MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037049474 · doi:10.4169/000298909x477041

A Nonmeasurable Set from Coin Flips

2009· article· en· W2037049474 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander E. Holroyd, Terry Soo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mathematical Monthly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAxiom of choiceMathematicsLebesgue measureAxiomMeasure (data warehouse)Discrete mathematicsEquivalence (formal languages)Measurable functionEquivalence class (music)Zermelo–Fraenkel set theoryClass (philosophy)Equivalence relationSpace (punctuation)Set (abstract data type)Pure mathematicsSet theoryLebesgue integrationMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To motivate the elaborate machinery of measure theory, it is desirable to show that in some natural space Q one cannot define a measure on all subsets of £2, if the measure is to satisfy certain natural properties. The usual example is given by the Vitali set, obtained by choosing one representative from each equivalence class of R induced by the relation x ~ y if and only ifx-yeQ. The resulting set is not measurable with respect to any translation-invariant measure on R that gives nonzero, finite measure to the unit interval [8]. In particular, the resulting set is not Lebesgue measurable. The construction above uses the axiom of choice. Indeed, the Solovay theorem [7] states that in the absence of the axiom of choice, there is a model of Zermelo-Frankel set theory where all the subsets of R are Lebesgue measurable. In this note we give a variant proof of the existence of a nonmeasurable set (in a slightly different space). We will use the axiom of choice in the guise of the wellordering principle (see the later discussion for more information). Other examples of nonmeasurable sets may be found for example in [1] and [5, Ch. 5]. We will produce a nonmeasurable set in the space Q := {0, 1}Z. Translationinvariance plays a key role in the Vitali proof. Here shift-invariance will play a similar role. The shift T : Z -> Z on integers is defined via Tx := x + 1, and the shift r : Q -> Q on elements co e Q is defined via (xco)(x) := co(x 1). We write xA := {xco : co e A] for A c Q.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Mathematical MonthlySame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207