Mathematics desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 6

Banach-Tarski paradox quantifier depth

I'm trying to figure out the formal statement of the Banach-Tarski (BT) paradox. Something like: there exist sets A,B,C,D,E in R³ whose union A+B+C+D+E is the unit ball B1, and there are rigid motions S,T,U,V so that A+S(B)+T(C)=B1 and U(D)+V(E)=another copy of B1. A rigid motion is just a rotation and translation so it can be written as a 5-tuple of reals. Meanwhile, to say two sets of real triples are equal (like G=H) uses a universal quantifier over real triples, $\forall x.(x\in G\land x\in H)\lor (x\notin G\land x\notin H).$

Since the outer (existential) quantifier is over sets of reals, would we say it is a third-order arithmetic quantifier? The inner one is (nested) universal quantifiers over reals so that would be second-order arithmetic. Does the whole thing become $\Sigma _{2}^{2}$ ?

At first I didn't notice that the outer quantifiers were over sets of reals, so the BT paradox seemed to conflict with Schoenfeld's absoluteness theorem. But I think the set quantifiers mean BT is not analytic, so no issue there. Thanks.

173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]