Mathematics Atlas

How Proof Is Made
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Theorem

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Logic and Foundations

The Banach-Tarski Paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry stating that a solid ball in three-dimensional space can be decomposed into a finite number of disjoint pieces that can then be reassembled, using only rotations and translations, into two solid balls each identical to the original. The pieces themselves are not solids in any ordinary sense but infinite, intricately scattered sets of points whose individual volumes cannot be consistently defined. Named for Stefan Banach and Alfred Tarski, the theorem depends critically on the axiom of choice, which permits the construction of the non-measurable sets the decomposition requires, and it is considered a paradox only because it defies geometric intuition rather than because it is logically inconsistent.

Facts
Statement
Given a solid ball in three-dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets that can be reassembled, using only rotations and translations, into two balls identical to the original. 1
Proof Year
1924 1
Classification
Statement Form
Existence Theorem 1
Connections

Associated With

Axiom, Concepts

In Branch

Sources
1. Banach-Tarski Paradox (Wikipedia)
Wikimedia Foundation
  • lead paragraph, first sentence
    Given a solid ball in three-dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets that can be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.
  • Banach and Tarski publication section, opening sentence
    In a paper published in 1924, Stefan Banach and Alfred Tarski gave a construction of such a paradoxical decomposition, based on earlier work by Giuseppe Vitali concerning the unit interval and on the paradoxical decompositions of the sphere by Felix Hausdorff.
View the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.