3
$\begingroup$

While not so well known, the von Neumann paradox is built among the same lines, in dimension 2 and with transforms within the special linear group. But what is wrong with the following "proof" : it is not very hard to show that the group generated by the two rotations of angle $\alpha$ around $O$ and $C$, with $OC<1/100$, say, and $\alpha/\pi$ irrational and small (say $<1/100$ too), is non-abelian and free. The von Neumann construction applied to two disjoint unit discs then split them in four sets (plus a few fixed points) and sends those sets injectively, by rotations and translations, to disjoint sets included in the union of four copies of the unit disc, this union having something like 1.04 area of the disc. Obviously, this is very wrong, as the Banach-Tarski construction of a full additive measure invariant by isometries of the plane preclude such a thing. Where am I mistaken?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The group of motions of the plane is solvable of class two, so your two rotations can't generate a free group (and satisfy an explicit relation, e.g. $[[u,v],u[u,v]u^{-1}]=1$). But you have a variant of the paradox, using a free semigroup, implying, if I remember well that there is no finitely additive (unbounded!) measure on the bounded Borel sets, for which the unit disc has measure 1 (amenability of the group of motion provides an invariant mean on subset of the plane, which necessarily takes value 0 on the bounded subsets. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 3, 2012 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't understand your notation. If $u$ and $v$ are the two rotations, $v=tu$, with $t$ translation by the vector $OA$, with $A=v(O)$, $v^{-1}=t'u$ ($t'$ similarly translation by $OB$, with $B=v^{-1}(O)$) ; then $ut=Tu$ (the new translation vector being rotation of the first one by $alpha$). So how can $u$ and $v$ related, especially by a short relation ? $\endgroup$ Oct 3, 2012 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ @FeldmannDenis Brackets usually denote the commutator $[g, h] = g^{−1}h^{−1}gh.$ $\endgroup$ Oct 3, 2012 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ Oups... Sorry for my misunderstanding. And yes, the problem stems indeed from the existence of this relation. Next, I have to find the mistake in my "proof" that no such relation exists (even when the two angles of rotation are distinct), but this has no interest for MathOverfloxw, I am afraid :-( $\endgroup$ Oct 3, 2012 at 17:46

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The mistake appears at the very begining of the "proof". In order to obtain the paradoxical decomposition we need a free group of rank $2$. Denote one of the above rotations by $\sigma$ and the other by $\tau$. One can easily check that the isometry $\sigma^2 \tau^2 \sigma^{-2} \tau^{-2}$ is a translation and the same about $\sigma^{-2} \tau^{-2} \sigma^{2} \tau^{2}$. This implies that the isometries commute and therefore the group generated by $\sigma$ and $\tau$ is not a free group of rank $2$.

It should be noted that the von Neumann paradox uses elements from the special affine group $SA_2(\mathbb{R})$ and not the linear transformations alone (linear transformations fix the origin so it cannot be duplicated). For a variant of Banach-Tarski paradox on the punctured unit disk (the origin removed) you may consult the paper "A free group of piecewise linear transformations", Coll. Math. 125 (2011), 141-146.

Also, the paradox mentioned by YCor above (so called Sierpinski-Mazurkiewicz paradox) uses the free group generated by the translation $f(z) = z + 1$ and the rotation $g(z) = e^{iz}$, but it does not exclude the existence of Borel measure as suggested above. Note that there is a Banach measure (finitely additive, isometry invariant measure defined on all subsets of $\mathbb{R}^2$ that normalizes the unit square and extends the Lebesgue measure) which restriction to Borel sets has the desired properties. All that we can say in this case is that Sierpinski-Mazurkiewicz paradox excludes the possibility of existence of any finitely additive, isometry invariant measure defined on all subsets of $\mathbb{R}^2$ that normalizes the paradoxical set constructed by Sierpinski and Mazurkiewicz.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.