MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We know that a countably additive translation invariant measure with $\mu([0,1]) = 1$ cannot be defined on the power set of $\mathbb R$. This is because $[0,1]$ can be partitioned into countably many congruent sets, with the help of the axiom of choice.

But I was wondering whether a finitely additive measure with these properties would be possible? I know it wouldn't be possible for dimension $n>2$ because of the Banach-Tarski paradox, but I am curious about $n=1$. If such a measure can be constructed on $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, would that be unique?

share|cite|improve this question
This is called Banach measure. – Victor Protsak Jun 14 '10 at 11:15
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Banach-Tarski poses a problem for existence of measures that are invariant under all rigid motions, not just translation. The existence of finitely additive translation-invariant measures that agree with Lebesgue measure on Lebesgue-measurable sets is a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem. This is exercise 21 in chapter 10 of Royden's Real Analysis. The extensions given by Hahn-Banach don't seem to have any uniqueness properties, so I doubt this measure is unique.

share|cite|improve this answer
A very detailed description is given in Chapter 10 of Wagon's book: The Banach-Tarski paradox. – Péter Komjáth Jun 13 '10 at 5:24

In n=1 it exists, but far from unique. This is in Hewitt and Stromberg. I believe they show there are 2^c different extension.

share|cite|improve this answer

You need some additional restrictions to make this problem interesting. The standard counting measure is translation invariant and actually countably additive. This is of course close to cheating. What one cannot have is a countably additive measure on the real line that takes intervals to their length.

share|cite|improve this answer
But there is the condition $\mu([0,1]) = 1$ in my post. – AgCl Jun 14 '10 at 7:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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