14
votes
2answers
465 views

Pathological behavior of Borel sets?

Usually in set theory, Borel sets are much more nicely behaved than arbitrary sets of reals. One reason for this is Borel determinacy, which immediately yields measurability, Baireness, and the ...
2
votes
0answers
172 views

How many Dedekind-finite sets can $\mathbb{R}$ be partitioned into?

Building off Asaf Karagila's answer to my previous question (Can $\mathbb{R}$ be partitioned into dedekind-finite sets?) on partitioning $\mathbb{R}$ into strictly Dedekind-finite sets: (1) What ...
8
votes
1answer
249 views

Can $\mathbb{R}$ be partitioned into dedekind-finite sets?

Assuming $ZF$ itself is consistent, it is consistent that there are sets $D$ which are infinite but cannot be placed in bijection with any of their proper subsets; such sets are called "strictly ...
26
votes
0answers
899 views

Concerning the various proofs from the axiom of choice that R^3 admits of surprising geometrical decompositions into circles, skew lines and so on: can we prove in any instance that there are no Borel such decompositions? Or that AC is required?

This question follows up on a comment I made on Joseph O'Rourke's recent question, one of several questions here on mathoverflow concerning surprising geometric partitions of space using the axiom of ...
27
votes
4answers
7k views

Non Borel sets without axiom of choice

This is a simple doubt of mine about the basics of measure theory, which should be easy for the logicians to answer. The example I know of non Borel sets would be a Hamel basis, which needs axiom of ...