A note on sets avoiding rational distances
Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:29 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
For every subset A of the reals there exists a full subset B with no rational distances between its points.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
For each A subset R there exists B subset A full in A such that no distance between two distinct points from B is rational. A Bernstein subset of R avoiding rational distances is constructed. The former result extends to measurable subsets of R squared and, assuming non of the null ideal equals its cofinality, to positive outer measure sets via a full partial bijection avoiding rational distances.
What carries the argument
The technical notion of a subset being full in A, which supports a choice-based selection that thins A while preserving largeness and eliminating all rational distances.
If this is right
- Any subset of the reals admits a full subset whose pairwise distances are all irrational.
- A Bernstein set with no rational distances between points exists.
- Every measurable subset of the plane admits a full subset avoiding rational distances.
- Under the assumption non(N) equals cof(N), every set of positive outer measure in the plane admits a full partial bijection avoiding rational distances.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The avoidance construction may extend without extra assumptions to other classes of large sets in the plane if the full-subset notion can be adapted.
- Similar thinning arguments could apply to avoiding distances from any fixed countable set rather than only the rationals.
- The result indicates that avoiding rational distances is compatible with several notions of largeness but does not address compatibility with full measurability.
Load-bearing premise
The notion of full in A permits a choice-based thinning that preserves largeness while excluding all rational distances.
What would settle it
A concrete subset A of the reals such that every full subset of A contains at least one pair of points at rational distance would refute the main claim.
read the original abstract
In this paper we shall give a short proof of the result originally obtained by Ashutosh Kumar that for each $A\subset \mathbb{R}$ there exists $B\subset A$ full in $A$ such that no distance between two distinct points from $B$ is rational. We will construct a Bernstein subset of $\mathbb{R}$ which also avoids rational distances. We will show some cases in which the former result may be extended to subsets of $\mathbb{R}^2$, i. e. it remains true for measurable subsets of the plane and if $non(\mathcal{N})=cof(\mathcal{N})$ then for a given set of positive outer measure we may find its full subset which is a partial bijection and avoids rational distances.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript gives a short ZFC proof that for every A ⊂ ℝ there exists B ⊂ A that is full in A (intersects every ℚ-coset met by A) and contains no two distinct points at rational distance. It additionally constructs a Bernstein set in ℝ with the same distance property and proves two conditional extensions to ℝ²: the result holds for every Lebesgue measurable set, and it holds for every set of positive outer measure when non(𝒩) = cof(𝒩).
Significance. The note supplies an elementary coset-selection argument that directly yields the existence claim for arbitrary subsets of the line, thereby simplifying the earlier result of Kumar. The Bernstein-set construction adds a topological dimension, while the plane statements connect the distance-avoidance property to standard assumptions on the null ideal. These are clean, choice-based existence results with no free parameters or ad-hoc axioms.
minor comments (3)
- [Introduction] The precise definition of 'full in A' (and its plane analogue) is used throughout but is never stated as a numbered definition; a single sentence in §1 or §2 would remove any ambiguity for readers.
- [Abstract] The phrase 'partial bijection' appears in the abstract and in the plane-extension paragraph without explanation; a brief gloss (e.g., 'no two points share an x-coordinate or a y-coordinate') would clarify the intended geometric restriction.
- [Introduction] The reference to Ashutosh Kumar's original result is mentioned but not given a bibliographic entry; adding the citation would help readers locate the prior work.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the positive report, the accurate summary of our results, and the recommendation to accept the manuscript. No changes are required.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity identified
full rationale
The paper's central result is a pure existence statement proved via an explicit set-theoretic construction: decompose ℝ into cosets of the additive subgroup ℚ, then for each coset C with A ∩ C ≠ ∅ select one point from A ∩ C to form B. This selection (via AC) ensures B intersects every relevant coset (hence 'full in A') while containing at most one point per coset, forcing all distinct distances to be irrational. The construction is self-contained, uses no fitted parameters, no self-referential definitions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The reference to Kumar is purely attributive; the paper supplies its own short proof. Plane extensions are conditional on measurability or non(𝒩)=cof(𝒩) and introduce no circular steps. No enumerated circularity pattern applies.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- standard math Axiom of Choice
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.