What are the axioms in ZFC set theory?

In summary, there is a discussion about whether someone should post the axioms of ZFC theory as a reference for discussions in the forum. Some argue that it is unnecessary because the axioms are easily accessible, while others believe it would be helpful to have them readily available. There is also a disagreement on whether it is necessary to explicitly mention the formalism being used when discussing set theory. One person mentions different formalisms such as Morse-Kelley, type theory, category theory, and von-Neumann-Godel. Another person brings up Patrick Suppes' book "Axiomatic Set Theory" as an example of proving theorems straight from the ZFC axioms. There is also a discussion about whether it is common or necessary
  • #1
poutsos.A
102
1
since a lot of talking is going on with sets, will somebody write down the axioms in ZFC theory as a point of reference , when a discussion is opened up.
thanx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
You misunderstood him Dragonfall, I think he meant that someone should post a sticky in this subforum underlying all the axioms of ZFC, or something like this.

Cause checking in mathworld or wiki is really a triviality, nowadays.
 
  • #4
loop quantum gravity said:
You misunderstood him Dragonfall, I think he meant that someone should post a sticky in this subforum underlying all the axioms of ZFC, or something like this.

Cause checking in mathworld or wiki is really a triviality, nowadays.

THANK YOU that is what i really meant.INDEED checking in mathworld or in wiki
although a triviality it is sometimes simply chaotic
 
  • #5
I don't think we should favor any formalism over another, lest someone thinks that ZFC is gods-given or something.
 
  • #6
Dragonfall said:
I don't think we should favor any formalism over another, lest someone thinks that ZFC is gods-given or something.

Well any god I worship sure as hell wouldn't use category theory!
 
  • #7
since we are interested more in the logical conclusions and not in the rules them selfs,i think that any set of rules concerning set theory would do.
Also if we find out that a certain set of rules does not solve certain problems then we can refer to another set of rules

But yes i agree with Mr poutsosA ,we must a have a set of rules to refer to, everytime we start a discussion in set theory
 
  • #8
If anyone here discusses set theory without explicitly mentioning the formalism then it's assumed to be ZFC. Now if you have something to say about ZFC, chances are you know the axioms by heart anyway. It's not necessary to have them listed as if they were the ten freaking commandments.
 
  • #9
Dragonfall said:
If anyone here discusses set theory without explicitly mentioning the formalism then it's assumed to be ZFC. .

What that suppose to mean??
 
  • #10
Dragonfall said:
I don't think we should favor any formalism over another, lest someone thinks that ZFC is gods-given or something.

mention couple of formalisms,if you like,please
 
  • #11
evagelos said:
What that suppose to mean??

It means "If anyone here discusses set theory without explicitly mentioning the formalism then it's assumed to be ZFC."

evagelos said:
mention couple of formalisms,if you like,please

Morse-Kelley, type theory, category theory, von-Neumann-Godel. You can google the rest yourself.
 
  • #12
Dragonfall said:
It means "If anyone here discusses set theory without explicitly mentioning the formalism then it's assumed to be ZFC."



Morse-Kelley, type theory, category theory, von-Neumann-Godel. You can google the rest yourself.

ZFC first order ,second order,a mixed of the two?

Anyway in this forum i have not seen a lot of proofs coming out straight from ZFC axioms
 
  • #13
Because no person in the right mind would prove things straight from the axioms.
 
  • #14
Dragonfall said:
Because no person in the right mind would prove things straight from the axioms.

what are there for, to be admired at ??

how about Patrick Suppes,what is he doing in his book : Axiomatic Set Theory?
 
  • #15
How about you count the number of published papers with "we will prove this from the axioms of ZFC"?
 
  • #16
First you claim and i quote: no person in the right mind would prove things straight from the axioms.

To that claim i produce the book of Patrick Suppes,Axiomatic Set Theory where he proves from the ZFC axioms all the theorems involved

Now you asking me to produce papers where the theorems in ZFC are proved.

is not one example enough for your claim??
 
  • #17
evagelos, are you being deliberately dense?
 
  • #18
morphism said:
evagelos, are you being deliberately dense?
I think he has a fair objection. Dragonfall has insulted several demographics of mathematicians, computer scientists, students (and probably people in other fields too). While one might assume Dragonfall really just meant something to the effect of "leave set theory to the set theorists", I believe it is quite reasonable to call Dragonfall out on his comment.
 
  • #19
Which comment might that be?
 
  • #20
Because no person in the right mind would prove things straight from the axioms.​
 
  • #21
Oh no, I'm standing by that. That was said to me by my set theory course professor who is a set theorist. I've always found that quote funny.
 

1. What is ZFC set theory?

ZFC set theory is a foundational theory in mathematics that aims to provide a rigorous and consistent framework for understanding and reasoning about sets. It stands for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice, and is based on a set of axioms and rules for constructing and manipulating sets.

2. What are the axioms in ZFC set theory?

The axioms in ZFC set theory are the fundamental assumptions that form the basis of the theory. They include the Axiom of Extension, Axiom of Pairing, Axiom of Union, Axiom of Infinity, Axiom of Power Set, and the Axiom of Choice. These axioms provide the rules for defining and constructing sets and ensure the consistency and completeness of the theory.

3. Why is the Axiom of Choice controversial?

The Axiom of Choice is controversial because it allows for the creation of infinite sets that are non-measurable, meaning they cannot be assigned a precise size or measure. This has implications for certain areas of mathematics, such as analysis and probability, and has been the subject of much debate among mathematicians.

4. How are axioms used in ZFC set theory?

Axioms are used in ZFC set theory as the starting points for constructing and manipulating sets. They provide the rules for defining sets and determining their properties, and allow for the development of more complex mathematical structures, such as groups and topological spaces.

5. What are the implications of the axioms in ZFC set theory?

The axioms in ZFC set theory have far-reaching implications for mathematics, as they provide the foundation for all mathematical reasoning involving sets. They allow for the development of rigorous and consistent mathematical theories and play a crucial role in many areas of mathematics, including analysis, algebra, and topology.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
962
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top