
A flying cow is not a paradox, it is a figment of the imagination, "If I can imagine it, it exists" notwithstanding. An infinite number of points on a line is a figment of the imagination. Real points have size. So unravelling the BanachTarski "paradox" is quite easy: Start with a figure made up of points. Stop right there. You can't do it. Points don't have size, they don't exist. But you can imagine they exist and your results will be imaginary. There is nothing mysterious or magical or paradoxical about it. Geometry deals with a line from a to b. Not a line consisting of n points. There are not n points in a circle. You cannot create a line or circle out of points. Classical analysis doesn't deal with numbers of points, it deals with increments. $\displaystyle \Delta$x is not defined by a number of points. 
April 6th, 2017, 01:02 PM  #2  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,855 Thanks: 750 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
Dan  
April 6th, 2017, 05:24 PM  #3 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,400 Thanks: 100 
But the premise and conclusion are expressed in physical terms. From wiki: "A stronger form of the theorem implies that given any two "reasonable" solid objects (such as a small ball and a huge ball), either one can be reassembled into the other. This is often stated informally as "a pea can be chopped up and reassembled into the sun." If the objects are considered to consist of an infinite number of points, that's trivial. 
April 6th, 2017, 05:56 PM  #4  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,973 Thanks: 551  Quote:
It's like the rubber sheet and bowling ball visualization of relativistic gravity. It's a popularization, not to be taken literally. As far as we know it's not true about the world. Of course if tomorrow morning professor so and so announces the discovery of a copy of the free group on two letters in the physical world ... all bets are off. [That would involve finding an actual infinity in the world]. Last edited by Maschke; April 6th, 2017 at 06:09 PM.  
April 6th, 2017, 06:05 PM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,400 Thanks: 100 
What is your version of Banach Tarski Paradox? Never mind. Don't waste your time. I assume you accept: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BanachTarskiParadox.html Which is just as ridiculous as the sun and the pea without a definition of ball. If the ball is undefined, we are dealing with flying cows. Last edited by zylo; April 6th, 2017 at 06:13 PM. 
April 6th, 2017, 06:41 PM  #6  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,973 Thanks: 551  Quote:
Last edited by Maschke; April 6th, 2017 at 06:45 PM.  
April 6th, 2017, 07:08 PM  #7 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,400 Thanks: 100 
That's not a ball. That's the location of points in a ball. You can't destroy your coordinate system. If you cut up the ball, to what coordinates do the components go. Presumably distances remain unchanged. Or is this what you are talking about? [0,1] H [0,2] small "ball" = large "ball" [0,2] H [0,2]U[2,4]U[4,6] one "ball" = three "balls" . 
April 6th, 2017, 07:15 PM  #8  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,973 Thanks: 551  Quote:
No, BT uses are isometries, rigid motions. Distancepreserving maps. Your homeomorphisms don't preserve distances. They are cardinality equivalences but not measure equivalences.  
April 6th, 2017, 07:21 PM  #9 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,400 Thanks: 100 
OK. So are we talking rigid motions (about an axis) or "rigid motions." I assume after ball is cut apart, the components are rigidly (distance preserving) moved somewhere in the coordinate system. How many parts, and how many rigid motions? If infinite, all bets are off. Last edited by zylo; April 6th, 2017 at 07:27 PM. 
April 6th, 2017, 07:48 PM  #10  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,973 Thanks: 551  Quote:
Quote:
It can be done with as few as five pieces; but I believe the Wiki proof I'm working through needs more pieces, but still finite. I'm not sure what it means to ask how many motions. You can break the ball up into 5 pieces, move the pieces around with a rigid motions, and end up with two balls each the size of the original. The proof involves the axiom of choice so there's a nonconstructive aspect to it. There's no algorithm. It's an existence proof. There's no sequence of steps. It's a proof that such a decomposition exists. It's not something we can ever visualize. Nobody can visualize a nonmeasurable set. Last edited by Maschke; April 6th, 2017 at 08:04 PM.  

Tags 
banachtarski, paradox 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Volume paradox  Banachâ€“Tarski  Loren  Geometry  39  April 28th, 2017 05:45 AM 
BanachTarski paradox  raul21  Applied Math  9  July 18th, 2016 01:25 PM 
Banach Tarski Paradox  zylo  Topology  5  July 18th, 2016 12:50 PM 
Direct sum of Banach spaces  raul21  Real Analysis  2  May 25th, 2014 08:09 AM 
Almost banach fix point  Cogline  Real Analysis  3  January 28th, 2010 01:53 PM 