Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your statement that the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable sets is equivalent over ZF to the Hahn-Banach theorem is surprising to me. Could you give a reference (or a proof) for the implication from non-measurable sets to HB? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 27, 2017 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass To my knowledge the original result is due to Foreman and Wehrung in the following paper from Fundamenta Mathematicae (1991): matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 27, 2017 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, I see what you did there. The word equivalent is misleading, since the proved implication is only from HB to non-measurable sets, and not the other way. Amending the original answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 27, 2017 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ It may also be worth mentioning that HB is related to the ultrafilter lemma rather than "full" choice. But of course the ultrafilter lemma is enough to prove non-measurable sets and is arguably the part of choice most important for that. IIRC, the BPIT equivalent to Tychonoffs theorem for hausdorff spaces which is sufficient to prove HB. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 20, 2022 at 7:30