Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are sets of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ congruent to their own proper subsets. A (trivial) example is a ray, or to give a more interesting bounded example, $\{e^{i \cdot n} \mid n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. There are references saying about a proof by Jan Mycielski that there exists an infinite and bounded set in $\mathbb{R}^3$ congruent to every its subset obtained by removing a finite number of points. Is there an explicit construction of such a set, or it is a pure existence theorem? Is there an infinite set congruent to every its subset obtained by removing countable number of points?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The finite case is pretty cheap. Take the free group $G$ with countably many generators $R_1,R_2,\dots$. Consider any injection $S:F(G)\to \mathbb N$ where $F(G)$ is the set of finite subsets of $G$ such that $S(W)$ is different from any index of a generator contained in a word $w\in W$ and take $E$ to be all (irreducible) words that do not start with $R_{S(W)}^{-1}w$ for $w\in W$. Then $R_{S(W)}E=E\setminus W$. Now just realize $G$ as a subgroup of the orthogonal group and take a generic point on the sphere.

Whether to call this "constructive" is a matter of taste. Everything can be done explicitly but it is quite a mess.

To do the countable case this way, one would need a free group with continuum generators. If you believe the continuum hypothesis, you still can embed this monster in the orthogonal group. Now I'm not so sure about $R^3$ but $R^9$ will still work (orthogonal matrices acting on themselves). If you believe that the continuum hypothesis fails, I don't know (because then you'll have to add a generator to an uncountable family). However, you can try to construct some explicit family of orthogonal operators without non-trivial relations in some high dimension. It would be interesting to see :).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Sorry to put this here, but I'm disreputable and thus I cannot comment on fedja's answer. What does $R_{S(W)}$ mean? It makes an appearance in the answer without being defined. Sorry if it's so standard that even a child should know it. Thanks.

share|improve this answer
    
Oops, sorry: $R_j$ are the generators of $G$. It is, indeed, impossible to formally derive from what I wrote though it may be possible to guess it from the context. I'll edit them in :) –  fedja Dec 3 '11 at 0:20
    
D'oh, should've figured that out :) –  Antonio Ramírez Dec 6 '11 at 4:52
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.