/-
Copyright 2026 The Formal Conjectures Authors.
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
-/importFormalConjecturesUtil
For every $x \in \mathbb{R}$ let $A_x \subset \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded set with outer measure
$< 1$. Must there exist an infinite independent set, that is, some infinite $X \subseteq
\mathbb{R}$ such that $x \notin A_y$ for all $x \neq y \in X$?
If the sets $A_x$ are closed and have measure $< 1$, then must there exist an independent set
of size $3$?
Known results: Erdős–Hajnal [ErHa60] proved the existence of arbitrarily large finite
independent sets. Hechler [He72] showed the answer is no assuming the continuum
hypothesis.
Erdős–Hajnal (1960): arbitrarily large finite independent sets exist.
For every n : ℕ and every family A : ℝ → Set ℝ of bounded sets with Lebesgue
outer measure < 1, there exists a finite independent set of size at least n.
Hechler (1972) [He72]: the answer to the main question is NO, assuming the continuum
hypothesis.
Assuming CH (ℵ₁ = 𝔠), there exists a family A : ℝ → Set ℝ of bounded sets with
Lebesgue outer measure < 1 for which no infinite independent set exists.
Closed sets case: existence of an independent set of size 3.
If the sets A x are closed with Lebesgue measure < 1, must there exist an
independent set of size 3?
This is implied by the stronger theorem of Newelski–Pawlikowski–Seredyński [NPS87] below;
Gladysz [Gl62] earlier proved the existence of an independent set of size 2.
Newelski–Pawlikowski–Seredyński (1987) [NPS87]: infinite independent set in the closed case.
If all the sets A x are closed with Lebesgue measure < 1, then there is an
infinite independent set. This gives a strong affirmative answer to the second
question of Problem 501.
The constant family A x = ∅ satisfies all hypotheses of the main problem:
each A x is bounded (the empty set is bounded) and has Lebesgue outer measure 0 < 1.
Moreover, all of ℝ is an independent set, showing the conclusion holds trivially.
This demonstrates that the hypotheses are non-vacuous: the family A x = ∅ is a valid
input to the theorem, and ℝ (which is infinite) witnesses the conclusion.
The boundary case: the measure condition < 1 is sharp. An interval of length ≥ 1
has Lebesgue measure ≥ 1, so it would fail the hypothesis. Here [0, 1] has measure exactly 1.