[FOM] banach-tarski paradox
Monroe Eskew
meskew at math.uci.edu
Fri Sep 25 00:22:50 EDT 2009
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:55 AM, <joeshipman at aol.com> wrote:
> I wonder whether people who understand the proof of the Banach-Tarski
> theorem are less likely to regard it as evidence against the Axiom of
> Choice than people who are merely informed that it is a consequence of
> the Axiom of Choice. My reaction to the proof is that is disproves the
> conjunction of the two physical principles "space is isotropic" and
> "matter is infinitely divisible" and hence represents a useful
> application of mathematics to physics, but does not make the Axiom of
> Choice less plausible.
I don't think you have to go that far. Matter could be infinitely
divisible in the sense of not having a smallest part, a kind of
"potential infinity," while at the same time not allowing
Banach-Tarski cuts of a ball, or any other cuts requiring (1) an
"infinite knife" (if you will) and (2) the cut matter to be rigid in
certain ways.
I think we just have to realize that there the questions of (a) what
sets exist, and (b) what kinds of clay models can we actually make,
are very different.
More information about the FOM
mailing list