MHB Creating theorems for an axiomatic system

  • Thread starter Thread starter malloryjohn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on formulating theorems based on a defined set of axioms regarding team games. The established theorem states that with exactly four teams, there can be at most eight games. Participants are encouraged to explore additional theorems by fixing one variable and analyzing the implications for the others. Key questions include determining the maximum number of teams possible with exactly six games played and the scenario where each team plays only once. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationships between the number of teams, games, and game participation limits.
malloryjohn
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have the axioms:

Axiom 1: Each game is played by two distinct teams
Axiom 2: There are at least four teams
Axiom 3: There are at least six games played
Axiom 4: Each team played at most 4 games.

And I have come up with the theorem: If there are exactly 4 teams, then there are at most 8 games.

I need to come up with two more theorems. I'm pretty stuck on where to go from here, so any advice would be greatly appreciate
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How many teams can there be, if there are exactly six games played?

If each team plays only once, how many teams can there be (if only teams that play games count)?

The general idea is: fix ONE of your variables, and determine limits on the others.
 

Thread 'Value of intuitionistic logic'

I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
View full post »

Thread 'Formal derivation of statement from Peano Arithmetic system'

I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Creating theorems from the given axioms
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Proving Theorem 2: At Least 2 Games Played
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB Proving Independence of Axioms in Game Theory: A Case Study
Replies
5
Views
4K
MHB Coming up with Theorems and proving them
Replies
7
Views
11K
A Formal axiom systems and the finite/infinite sets
Replies
10
Views
2K
MHB Game Night : Number of combinations
Replies
14
Views
2K
You sports people: methods for qualifying (for darts, in this case)
Replies
12
Views
2K
B Validating Darts Tournament Skill Levels: A Non-Intrusive Approach
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Baccarat math and beating the edge
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
Replies
2
Views
187

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top