7
$\begingroup$

In the usual $\mathsf{ZFC}$, we know that there are $2^\mathfrak{c}$ many subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ that are not (Lebesgue) measurable. On the other hand, the Solovay model also provides us a model of $\mathsf{ZF}$ which has $0$ non-measurable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$.

I would like to know if the following in-between assertion has been established or is currently being researched on:

For any cardinal $\kappa < 2^\mathfrak{c}$, is it consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ that there are exactly $\kappa$ non-measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}$?

If this is false, can we classify the cardinals in which the assertion above holds?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If $X\subseteq (0,1)$ is a non-measurable subset and $Y\subseteq (1,2)$ is a null set, then $X\cup Y$ is a non-measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}$, and there are $2^\mathfrak{c}$ null subsets of $Y$. $\endgroup$
    – Hanul Jeon
    May 15, 2021 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ @HanulJeon I was initially skeptical on if having one non-measurable set implies the existence of a bounded non-measurable set, but it is not difficult to obtain one. See my answer below. Thanks/ $\endgroup$ May 15, 2021 at 6:47

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Actually, $\mathsf{ZF}$ easily proves that if there exists at least one non-measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}$, then there must be $2^\mathfrak{c}$ non-measurable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$.

Let $X \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ be non-measurable. Then $X = (X \cap [0,\infty)) \cup (X \cap (-\infty,0)) =: A \cup B$. If both $A$ and $B$ are measurable, then $X$ must also be measurable, at it is a finite union of measurable sets. Thus, we must have that either $A$ or $B$ is non-measurable.

WLOG say $A$ is not measurable. Now there are $2^\mathfrak{c}$ measurable sets in $(-\infty,0)$, and for any of such set $C$, we have that $A \sqcup C$ is not measurable. This gives $2^\mathfrak{c}$ distinct non-measurable subsets of $\mathbb{R}$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that ZF proves that countable union of (Lebesgue-)measurable sets is measurable. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    May 15, 2021 at 6:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wojowu’s objection is warranted, however, countable union is not needed for the argument. ZF certainly proves that the union of two measurable sets is measurable, thus if $X$ is non-measurable, then $X\cap[0,+\infty)$ or $X\cap(-\infty,0]$ is non-measurable, and this gives plenty of room to make the argument work. $\endgroup$ May 15, 2021 at 8:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you all for the comments. With that in mind, is it consistent with $\mathsf{ZF}$ that there exists a non-measurable set but all bounded sets are measurable? $\endgroup$ May 15, 2021 at 8:18
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Note that you don’t actually need $C$ measurable: $A\cup C$ is non-measurable for every subset $C\subseteq(-\infty,0)$. $\endgroup$ May 15, 2021 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ You can make this much simpler with symmetric differences: if $X$ is a subset of the Cantor set (hence null) then $X\triangle A$ is measurable iff $A$ is. $\endgroup$ Jan 3, 2022 at 3:24

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.