Are Axioms in Mathematics Truly Reliable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FulhamFan3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Works
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reliability of axioms in mathematics, questioning their foundational role in logical arguments and proofs. Participants explore the nature of axioms, their empirical basis, and the implications of different logical systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the confidence in the reliability of arguments and the trust placed in statements derived from axioms.
  • One participant asks for an example to clarify the discussion.
  • Another participant suggests that mathematical proofs rely on axioms of logic, which themselves are just axioms.
  • It is proposed that the validity of axioms may depend on the logical system used, with some axioms having empirical verifiability based on observations of nature.
  • One participant argues that axioms are not inherently true or false, using the parallel postulate as an example, and notes that various models can satisfy different axioms, each being useful in its own context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views regarding the nature and reliability of axioms remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on specific logical systems and the unresolved nature of the validity of certain axioms beyond empirical observation.

FulhamFan3
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
What makes us so confident that a line of argument works at all? Why do you trust statements so much?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Give an example.
 
Do you mean mathematical proof? It is the axioms of logic that tell us when an argument is a correct proof, and they are just axioms.
 
It depends on the logical system in which you prove a statement. Certain systems seem to be based on axioms that are empirically verifiable at least to some extent. The classical laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle all have some basis in the way we observe nature to operate. Beyond this observation, though, there isn't any formal way I can think of to prove their validity.
 
Axioms in mathematics are not really true, or false, they just are. Eg the parallel postulate isn't true, or false. What we do is work in models which satisfy the axioms. In the case of the parallel postulate there a models which satisfy it, and those that do not, and they are all useful in many ways.
 

Similar threads

Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
What should sit beside a physics equation?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
855
Undergrad Deductive proof in logic formal systems
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Is everything in math either an axiom or a theorem?
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
10K
High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
Undergrad Topic about physics axioms, theory, laws etc..
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
Foundations A rigorous approach to learn Mathematics
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Undergrad Born rule as an axiom or as a theorem?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Insights Why ChatGPT AI Is Not Reliable
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
18K
High School I've been trying to understand the proof for the binomial theorem
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K