Propositional Calculus: Is Algebra's Problem-Solver? Example

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between algebraic problems and propositional calculus, specifically questioning whether every algebraic problem has a corresponding propositional formula. Participants highlight the complexity of defining "algebra" and "corresponding," with references to ordered fields and first-order logic. They assert that while every proof in ordered fields is based on first-order logic, translating these proofs into propositional logic is not straightforward due to the expressiveness of first-order logic. The conversation emphasizes the need for precise definitions and examples to clarify these concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of first-order logic and its components
  • Familiarity with ordered fields and their properties
  • Knowledge of propositional calculus and tautologies
  • Basic algebraic concepts, including polynomial degrees and roots
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the principles of first-order logic in depth
  • Research the properties of ordered fields without the axiom of continuity
  • Study the translation methods between first-order logic and propositional calculus
  • Examine examples of propositional proofs corresponding to algebraic statements
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of mathematical logic seeking to understand the interplay between algebra and propositional calculus.

solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Is there to every problem in Algebra a corresponding problem in propositional calculus??

Give an example
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think so, but one has to define "algebra" and "corresponding" more carefully. For example, I don't know what propositional formula would correspond to the fact that a polynomial of degree $n$ in a field has at most $n$ roots.

However, I heard that logicists tried to reduce all mathematics to logic, and in particular they thought they reduced true arithmetic identities on natural numbers without variables (like 7 + 5 = 12) to propositional tautologies.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I don't think so, but one has to define "algebra" and "corresponding" more carefully. For example, I don't know what propositional formula would correspond to the fact that a polynomial of degree $n$ in a field has at most $n$ roots.

However, I heard that logicists tried to reduce all mathematics to logic, and in particular they thought they reduced true arithmetic identities on natural numbers without variables (like 7 + 5 = 12) to propositional tautologies.

You mean logicians?
lLet us be more precise. Let us say ordered fields(without the axiom of continuity).Theoretically speaking since every proof in ordered fields is based on 1st order logic which concists of propositional and predicate calculus ,there should be a propositional proof corresponding to every proof.

For example in the following simple proof what is the relevant propositional proof ccorresponding to that proof??

a>1 & b>2 => a>0 &b>0 => ab>0 => ab>= 0
 
solakis said:
You mean logicians?
No, I mean supporters of logicism.

solakis said:
Let us say ordered fields(without the axiom of continuity).Theoretically speaking since every proof in ordered fields is based on 1st order logic which concists of propositional and predicate calculus
Yes.

solakis said:
there should be a propositional proof corresponding to every proof.
It is not clear how to translate first-order statements, let alone proofs, into propositional logic. First-order logic is used for a reason, because it is much more expressive.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
No, I mean supporters of logicism.

Yes.

It is not clear how to translate first-order statements, let alone proofs, into propositional logic. First-order logic is used for a reason, because it is much more expressive.

Why,if in the previous proof we put:

a>1=A, b>2=B, 1>0=C, 2>0=D, a>0=E,b>0=F, ab>0=G, (ab=0)=H,then the proof in the propositional logic corresponding to the above proof is it not the following??

IF,
1. A^C=>E
2. B^D=>F
3. E^F=> G
4.D
5.C
THEN A^B=>GvH
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K