Banach–Tarski paradox
theorem that there exists a decomposition of a unit solid ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the unit sphere

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry that states the following: Given a solid ball in three-dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets that can be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. Indeed, the reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their original shape. The pieces themselves are not "solids" in the traditional sense, but infinite scatterings of points. The reconstruction can work with as few as five pieces.
An alternative form of the theorem states that given any two "reasonable" solid objects (such as a small ball and a huge ball), the cut pieces of either can be reassembled into the other. This is often stated informally as "a pea can be chopped up and reassembled into the Sun" and called the "pea and the Sun paradox".
The theorem is a veridical paradox: it contradicts basic geometric intuition, but is not false or self-contradictory. "Doubling the ball" by dividing it into parts and moving them around by rotations and translations, without any stretching, bending, or adding new points, seems impossible, since all these operations ought, intuitively speaking, to preserve the volume. The intuition that such operations preserve volume is not mathematically absurd and is even included in the formal definition of volume. But this is not applicable here because in this case it is impossible to define the volumes of the considered subsets.
The public source identifies “Banach–Tarski paradox” as theorem that there exists a decomposition of a unit solid ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the unit sphere. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Banach, Tarski and paradox.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Banach–Tarski paradox”, the useful work is to connect “theorem that there exists a decomposition of a unit solid ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the unit sphere” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q737851. The Library of Congress control number is sh85011446. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Banach–Tarski paradox”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Banach–Tarski paradox primary sources, Banach–Tarski paradox archive and Banach research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Banach–Tarski paradox”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Banach–Tarski paradox” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.