Are Distinct Implications Possible with Only One Axiom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epkid08
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether distinct implications can arise from a single axiom, specifically the axiom of extensionality from ZFC. It is argued that while all axioms can theoretically be combined into one, the ability to derive distinct implications depends on the structure of the implications rather than the number of axioms. The conversation highlights that starting with one axiom does not limit the richness of the implications that can be drawn, as implications can still be formulated from the relationships between axioms. Ultimately, the clarity of the question posed is questioned, suggesting that the format of theorems and axioms significantly influences the discussion. The conclusion emphasizes that the mathematical depth lies in the implication structure rather than merely the axioms themselves.
epkid08
Messages
264
Reaction score
1
Is it possible to have distinct implications from the existence of only one axiom?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Technically all axioms can be conjoined into a single postulate:

A = A1 and A2 and A3...

So every axiomatic system can be though of as having 1 axiom and the answer to your question is "Yes".
 
I know what you mean, but wouldn't you need an axiom that allows you to "combine" the axioms into one logical statement.

Anywho let me be more specific to dodge your problem then, assume you have only one axiom, the axiom of extensionality from ZFC. Can any truly distinct implications be concluded from this axiom?
 
epkid08 said:
I know what you mean, but wouldn't you need an axiom that allows you to "combine" the axioms into one logical statement.

Anywho let me be more specific to dodge your problem then, assume you have only one axiom, the axiom of extensionality from ZFC. Can any truly distinct implications be concluded from this axiom?

Wouldn't the one axiom simply encode all the information in a way like jambaugh has said? The definition through use of intersection is universal, it doesn't take context depending on the axiom or the system/constraints its describing.
 
epkid08 said:
I know what you mean, but wouldn't you need an axiom that allows you to "combine" the axioms into one logical statement.

Anywho let me be more specific to dodge your problem then, assume you have only one axiom, the axiom of extensionality from ZFC. Can any truly distinct implications be concluded from this axiom?

Again this depends on what you mean (I think your question is ill posed).

Suppose you have a system of axioms A1, A2, and A3 from which you formulate a set of definitions and prove a theorem T.

From just A1 you can prove T' = (A2 and A3 implies T).

By the same token you can start with 0 axioms and change each theorem to the corresponding contingent theorem. e.g. T'' = (A1 and A2 and A3 implies T).

Unless you get very specific about the format of theorems and axioms, counting how many you start with is not very meaningful. The math is not in the axioms per se but in the implication structure.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
72
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top