- #1

Silviu

- 624

- 11

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Silviu
- Start date

- #1

Silviu

- 624

- 11

- #2

danieldf

- 10

- 0

I believe Continuum Hypothesis is one example of a problem that was proved to be undecidable. But I heard of that too long ago..

- #3

jbriggs444

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 11,720

- 6,399

By accepting it as an axiom and using it within a formal system as such. There is no requirement of any deeper truth.Hello! I was wondering how does a mathematical statement come to be an axiom?

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there is exactly one line containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there are no lines containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there are infinitely many lines containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

All three are valid axioms. Each is "true" in some contexts.

Before tackling the meaning of Godel's work, you should probably start with a better understanding of formal systems. With that under your belt, you should next learn about models and how "truth" is judged relative to a model. (Google "tarski")

Last edited:

- #4

Silviu

- 624

- 11

Thank you for reply and references. However, this doesn't really answer my question (I will look over the sources you suggested meanwhile). What I was wondering is how can we know that the axioms you listed can't be proved using other mathematical statements (in which case they wouldn't be axioms, but theorems). I understand that we accept them and build a certain type of geometry on them, but why can't we do the same with Riemann hypothesis and build the number theory on it, without attempting to prove it and instead accepting it as an axiom (unless, of course, somehow it was proved that the Riemann hypothesis can be proved, so we know that it has a solution, but I am not aware of such a proof, yet).By accepting it as an axiom and using it within a formal system as such. There is no requirement of any deeper truth.

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there is exactly one line containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there are no lines containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

Axiom: Given a line and a point not on that line there are infinitley many lines containing that point and not intersecting the given line.

All three are valid axioms. Each is "true" in some contexts.

Before tackling the meaning of Godel's work, you should probably start with a better understanding of formal systems. With that under your belt, you should next learn about models and how "truth" is judged relative to a model. (Google "tarski")

- #5

ericjericj

- 5

- 0

As an analogy, you could maybe think of them as the fundamental forces that govern the particles in a possible universe. In this analogy, the particles are primitive terms of a mathematical model. The more sophisticated molecules and complex interactions between them are like the theorems that can be deduced in that particular branch of mathematics. Not a perfect analogy, but it may illustrate why something like the Riemann Hypothesis wouldn't fit into the category of axiom.

- #6

jbriggs444

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 11,720

- 6,399

For much the same reasons that we do not have an axiom that the 10why can't we do the same with Riemann hypothesis and build the number theory on it, without attempting to prove it and instead accepting it as an axiom (unless, of course, somehow it was proved that the Riemann hypothesis can be proved, so we know that it has a solution, but I am not aware of such a proof, yet).

- #7

TeethWhitener

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,495

- 2,045

We can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Consequenceswhy can't we do the same with Riemann hypothesis and build the number theory on it, without attempting to prove it and instead accepting it as an axiom (unless, of course, somehow it was proved that the Riemann hypothesis can be proved, so we know that it has a solution, but I am not aware of such a proof, yet).

But the problem then becomes: all of these consequences follow from the Riemann hypothesis

To state the issue slightly differently, if you have a statement that you know is false given a set of axioms, it can be instructive to figure out how many axioms you'd have to abandon for the original statement to be consistent (not even true, but merely consistent) with the system.

- #8

Silviu

- 624

- 11

I am not sure I get the example with ##\pi## (finding any decimal of ##\pi## is possible if you calculate enough terms of a series that converge to something related to ##\pi## and it was done up to high numbers using supercomputers, so in this case there is no point in making that an axiom, as it is something that can be calculated, and thus proved). About the richness, in the case of Riemann hypothesis, I think there is more than enough rich number theory content that you can obtain from it (and that was already obtained, assuming that it is correct).For much the same reasons that we do not have an axiom that the 10^{99}th decimal digit of pi is 9: Because it might be disprovable and because there is not a lot of rich theory that you could deduce from that starting point.

- #9

Silviu

- 624

- 11

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you mean. But isn't this the risk with any axiom? When a set of axioms is chosen, how can you know they are all consistent, except by developing the theory and seeing if you get a contradiction at a point? Of course if you can prove or disprove Riemann hypothesis, there is no discussion to be done, but until then, why can't we take it as a theorem, and see how stuff are going?We can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Consequences

But the problem then becomes: all of these consequences follow from the Riemann hypothesisand all the rest of the axioms. If it turns out that we can prove that the Riemann hypothesis is false using the rest of the axioms, then including Riemann as an axiom with the rest of them gives an inconsistent system.

To state the issue slightly differently, if you have a statement that you know is false given a set of axioms, it can be instructive to figure out how many axioms you'd have to abandon for the original statement to be consistent (not even true, but merely consistent) with the system.

- #10

Stephen Tashi

Science Advisor

- 7,787

- 1,545

When a set of axioms is chosen, how can you know they are all consistent, except by developing the theory and seeing if you get a contradiction at a point?

That is indeed a problem and mathematics often proceeds in the way that you describe - namely by developing the theory and hoping that no contradiction is reached.

It is sometimes possible to find examples of physical systems that satisfy a set of axioms. If we trust that Nature does not contain utter contradictions, the existence of a physical example that satisfies a set of axioms shows that the axioms (by themselves) are not contradictory. Likewise if we have confidence that a certain specific example from mathematics is not contradictory, then a set of axioms that the example satisfies isn't contradictory.

- #11

TeethWhitener

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,495

- 2,045

As @Stephen Tashi said, this is a problem. There's an important point to be made here, which is that , e.g., something as sophisticated as ZF set theory can't prove itself consistent (Godel first showed this). The standard response here is that you can prove ZF consistency by assuming the existence of certain large cardinals. Of course, the problem here is that this new system (ZF + large cardinal axiom) can't prove itself consistent either, and up and up we go.When a set of axioms is chosen, how can you know they are all consistent, except by developing the theory and seeing if you get a contradiction at a point?

That was the point of the link. People have proven a lot of things, given the truth of the Riemann hypothesis. However, if it turns out Riemann is false, then you'd have to prove those corollaries a different way (assuming they aren't inconsistent).why can't we take it as a theorem, and see how stuff are going?

Share:

- Replies
- 41

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 47

- Views
- 8K