Talk:Hausdorff paradox

Does anybody has any information on the history of the paradox and the reason for the name?Tosha 00:23, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This page says 1914, Hausdorff proved something related. Charles Matthews 05:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What does the term "SO(3)-paradoxical" mean? What is paradoxical about Hausdorff paradox? --Arnab Bose 03:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The technical meaning of paradoxical intended is (presumably) that defined on this page: http://abel.math.umu.se/~frankw/articles/bt/node2.html .

Charles Matthews 09:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ref

I found the original paper of Hausdorff on web:

http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=28919&startpage=442&endpage=447&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/1406&image-subpath=1406&pagenumber=442&imageset-id=1406

but it is so long that I can not add it to external link, or maybe it does not do it by some other reason, any way when you put it in [ ], it becomes something strange, not a lnk at all. Could anyone help me? Tosha

Hmmm, this gave me a 404 (page not found) error when I tried it. If you can get it to work, copy the URL then visit www.tinyurl.com and follow the sinle instructions to create a shorter url.

-- Ornette (not signed in at the moment...)

Could someone who knows mention on the page whether the result depends on the Axiom of Choice? Warren Dew 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussion

I moved a part from Banach-Tarski paradox, needs some work...

BTW, the fact that S^1 can be divided ino countably many congruent subsets, is'nt it also Hausdorff paradox? Tosha

First paragraph

Tosha, why did you revert (most of) my changes to the first paragraph? Gadykozma 22:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first par, was bit misleading, HP is not about construction of not measurable set (althogh it has such a construction inside). In the first par one suppose to explain what HP roughly is and what you wrote did not answer this question. On the other hand your statements were covered later in the article so I simply removed it. Tosha

finitely additive

this term is used a few times, but some should perhaps be countably additive? -MarSch 14:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No Tosha 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's paradoxical about this?

Take a sphere. Remove the empty set, which is countable. Let A be the north hemisphere plus half of the equator (including one endpoint, and excluding the other). Let B be the south hemisphere and the rest of the equator, and C = B. Of course, A, B, C and B u C are congruent. Perhaps, it should read "the remainder can be divided into three disjoint subsets"? --Army1987 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]