Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Two write-ups of the same construction: E. Glazer, Erdős Problem 501 after adding random reals, draft rev10, Section 6, physical p. 8, held by Glazer (2026); and S. Lee, Relative independence of Erdős problem #501, second version dated 2026-06-01, Appendix A, physical pp. 5--6, held by Lee (2026). Both attribute the result to S. H. Hechler, On two problems in combinatorial set theory, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. 20 (1972), 429--431, which is not held; the problem page records the open attribution question.
Standing. This is an author-recorded reconstruction. It is not an independent review and changes no status and assigns no tier.
Statement
Assume CH. There is a family such that every is countable (so ) and bounded, and no infinite satisfies for all distinct . Hence CH implies , where is the positive assertion of the first question of Problem 501.
Proof
By CH, ; fix an enumeration without repetition, and let be the induced well-ordering: if and only if . For define
Each is a subset of the countable set , so it is countable and therefore Lebesgue null: . Each is contained in , so it is bounded.
Suppose is infinite and independent. Since well-orders and is infinite, contains a strictly increasing sequence (its first elements in the order ). Let and write , , so . Independence gives . By the definition of , a point with lies outside only when . Hence
Applying this to consecutive indices, , so for every . For an integer this gives , which is impossible. So no infinite independent set exists.
Boundary. The sets are null, so the construction refutes even the variant of the first question with "outer measure below one" replaced by "null"; the problem page records the same construction along a well-ordering of order type under Martin's axiom. Both theorem pages, Glazer Theorem 1.1 and Lee Theorem 1.1, use this page for the negative half of their corollaries.