Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose we define an equivalence relation on $[0,1)$ by saying that $x \sim y$ iff $x-y$ is rational. Let $N \subset [0,1)$ which contains exactly one member from each equivalence class. Also let $R = \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,1)$ and for each $r \in R$, $$N_{r} = \{x+r: x \in N \cap [0,1-r) \} \cup \{x+r-1: x \in N \cap [1-r,1) \}$$

Does $N$ consist of all the rational numbers in $[0,1)$? What is the motivation in defining $N_r$?

Source: Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications by Folland

share|improve this question
Note that $x \in R$ implies $x \sim 0$ and so $R \subset [0]$, hence, clearly $R \not\subset N$. (This is equivalent to the arguments present in many of the answers. Perhaps it's slightly more concise. Can you prove that, in fact, $R = [0]$?) –  cardinal Jun 18 '11 at 22:19

5 Answers 5

up vote 9 down vote accepted

No, $N$ does not contain all rational numbers in $[0,1)$. In fact, it contains one and only one rational number from $[0,1)$ (though we don't know which, since $N$ is defined non-constructively via the Axiom of Choice).

As is mentioned, $N$ contains exactly one member from each equivalence class under $\sim$. That means that:

(i) For every $x\in[0,1)$, there exists $y\in N$ such that $x\sim y$, i.e., such that $x-y\in\mathbb{Q}$; and

(ii) For every $x,y\in N$, if $x\sim y$ (that is, if $x-y\in\mathbb{Q}$), then $x=y$.

In particular, we know that there exists $x\in N$ such that $0\sim x$; since this requires that $-x\in\mathbb{Q}$, that means that $x$ is rational. But if $y\in N$ is rational, then $x-y\in\mathbb{Q}$, hence $x\sim y$, so by (ii) we conclude that $x=y$. So $N$ contains one and only one rational from $[0,1)$.

The motivation fro the definition of $N_r$ is that it is a "wrapped around" translate of $N$ by $r$. That is, take every number in $N$, add $r$ to it; if it is still in $[0,1)$, keep it there; otherwise, shift it back by $1$ (so that it falls inside $[0,1)$). These are just rational translates of $N$, adjusted to make sure they stay in the interval.

The reason you want the $N_r$ is that you will show that these countably many translated copies of $N$ will "cover" a nontrivial interval; they are pairwise disjoint (that is, if $r\neq s$, then $N_r\cap N_s=\emptyset$), so the fact that countably many disjoint sets cover a nontrivial interval will imply that, if they are all measurable, then their measure must be positive (by $\sigma$-additivity). Since they are all just translates of the same set $N$, they are each measurable if and only if $N$ itself is measurable, and they will all have the same measure. But then measurability of $N$ would imply that the union of the countably many disjoint translated copies of $N$ will have infinite measure, which will also be impossible (since they are all contained in $[0,1)$, so by monotonicity, their measure, if it exists, will be finite). These things put together will imply that $N$ cannot possibly be measurable.

(As to how one would come up with it in the first place, you'll have to ask Vitali...)

share|improve this answer

A better way to state the definition would be $$ N_r = \{x + r \bmod{1} : x \in N\}. $$ Since $N$ contains exactly one member from each equivalence class, the sets $$ N_r, \, r \in \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,1) $$ partition $[0,1)$.

If $x,y \in \mathbb{Q}$ then $x-y \in \mathbb{Q}$ and so $N$ cannot contain both $x$ and $y$. In other words, $N$ contains at most one rational. On the other hand, the rationals in $[0,1)$ form an equivalence class (same argument), and so $N$ contains exactly one rational.

share|improve this answer

$[0,1)=\cup N_r$; each $N_r$ is a translated copy of $N$ (the definition is so that it wraps around to stay in $[0,1)$). so if $N$ (and hence $N_r$) is measureable then $[0,1)$ has measure $0$ if the measure of $N$ is zero, or measure infinity if $N$ has some non-zero measure (assuming translation invariance etc).

share|improve this answer

It is not true that $N=[0,1)\cap\mathbb{Q}$, because in fact, any two $a,b\in\mathbb{Q}$ (regardless of whether they are in $[0,1)$ or not) are equivalent under $\sim$, because $a-b\in\mathbb{Q}$; and $N$ consists of one choice of representative for each equivalence class of $\sim$, so $N$ will only have one rational number in it. In fact, $N$ is not defined explicitly; for each equivalence class of $\sim$, we need to choose a single representative in $[0,1)$, and then the set of these representatives is $N$, but the choice is not unique. Here is an analogy: if we needed to pick a representative of each equivalence class of $\equiv\pmod 4$ in $[0,67)$, we could choose $\{0,1,2,3\}$, or $\{4,9,18,63\}$, or lots of other things.

As to the motivation for the $N_r$'s, I'm not sure.

share|improve this answer

To summarize, the construction is used to show, by counterexample, that there is no translation-invariant, countably-additive measure that can be defined on every subset of the reals; monotonicity and translation-invariance are assumed, and a contradiction is reached. The construction gives you a countably-infinite collection of disjoint subsets (disjointness is needed for additivity), all of equal measure, since all the sets are translates of one set (this uses translation-invariance), so that the total measure $m(N)$ is the sum of the measure of the translates, and then $m(N)=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}n\cdot m(t_i)$, where $t_i$ is a translate. Your choices then are that $m(t_i)$ is not zero, and then $m(N)=\infty$, or you can assign measure zero to each, i.e., $m(t_i)=0$. Then, having used the previous two conditions, as Arturo said, monotonicity is used in one of the cases (the one where $m(t_i) \neq0 $ reaching the contradiction that a (measurable) subset of $[0,1]$ has infinite measure (and, in particular, has measure larger than $1=m([0,1])$), i.e., by assuming countable additivity and translation-invariance of the measure, you have constructed a subset of $[0,1]$ that violates monotonicity.

Maybe a rewrite will help other readers; I just hope that if I get another Couric, it will be explained/justified.

share|improve this answer
Please call them downvotes, not Courics (people will find it inappropriate or baffling, depending on whether or not they watch South Park). –  Zev Chonoles Jun 18 '11 at 22:07
Sorry, Zev, I was living inside my head; I will call them downvotes from now on. –  gary Jun 18 '11 at 22:26

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.