The Vitali Set

Using the axiom of choice to pick one representative from each class of R/Q\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q} births a non-measurable set. Countably many disjoint translates cover [0,1][0,1] inside [−1,2][-1,2] — yet measure 0 gives total 0 and positive measure gives infinity. Both impossible.

[0,1]⊆⨆q∈Q∩[−1,1](V+q)⊆[−1,2][0,1] \subseteq \bigsqcup_{q \in \mathbb{Q}\cap[-1,1]} (V + q) \subseteq [-1,2]
m(V)>0⇒∑m(V)=∞>3,m(V)=0⇒∑m(V)=0<1m(V) > 0 \Rightarrow \sum m(V) = \infty > 3,\qquad m(V) = 0 \Rightarrow \sum m(V) = 0 < 1

Examples & Exercises

Put the equivalence relation x∼y  ⟺  x−y∈Qx \sim y \iff x - y \in \mathbb{Q} on [0,1][0, 1] and, by the axiom of choice, build V⊂[0,1]V \subset [0, 1] by picking one representative from each class. Prove completely that the translates V+q1V + q_1 and V+q2V + q_2 are disjoint for distinct rationals q1≠q2q_1 \ne q_2.

x∈(V+q1)∩(V+q2)  ⟹  q1=q2x \in (V + q_1) \cap (V + q_2) \;\Longrightarrow\; q_1 = q_2
d=3d = 3: 99 rationals with denominator at most 33 — each row a translate of the mock representative set. The real proof covers all countably many rationals.
Show proof
  1. [Use of AC — the only one] x∼y  ⟺  x−y∈Qx \sim y \iff x - y \in \mathbb{Q} is an equivalence relation on [0,1][0, 1] (reflexive, symmetric, transitive because Q\mathbb{Q} is an additive group). Invoke the axiom of choice exactly once to pick one representative from each class meeting [0,1][0, 1]. The collection of picks is VV — so V⊂[0,1]V \subset [0, 1] and VV holds exactly one element from each class.
  2. Let x∈(V+q1)∩(V+q2)x \in (V + q_1) \cap (V + q_2); then x=v1+q1=v2+q2x = v_1 + q_1 = v_2 + q_2 for some v1,v2∈Vv_1, v_2 \in V. Rearranging, v1−v2=q2−q1∈Qv_1 - v_2 = q_2 - q_1 \in \mathbb{Q} — i.e. v1∼v2v_1 \sim v_2.
  3. Since VV holds only one element per class, v1∼v2v_1 \sim v_2 forces v1=v2v_1 = v_2. Then q1=x−v1=x−v2=q2q_1 = x - v_1 = x - v_2 = q_2 — contradiction. Hence translates by distinct rationals are disjoint.

For the VV of problem 1, prove completely the sandwich [0,1]⊂⋃q(V+q)⊂[−1,2][0, 1] \subset \bigcup_q (V + q) \subset [-1, 2], where qq ranges over the rationals in Q∩[−1,1]\mathbb{Q} \cap [-1, 1].

[0,1]⊂⋃q∈Q∩[−1,1](V+q)⊂[−1,2][0, 1] \subset \bigcup_{q \in \mathbb{Q} \cap [-1,1]} (V + q) \subset [-1, 2]
d=6d = 6: 2525 rationals — the mock translates pack the [−1,2][-1, 2] box and cover the [0,1][0, 1] band.
Show proof
  1. [The axiom of choice — used as in problem 1] VV is the set of representatives chosen via the axiom of choice, one per ∼\sim-class, with V⊂[0,1]V \subset [0, 1]. Both inclusions below are direct consequences of this construction.
  2. Left inclusion: let x∈[0,1]x \in [0, 1]. Its class has a representative v∈Vv \in V. Then q=x−v∈Qq = x - v \in \mathbb{Q}, and since x,v∈[0,1]x, v \in [0, 1], q∈[−1,1]q \in [-1, 1]. So x=v+q∈V+qx = v + q \in V + q — i.e. [0,1]⊂⋃q(V+q)[0, 1] \subset \bigcup_q (V + q).
  3. Right inclusion: V⊂[0,1]V \subset [0, 1] and q∈[−1,1]q \in [-1, 1], so V+q⊂[0,1]+[−1,1]=[−1,2]V + q \subset [0, 1] + [-1, 1] = [-1, 2]. The same holds for the union over all qq. The scene's [−1,2][-1, 2] box and [0,1][0, 1] band are exactly this sandwich.

Assume VV is Lebesgue measurable and derive a contradiction: from countable additivity and translation invariance, prove completely that both m(V)>0m(V) > 0 and m(V)=0m(V) = 0 are impossible.

m(⋃q(V+q))=∑qm(V+q)=∑qm(V)yet1≤m(⋃q)≤3m\left(\bigcup_q (V + q)\right) = \sum_q m(V + q) = \sum_q m(V) \quad\text{yet}\quad 1 \le m\left(\bigcup_q\right) \le 3
d=2d = 2: even with just 55 rationals shown — with m=1m = 1 the measure total 5>35 > 3 already overflows the box (the finite shadow of the contradiction).
Show proof
  1. [The axiom of choice — used as in problem 1] VV is the representative set built with the axiom of choice. Suppose VV is measurable and put m=m(V)m = m(V). By translation invariance, m(V+q)=mm(V + q) = m for every rational qq.
  2. By problem 1 the translates are disjoint, so countable additivity gives m(⋃q(V+q))=∑qm(V+q)=∑qmm\left(\bigcup_q (V + q)\right) = \sum_q m(V + q) = \sum_q m — countably many copies of mm summed. Monotonicity on problem 2's sandwich gives 1=m([0,1])≤m(⋃q)≤m([−1,2])=31 = m([0, 1]) \le m\left(\bigcup_q\right) \le m([-1, 2]) = 3.
  3. If m>0m > 0 then ∑qm=∞\sum_q m = \infty, contradicting ≤3\le 3. If m=0m = 0 then ∑qm=0\sum_q m = 0, contradicting ≥1\ge 1. No mm works, so the assumption (measurability) is false — VV is not Lebesgue measurable. AC was used exactly once, to choose the representatives, yet out comes a non-measurable set.

10. Integration