What Defines Group Axioms in Mathematics?

AI Thread Summary
Group axioms in mathematics include associativity, the existence of a neutral element, the presence of inverse elements, and closure. These axioms define the structure of a group, but they are not merely definitions; they serve as foundational truths that can be applied to various models. The distinction between axioms and models is crucial, as axioms cannot be proven, while the properties of specific sets can be verified against these axioms. Understanding this difference clarifies the role of axioms in mathematical logic. For further reading, a recommended introductory text on mathematical logic is Robert R. Stoll's "Set Theory and Logic."
broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi.

I'm reading a simple introduction to groups. A group is said to be a set satisfying the following axioms (called the 'group axioms'):

1) Associativity.

2) There is a neutral element.

3) Every element has an inverse element.

4) Closure.

My questions is simply: why are they called axioms? I thought an axiom was something we take as a starting point, defining it to be true and then deduce something from it (possibly together with other axioms). Why are 1-4 not just the definition of a group?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
They are the definition of a a group (modulo the fact that you've omitted to mention the binary operation). A group is something that satisfies these axioms (a model). Note, axioms are not things that are 'defined to be true' . They are just 'things' and in any model of the axioms they are true.

It just depends on how you like to label these things.
 
Last edited:
more useful is to think about an example, like the isometries of a cube, possibly orientation preserving, i.e. rotations carrying a cube into itself.
 
But you can't prove an axiom, and 1-4 can be proved (or disproved) for a given set?
 
In that case you are just proving that whatever set with whatever binary operation satisfies those axioms. You are not proving the axioms themselves.
 
Cincinnatus said:
In that case you are just proving that whatever set with whatever binary operation satisfies those axioms. You are not proving the axioms themselves.

Oh, I think I get it now. I guess I was confused about the distinction between the axioms themselves and 'the model' to which they are applied. Thanks, everyone.
 
By the way, does anybody know of a good, relatively accessible, introduction to the subject of mathematical logic?
 
Robert R. Stoll's Set Theory and Logic is an okay intro set theory text (although it only looks at naive set theory), but an excellent intro logic text. It's also put out by Dover so it's cheap.

edit: Link to book.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I think I'll pick that one up.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
118
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top