"Alien objects", Stillwell's "Reverse Mathematics"

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hill
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "alien objects" as presented in Stillwell's "Reverse Mathematics." Participants explore the implications of strengthening or omitting axioms in mathematical systems, particularly in relation to the existence of certain mathematical objects and structures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that alien objects arise when an axiom is strengthened, leading to the existence of objects that cannot be computed or listed.
  • Others propose that the concept of alien objects may also relate to omitting axioms, raising questions about the definitions and implications of strengthening versus dropping axioms.
  • A participant mentions the progression from real numbers to octonions as an example of how adjusting axioms can lead to more exotic number systems.
  • There is a discussion on whether the transition from real to complex numbers is an example of strengthening an axiom or dropping one, highlighting differing interpretations of these processes.
  • One participant suggests viewing octonions as a starting point from which other number systems can be derived by either strengthening or omitting axioms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether alien objects are a result of strengthening or omitting axioms, indicating that multiple competing interpretations exist within the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying perspectives on the nature of mathematical axioms and their implications for the existence of certain mathematical objects, with no consensus reached on the definitions or relationships involved.

Hill
Messages
792
Reaction score
614
TL;DR
What is an example of "alien objects" allowed by the first four Peano axioms?
Stillwell's "Reverse Mathematics" says on p.41,

1768489825029.webp


Unfortunately, there is no example of such model. Where can I find it?

For the reference, here are the axioms 1-4:

1768489947553.webp

1768489973673.webp
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When Stillwell says there are alien objects, he means the objects that mysteriously appear when you strengthen an axiom.

Applying some initial conditions, you can show that the object exists, but you can’t compute it, or list its members, or even prove that some object you generated is a part of the set.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
jedishrfu said:
When Stillwell says there are alien objects, he means the objects that mysteriously appear when you strengthen an axiom.

Applying some initial conditions, you can show that the object exists, but you can’t compute it, or list its members, or even prove that some object you generated is a part of the set.
Thank you.
He refers to "concocting a model." Where can I learn about such model?
 
Try looking for arithmetic systems without the induction axiom but based on the other three.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hill
jedishrfu said:
When Stillwell says there are alien objects, he means the objects that mysteriously appear when you strengthen an axiom.
Do you mean, when you omit an axiom?
 
My understanding is that adding or strengthening an axiom produces these objects.

They are in a sense odd edge cases that pop up when applying the axioms.

The best example to my mind is the progression from real numbers to complex numbers to quaternion numbers to octonions.

As each axiom defining the real number properties is adjusted the more exotic number algebras appear with octonions as the end of the line.

First you give up, ordered to get complex numbers, then commutativity to get quaternions, then associativity to get octonions at the end.
 
jedishrfu said:
My understanding is that adding or strengthening an axiom produces these objects.



First you give up, ordered to get complex numbers
Isn't that dropping an axiom? I don’t see how it is 'strengthening' one.
But then, going from real to complex is adding a closure axiom, the existence of all n polynomial roots.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Historically, we discovered real numbers first and derived the others by deleting an axiom.

But couldn't you view it as starting with octonions of which the reals, complex numbers and quaternions are a subset and by strengthening or adding an axiom you get a subset and a set of what's not in the subset.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K