Problem #22

Borel Ruziewicz problem

Open!!High impact — resolution would likely be publishable in a top journal (Advances-level or above)

Suppose that μ\mu is a finitely additive, isometry-invariant measure on the Borel subsets of Sn\mathbb{S}^n (where n2n \geq 2) such that μ(Sn)=1\mu(\mathbb{S}^n) = 1. Must μ\mu be equal to Lebesgue measure?

Notes

The original Ruziewicz problem was posed by Ruziewicz in the early 1900s and asked whether Lebesgue measure is the unique finitely additive, isometry-invariant measure on the Lebesgue measurable subsets of Sn\mathbb{S}^n (for n2n \geq 2) which assigns measure 11 to Sn\mathbb{S}^n. It was answered in the affirmative by results of Sullivan, Margulis and Drinfeld. The Borel Ruziewicz problem modifies the original Ruziewicz problem by only requiring the measure to be defined on the Borel measurable sets rather than all Lebesgue measurable sets.

It is known that the Ruziewicz problem (and hence also the Borel Ruziewicz problem) has a negative answer for S1\mathbb{S}^1, hence the restriction to n2n \geq 2 in the problem statement.

Reference for the problem statement

[GS16]Grzegorz Tomkowicz and Stan Wagon, The Banach-Tarski paradox, 2016

Comments

Loading comments…