Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

2

We say $X$ is a Vitali set if there exists a countably dense subgroup, $\Gamma$, of the additive group $\mathbb{R}$, such that $X$ is a selector of the partition of $\mathbb{R}$ canonically associated with the equivalence relation $x \in \mathbb{R}$ & $y \in \mathbb{R}$ & $x - y \in \Gamma$.

Let $V$ be a Vitali set and let $r \in \mathbb{R}$. Is $V \cup (V \oplus r)$ a Vitali set where $V \oplus r$ = {$x + r : x \in V$ }?

A slightly easier question, perhaps, is the special case $V$ is the Vitali set with respect to the countably dense subgroup $\mathbb{Q}$ and with the restriction $r \in \mathbb{Q}$.

edited Jun 14 2011 at 12:52

asked Jun 13 2011 at 12:30

George Lazou
295●1●6

2

Am I missing something? No proper superset of a selector is itself a selector. – Emil Jeřábek Jun 13 2011 at 12:38

Sorry perhaps I phrased it badly... I mean does there exist another countably dense subgroup of the additive group $\mathbb{R}$, $\Gamma_{1} \neq \Gamma$, such that $V \cup (V \oplus r)$ is a selector for the partition associated with this group... – George Lazou Jun 13 2011 at 14:13

It does not hold in general when one further demands $\Gamma_1\subseteq\Gamma$: then it is easy to see that either $\Gamma=\Gamma_1$ (which is only possible in the trivial case when $V+r\subseteq V$), or $[\Gamma:\Gamma_1]=2$, and there are groups (such as $\mathbb Q$) that have no subgroup of index $2$. I'm not sure how to prove the same when $\Gamma_1$ is allowed to be arbitrary, but it seems very likely that the answer is the same. – Emil Jeřábek Jun 13 2011 at 18:14

Thanks Emil... do you have a heuristic argument why the answer should be the same for arbitrary $\Gamma_{1}$ or is it just a gut feeling... I'm not saying I disagree, just still not 100% sure... I am wondering whether adding some extra restrictions on the selector may make it possible... i.e. whether one could choose a selector such that there exists $\Gamma_{1}$ that works... – George Lazou Jun 14 2011 at 12:17

The heuristic argument is simply that when we enlarge $V$, there is no obvious way of constructing $\Gamma_1$ other than shrinking the $\Gamma$ we already have. In principle it's possible that some completely different $\Gamma_1$ incomparable with $\Gamma$ could do the job, but then we would basically have to construct it from scratch without using the information that $V$ is a Vitali set. – Emil Jeřábek Jun 14 2011 at 13:59

Robert Israel · Answer 1 · 2011-06-13 18:56:10Z UTC

If $\Gamma$ has a subgroup $\Gamma_1$ of index 2, so $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \cup (\Gamma_1 + r)$ for any $r \in \Gamma \backslash \Gamma_1$, and $V$ is a Vitali set with respect to $\Gamma$, then $V \cup (V + r)$ is a Vitali set with respect to $\Gamma_1$. There are dense subgroups of $\mathbb R$ that have subgroups of index 2, e.g. $\alpha {\mathbb Z} + (2 \beta) {\mathbb Z}$ is a subgroup of index 2 of $\alpha {\mathbb Z} + \beta {\mathbb Z}$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$.

Union of disjoint Vitali Sets…

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.