Handout

1. Zeno’s paradox of measure is based on the following claims:

Infinite Divisibility. A continuum can be divided into infinitely many

parts of equal sizes.
Dichotomy. The size of an object is either 0 or finite, if not infinite.
Additivity. The size of the whole is the sum of the sizes of its disjoint
parts that make up the whole.
0-Sum-to-0. The sum of 0s is 0.

2. Options:

a. The orthodox view: deny Additivity/0-Sum-to-0. −→ Deny Regularity.

The extended whole cannot be made of unextended parts. (Counterintu-
itive; Measure-theoretical paradoxes)
b. Mathematical Atomism: deny Infinite Divisibility. (Weyl’s tile argu-
ment)
c. The gunky view: deny Infinite Divisibility. (Inconsistency arguments)
d. Deny Dichotomy? −→ Infinitesimal approach.

3. Background: Non-standard Analysis (NA)

(1) Hyperreal line ∗R: real numbers + non-standard numbers:

(i) infinitesimals; (ii) appreciable; (iii) infinite numbers.

totally ordered
hal (r) = {x ∈ ∗R : x ' r}
sh (h) = {x ∈ R : x ' h}.

(2) Quasi-big set. Notation: almost φ(n) iff {n ∈ N|φ(n)} is quasi-big.

(3) Construct a hyperreal system:
[hn ]: [hn ] = [gn ] iff almost hn = gn .
[fn ]: [fn ]([hn ]) = [fn (hn )].
[Pn ]: [Pn ]([hn ]) iff almost Pn (hn ).
(4) Embedding R in ∗R:

1
 (i) For any real number r, ∗r = [r]
(ii) ∗f (h1 , ..., hk ) = [f (h1n , ...hkn )]
e.g. For any hyperreal h, g, h + g = [hn + gn ].
(iii) ∗p(h1 , ..., hk ) iff almost p(h1n , ..., hkn )
e.g. For any hyperreal h, g, h < g iff almost hn < gn .
(iv) For any real subset A, ∗A = {x ∈ ∗R : almost xn ∈ A}.

(5) Internal set: [An ] = {x ∈ ∗R : almost xn ∈ An }

Hyperfinite set: [An ] with An almost finite.

Cardinality: |[An ]| = [|An |].
P P
Hyperfinite sum: x∈A f (x) = [ x∈An fn (x)].

(5) Tranfer Principle: φ is true in the real system iff ∗φ is true in the
hyperreal system.
(6) Countable saturation. If {Xn : n ∈ N} is a collection of internal sets
S S
and X is internal, and X ⊆ n∈N Xn , then X ⊆ n≤k Xn , for some k ∈ N.

4. Infinitesimal Atomism: a continuum is made of minims of an infinitesimal length.

1-dimensional case:
Hyperreal correspondence: any region corresponds to a subset of {k/N :
k ∈ ∗Z ∧ |k| ≤ N 2 }.
Mereology: standard mereology.
Topology: minims next to each other are connected.
Measure: For any region, its measure is the sum of the measures of the
minims it contains.
(Lebesgue measure λ is the standard measure over real numbers that is
countably additive. )

(a) Hyperreal-valued measure (µ): For any region A, µ(A) '

λ(sh(A)).
(b) Real-valued measure (µ0 ): For any region A, µ0 (A) = λ(sh(A)).
−→ µ0 , not µ, is (non-trivially) countably additive.
−→ µ is chosen over µ0 because of Regularity.

2
 Infinitesimal Atomism satisfies:

Infinite Divisibility.
Additivity (whenever sum is defined)
0-Sum-to-0
Regularity

5. Weyl’s tile argument.

I. If mathematical atomism is true, then AB=BC.

It depends on:

R1. The distance between any two tiles is determined by the

number of tiles in-between (themselves included).

Q: Need R1 be accepted?
(i) Minimal commitment:

R2. The size of a region of space is determined by the amount of minims

it contains.

(ii) Additional commitment?

Uniformity. There is a unique unit of size for every dimension.

II. Assuming R1: If infinitesimal atomism is true, then AB=BC.

There is a 1-1 internal correspondence between tiles between AC and tiles

between BC.

6. Non-measurable sets.

3
 (1) Only finite or hyperfinite sets of minims are measurable.
(2) All countably infinite unions of disjoint regions are unmeasurable
(Countable saturation).
(3) Lebesgue non-measurable sets are not measurable.

Vitali sets. If a measurable region is divided into countably in-

finite many parts of equal size, then each part is unmeasurable.

(3) Mathematical atomism does not have this problem.

Every region is either a finite union of minims or infinite, in

which case the measure of mathematical atomism assigns +∞
to it.

7. Conclusion: infinitesimal atomism does not have clear advantage over mathemat-
ical atomism.

(Alternative: Infinitesimal gunky theory.)