Intereting Posts

Prove that $ \lim (s_n t_n) =0$ given $\vert t_n \vert \leq M $ and $ \lim (s_n) = 0$
Calculus of variations, what is a functional
How to show existence and uniqueness of a SL problem with von Neumann BCs
“sheaf” au sens de Serre
Let H be a proper subgroup of G of order prime $p^k$ and $N(H) = \{a \in G|aHa^{-1} = H\}.$Show that $N(H) \neq H.$
Expected Number of Coin Tosses to Get Five Consecutive Heads
Can anyone extend my findings for Langford Pairings?
Order type of standard models of arithmetic
Using the Banach Fixed Point Theorem to prove convergence of a sequence
Find value of '$t$' at a point on a cubic Bezier curve
Keys inside closed boxes, a question on probability
Structure Theorem for abelian torsion groups that are not finitely generated
The Degree of Zero Polynomial.
Starting digits of $2^n$.
Fibonacci and Lucas identity

I have a question which I believe could be easily resolved if I happened to look at the right source – hence my asking it here as opposed to at MathOverflow. I’ve tried googling it, but I haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer.

Question: is it equiconsistent with reasonable large cardinals that there is a well-ordering of the reals which – as a relation on $\mathbb{R}^2$ – is Lebesgue measurable?

I know that “ZFC + there is a measurable cardinal + there is a $\Delta^1_3$-well ordering of $\mathbb{R}$” is equiconsistent with “ZFC + there is a measurable cardinal,” and I know that Projective Determinacy is equiconsistent with reasonable large cardinals, but I don’t know whether “ZFC + there is a $\Delta^1_3$-well ordering of $\mathbb{R}$ + PD” is equiconsistent with reasonable large cardinals.

- What are $\Sigma _n^i$, $\Pi _n^i$ and $\Delta _n^i$?
- Topologizing Borel space so that certain functions become continuous
- The collection of all compact perfect subsets is $G_\delta$ in the hyperspace of all compact subsets
- $\mathbb{R}^3$ \ $\mathbb{Q}^3$ is union of disjoint lines. The lines are not in an axis diretion.
- Dense subset of the plane that intersects every rational line at precisely one point?
- Show that $\bf AD_2 \Leftrightarrow \bf AD_{\omega} \nRightarrow\bf AD_{\mathbb{R}}$

Thanks in advance!

- Proving that the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals is independent from ZFC?
- Finitely Additive not Countably Additive on $\Bbb N$
- The collection of all compact perfect subsets is $G_\delta$ in the hyperspace of all compact subsets
- Generic Elements of a Set.
- mahlo and hyper-inaccessible cardinals
- Applications of descriptive set theory to mathematical logic?
- Can sets of cardinality $\aleph_1$ have nonzero measure?
- Classification of $\omega$-games of different fixed action spaces
- The $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $X$ generated by a set $\mathcal{A}$ is the smallest sigma algebra including $\mathcal{A}$
- Show that $\bf AD_2 \Leftrightarrow \bf AD_{\omega} \nRightarrow\bf AD_{\mathbb{R}}$

No well-ordering of the reals is Lebesgue measurable. This is essentially due to Sierpiński, but one usually finds a weaker version in books (for example, in Rudin’s “Real and Complex Analysis”), namely, that if CH holds, then a well-ordering of smallest order type is non-measurable.

The proof is via Fubini’s theorem. The argument can be made shorter, but let me go into full detail, as this is a question that appears with some frequency.

Theorem.No well-ordering of a non-null set of reals is Lebesgue measurable. No well-ordering of a non-meager set of reals has the

Baire property.

Suppose that $S\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ is a non-null set, that $(r_\alpha\mid\alpha<\lambda)$ is a well-ordered enumeration of $S$, and that $W = \{ (r_\alpha, r_\beta) \mid \alpha<\beta<\lambda\}$. I will argue that $W$ is non-measurable. (The

argument below admits dualization, giving the result for the property of Baire.)

By contradiction, suppose there is a least $\lambda$ such that for some $S$, $(r_\alpha\mid\alpha<\lambda)$, and $W$ as above, we have that $W$ is measurable.

For $\alpha\le\lambda$, let $S_\alpha=\{r_\beta\mid\beta<\alpha\}$ and $S^\alpha=\{r_\beta\mid\beta>\alpha\}$. Let $\mu_n$ denote the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure (we only use $n=1$ or $n=2$). For $x\in{\mathbb R}$, let $r^{−1}x$ denote the $\alpha<\lambda$ such that $x=r_\alpha$.

