As mentioned in lecture, Hilbert’s third problem was an attempt to understand whether the Bolyai-Gerwien theorem could generalize to

3. THE EQUALITY OF THE VOLUMES OF TWO TETRAHEDRA OF EQUAL BASES AND EQUAL ALTITUDES.

In two letters to Gerling, Gauss expresses his regret that certain theorems of solid geometry depend upon the method of exhaustion, i.e., in modern phraseology, upon the axiom of continuity (or upon the axiom of Archimedes). Gauss mentions in particular the theorem of Euclid, that triangular pyramids of equal altitudes are to each other as their bases. Now the analogous problem in the plane has been solved. Gerling also succeeded in proving the equality of volume of symmetrical polyhedra by dividing them into congruent parts. Nevertheless, it seems to me probable that a general proof of this kind for the theorem of Euclid just mentioned is impossible, and it should be our task to give a rigorous proof of its impossibility. This would be obtained, as soon as we succeeded in specifying two tetrahedra of equal bases and equal altitudes which can in no way be split up into congruent tetrahedra, and which cannot be combined with congruent tetrahedra to form two polyhedra which themselves could be split up into congruent tetrahedra.

Hilbert’s student Max Dehn solved the problem in 1901 with the introduction of what we now call Dehn invariants:

Theorem. If two polyhedra in are equidecomposable into polyhedra, then they have the same volume and the same Dehn invariants.

In 1965, J.-P. Sydler proved the converse of Dehn’s result:

Theorem. Two polyhedra in with the same volume and the same Dehn invariants are equidecomposable into polyhedra.

A couple of years ago, Richard Schwartz, from Brown university, wrote a couple of very nice notes explaining both Dehn’s and Sydler’s theorems. He also developed a Java applet illustrating Sydler’s argument (for his “Fundamental lemma”). They can be downloaded here.

(The nicest presentation of the Bolyai-Gerwein result that I’ve found is in Howard Eves’ “A Survey of geometry“. The text of Hilbert’s original lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900 was expanded to a paper, “Mathematical problems”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1902), 437–479. It has been recently (I’m old) reprinted, in Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 37 (2000), no. 4, 407–436 and can be downloaded here.)

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm and is filed under 515: Analysis II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The key reference for this is MR0799042 (87d:03141). Henle, J. M.; Mathias, A. R. D.; Woodin, W. Hugh. A barren extension. In Methods in mathematical logic (Caracas, 1983), C. A. Di Prisco, editor, 195–207, Lecture Notes in Math., 1130, Springer, Berlin, 1985. There, Henle, Mathias, and Woodin start with $L(\mathbb R)$ under the assumption of determinacy (an […]

This is consistent, at least under a rather tame large cardinal assumption. (One can also produce examples by manipulating Dedekind finite sets, but Asaf's answer addresses this. The answer here works even in the context of $\mathsf{DC}$.) For instance, see MR3612001. Conley, Clinton T.; Miller, Benjamin D. Measure reducibility of countable Borel equiva […]

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Forcing with sufficiently homogeneous forcing that adds reals is enough to obtain the negation of $(*)$. The point is that if a formula $\phi$ defines a parameter-free well-ordering of $\mathbb R$, then for any ordinal $\alpha$, the statement "$x$ is the $\alpha$-th real in the well-ordering defined by $\phi$" uniquely characterizes $x$ in terms of […]

This is an excellent question! Note first that, just from cardinal arithmetic considerations, whether we obtain all sets is independent (and therefore so is whether we obtain all Lebesgue measurable sets). The right context to study this question is descriptive set theory, and indeed the problem was considered early on. For example, Sierpiński proved in Sur […]

Surprisingly, the answer is no due to serious set-theoretic restrictions. If $X$ is an infinite set such that there is a ($\sigma$-additive) measure on $\mathcal P(X)$ that only takes the values 0 and 1, assigns 1 to $X$ and 0 to singletons, then the cardinality $\kappa=|X|$ of $X$ is much much larger than $\mathfrak c=|\mathbb R|$, the cardinality of the se […]

No, you cannot show this. For instance, it is consistent to have infinite Dedekind-finite sets whose power set is still Dedekind-finite. Now, if there is a surjection from $A$ to $\omega$, then there is an injection from $\omega$ (indeed, from $\mathcal P(\omega)$) to $\mathcal P(A)$, so $\mathcal P(A)$ is Dedekind-infinite. Thus, if $\mathcal P(X)$ is infin […]

First, there are some nice examples like $$ e=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac1{n!} $$ or Liouville-like numbers, mentioned in the answers by Wilem2, that can be easily proved to be irrational using the theorem, but for which typically there are simpler irrationality proofs: For $e$, we quickly get that $$0