Using the axiom of choice to pick one representative from each class of R/Q births a non-measurable set. Countably many disjoint translates cover [0,1] inside [−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]
m(V)>0⇒∑m(V)=∞>3,m(V)=0⇒∑m(V)=0<1
Examples & Exercises
Put the equivalence relation x∼y⟺x−y∈Q on [0,1] and, by the axiom of choice, build V⊂[0,1] by picking one representative from each class. Prove completely that the translates V+q1 and V+q2 are disjoint for distinct rationals q1=q2.
x∈(V+q1)∩(V+q2)⟹q1=q2
d=3: 9 rationals with denominator at most 3 — each row a translate of the mock representative set. The real proof covers all countably many rationals.Show proof
[Use of AC — the only one] x∼y⟺x−y∈Q is an equivalence relation on [0,1] (reflexive, symmetric, transitive because Q is an additive group). Invoke the axiom of choice exactly once to pick one representative from each class meeting [0,1]. The collection of picks is V — so V⊂[0,1] and V holds exactly one element from each class.
Let x∈(V+q1)∩(V+q2); then x=v1+q1=v2+q2 for some v1,v2∈V. Rearranging, v1−v2=q2−q1∈Q — i.e. v1∼v2.
Since V holds only one element per class, v1∼v2 forces v1=v2. Then q1=x−v1=x−v2=q2 — contradiction. Hence translates by distinct rationals are disjoint.
For the V of problem 1, prove completely the sandwich [0,1]⊂⋃q(V+q)⊂[−1,2], where q ranges over the rationals in Q∩[−1,1].
[0,1]⊂q∈Q∩[−1,1]⋃(V+q)⊂[−1,2]
d=6: 25 rationals — the mock translates pack the [−1,2] box and cover the [0,1] band.Show proof
[The axiom of choice — used as in problem 1] V is the set of representatives chosen via the axiom of choice, one per ∼-class, with V⊂[0,1]. Both inclusions below are direct consequences of this construction.
Left inclusion: let x∈[0,1]. Its class has a representative v∈V. Then q=x−v∈Q, and since x,v∈[0,1], q∈[−1,1]. So x=v+q∈V+q — i.e. [0,1]⊂⋃q(V+q).
Right inclusion: V⊂[0,1] and q∈[−1,1], so V+q⊂[0,1]+[−1,1]=[−1,2]. The same holds for the union over all q. The scene's [−1,2] box and [0,1] band are exactly this sandwich.
Assume V is Lebesgue measurable and derive a contradiction: from countable additivity and translation invariance, prove completely that both m(V)>0 and m(V)=0 are impossible.
m(q⋃(V+q))=q∑m(V+q)=q∑m(V)yet1≤m(q⋃)≤3
d=2: even with just 5 rationals shown — with m=1 the measure total 5>3 already overflows the box (the finite shadow of the contradiction).Show proof
[The axiom of choice — used as in problem 1] V is the representative set built with the axiom of choice. Suppose V is measurable and put m=m(V). By translation invariance, m(V+q)=m for every rational q.
By problem 1 the translates are disjoint, so countable additivity gives m(⋃q(V+q))=∑qm(V+q)=∑qm — countably many copies of m summed. Monotonicity on problem 2's sandwich gives 1=m([0,1])≤m(⋃q)≤m([−1,2])=3.
If m>0 then ∑qm=∞, contradicting ≤3. If m=0 then ∑qm=0, contradicting ≥1. No m works, so the assumption (measurability) is false — V is not Lebesgue measurable. AC was used exactly once, to choose the representatives, yet out comes a non-measurable set.