Let $\rho\le\lambda$ be first such that $S_\rho$ is non-null. Since $S = S_\lambda$, such $\rho$ exists. Let $W_\rho=W \cap (S_\rho \times S_\rho)$ and, for $\alpha<\rho$ let $T^\alpha=S^\alpha\cap S_\rho$. I will prove that $W_\rho$ is non-measurable, and then use this to show the non-measurability of $W$.

Suppose, then, that $W_\rho$ *is* measurable. Note that $S_\rho=S_{\alpha+1}\cup T^\alpha$ for any $\alpha<\rho$ and that, by Fubini’s theorem, for almost all $x\in S_\rho$, $T^{r^{−1}x}$ is measurable. It follows that $S_\rho$ itself is measurable.

Then $$ 0 = \int_{S_\rho}\mu_1(S_{r^{−1}y}) dy $$ and we are done if we can show the outer measure $\mu^*_2$ of $W$ is strictly positive. If it is not, then by the equation above and Fubini’s theorem, $\mu_2(W_\rho) = 0$ and, by applying Fubini’s theorem again,

$$ \mu_2(W_\rho) =\int_{S_\rho}\mu_1(T^{r^{−1}x}) dx. $$ But for each $\alpha<\rho$, $\mu_1(S_{\alpha+1}) = 0$ and $T^\alpha=S_\rho\setminus S_{\alpha+1}$, so $\mu_1(T^\alpha) > 0$, and the equation last displayed implies $\mu_2(W_\rho) > 0$.

It follows that $W_\rho$ is non-measurable. If $\rho=\lambda$ we are done, so suppose $\rho<\lambda$. Note that $S$ is measurable (arguing as above with $W_\rho$ and $S_\rho$) and $$0 < μ^*_2(W_\rho)\le \mu_2(W) =\int_S \mu_1(S_{r^{−1}y}) dy $$

and by Fubini’s theorem, there must be a $\gamma<\lambda$ such that $S_\gamma$ is non-null and measurable. But then $W_\gamma = W \cap (S_\gamma \times S_\gamma)$ well-orders $S_\gamma$ in order type $\gamma$ and is measurable.

But this contradicts the minimality of $\lambda$, and we are done.

The above is more or less verbatim from my thesis, where I included it as I couldn’t find a detailed argument anywhere I looked, but something very close to this ought to be Sierpiński’s.

You then go on to ask about compatibility of large cardinals (or their determinacy consequences) with projective well-orderings. This is not possible as determinacy implies Lebesgue measurability (and this goes level by level; in particular, PD implies all projective sets are measurable), but the argument above shows no well-ordering of ${\mathbb R}$ is measurable. (The optimal result in terms of how much determinacy is needed to rule out well-orderings of a given complexity is due to Kechris and is a bit technical to state here.)

It follows, for example, that no well-ordering of ${\mathbb R}$ belongs to $L({\mathbb R})$ under mild large cardinal assumptions, as large cardinals give us determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. However, determinacy and large cardinals do not have unlimited influence at higher pointclasses, and it is reasonable to search for (consistent) well-orderings of the reals of nice complexity (necesarily beyond projective) that are compatible with any large cardinals. There is a nice result of Abraham and Shelah accomplishing this: In “A $\Delta^2_2$ well-order of the reals and incompactness of $L(Q^{MM})$”, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 59 (1993), no. 1, 1–32, they prove that one can always force (by small forcing) that CH holds and there is a $\Delta^2_2$ well-ordering of the reals. Actually, $\Sigma^2_1$ is not possible under large cardinals if CH holds, by a nice result of Woodin, so in a sense this is optimal. In their model, $\diamondsuit$ fails, and much works has gone into trying to extend Woodin’s result to show that, in particular $\diamondsuit$ should be incompatible with $\Sigma^2_2$ well-orderings.

- Is it mathematically wrong to prove the Intermediate Value Theorem informally?
- Are there vector bundles that are not locally trivial?
- Closed form for the sequence defined by $a_0=1$ and $a_{n+1} = a_n + a_n^{-1}$
- How did Hermite calculate $e^{\pi\sqrt{163}}$ in 1859?
- To estimate $\sum_{m=1}^n \Big(d\big(m^2\big)\Big)^2$
- Conjugacy classes of D2n?
- Expectation of the maximum of gaussian random variables
- Polynomial $P(x,y)$ with $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^2} P=0$, but without any point where $P=0$
- How to determine if I'm talented enough to study math?
- Confused on Injection and Surjection Question – Not sure how to justify
- A Challenging Integral $\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}\log \left( x^2+\log^2(\cos x)\right)dx$
- Show that $n^3-n$ is divisible by $6$ using induction
- Find all homomorphisms from $A_4, D_{2n}$ to $\mathbb C^\times$
- showing the limit of a recurrence relation
- How can I find the square root using pen and paper?