There is a famous "proof" that $\pi=4$, which goes as follows: Start with a square with side-lengths $1$ and inscribe within it a circle with radius $1/2$. Next, iteratively "fold" the corners of the square in on itself, maintaining the perimeter of $4$, but "approaching" the circle closer and closer (see e.g. this image). Repeat ad infinitum and we see that the circumference of the inscribed circle, $\pi$, must be $4$.
Clearly, the proof is wrong. Usually the explanation is that the approaching of the circle is not smooth enough, and so the circumference doesn't follow along.
However, I think the "proof" can be made rigorous using the Hausdorff measure. Indeed, let $(A_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence of approximating shapes, so $A_1$ is the square with side length $1$, $A_2$ has the corners folded in once, etc. Let also $C$ denote the circle inscribed within them and $\mu$ the $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. Then clearly, $C$ and $A_n$ are measurable for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ since these are Borel sets, and since $\mu$ formalizes the circumference of sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$, we have $\mu(C)=\pi$ and $\mu(A_n)=4$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Finally, $\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}}A_n=C$ and $A_1\supseteq A_2\supseteq A_3\supseteq\ldots$, so by continuity of measures, we have $$ \pi =\mu(C) =\mu\Big(\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}}A_n\Big) =\lim_{n\to\infty}\mu(A_n) =4. $$
Clearly, something is wrong, but I don't know which of the above steps is erroneous. Any help is greatly appreciated!
Edit: I realized that while it is true that $\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}}A_n=C$ and $A_1\supseteq A_2\supseteq A_3\supseteq\ldots$, the same is obviously not true of the boundaries of these sets, and since the Hausdorff measure denotes circumferences only on the boundaries of sets, this is where the mistake lies.