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.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.

Similar threads

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