Prove A & B Using Axioms & Definitions: Axiomatic Approach 3

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving two statements using a set of axioms and definitions related to arithmetic and inequalities. The focus is on the axiomatic approach to mathematical reasoning, specifically addressing the implications of the axioms on the properties of numbers and operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that proving statement A (if a>0 and b>0 then a>b iff aa>bb) is straightforward, while others express difficulty with statement B.
  • There is a discussion about the challenges in proving the second part of statement B, particularly when considering the case where x<0.
  • One participant suggests that proving (-x)(-x)=xx could be a useful approach, and proposes that (-x) can be expressed as (-1)x.
  • Another participant questions why the definition of absolute value is not treated as an axiom, arguing that it could be considered a primitive symbol in the axiomatic system.
  • There is a distinction made between definitions and axioms, with participants discussing the nature of definitions as statements that assign meaning to symbols, while axioms are accepted truths used in proofs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of absolute value within the axiomatic framework, and there is no consensus on whether it should be classified as an axiom or a definition. The discussion on the proofs remains unresolved, with some participants finding A easier than B, while others struggle with both.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of definitions and notations in the context of axiomatic proofs, indicating potential limitations in understanding how these elements interact within the framework of the discussion.

solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Given the following axioms:

For all a,b,c we have:

1) a+b = b+a
2) a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c
3) ab = ba
4) a(bc) = (ab)c
5) a(b+c) =ab+ac
NOTE,here the multiplication sign (.) between the variables have been ommited
6) There ia a number called 0 such that for all a,
a+0 =a
7)For each a, there is a number -a such that for any a,
a+(-a) = 0
8)There is a number called 1(diofferent from 0) such that for any a,
a1 = a
9)For each a which is different than 0there exists a number called 1/a such that;
a.(1/a)= 1.

10) exactly one of a>b,b>a or a=b holds
11) if a>b ,b>c then a>c
12) if c>0 ,a>b then ac>bc
13) if a>b then a+c>b+c for any c

The definitions:

14) a/b = a(1/b)

15) $a\geq 0\Longrightarrow |a|=a$ and $ a<0\Longrightarrow |a|=-a$.

Then by using only the axioms and the definitions above prove:A) If a>0 and b>0 then a>b iff aa>bbB) If $x\neq 0$ then (|x||x|)/x=x for all x
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi solakis,

What have you tried?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi solakis,

What have you tried?

Hi

A is easy but for B the 2nd part i get stuck

The part were we consider x<0

And another thing

Why should we not consider the definition of absolute value as an axiom and not as a definition
 
solakis said:
Hi

A is easy but for B the 2nd part i get stuck

The part were we consider x<0

I guess you mean how to prove that (-x)(-x)=xx?

Perhaps you can prove that (-x)=(-1)x?
Or that (-1)(-1)=1?
And another thing

Why should we not consider the definition of absolute value as an axiom and not as a definition

Because it's a notation.
An axiom would be if the notation is used in a statement.
Similarly (1/x) and (-x) are notations or definitions to identify the multiplicative inverse respectively the additive inverse.

The axiom is that for every x there exists an additive inverse, denoted as (-x), such that x+(-x)=0.
This is a statement.
 
I like Serena said:
I guess you mean how to prove that (-x)(-x)=xx?

Perhaps you can prove that (-x)=(-1)x?
Or that (-1)(-1)=1?

Because it's a notation.
An axiom would be if the notation is used in a statement.
Similarly (1/x) and (-x) are notations or definitions to identify the multiplicative inverse respectively the additive inverse.

The axiom is that for every x there exists an additive inverse, denoted as (-x), such that x+(-x)=0.
This is a statement.

-,/ are not notations ,but two of the primitive symbols about which we write the two axioms:

a+(-a)=0
$a\neq 0\Longrightarrow a\frac{1}{a} = 1$.

Or in the language of the predicate logic one place operation terms.

Who said that | | cannot be taken as a one place operation symbol and consider as a primitive in our axiomatic system.

Is it not the :

$x\geq 0\Longrightarrow |x|=x$ a statement?

And another thing ,if the above plays the same role in a proof as an axiom why called definition
 
Last edited:
solakis said:
-,/ are not notations ,but two of the primitive symbols about which we write the two axioms:

a+(-a)=0
$a\neq 0\Longrightarrow a\frac{1}{a} = 1$.

notation equals primitive symbol.
And another thing ,if the above plays the same role in a proof as an axiom why called definition

We call it a definition if it is about a word or a symbol (or set of symbols) that has no meaning yet until we give it a definition.
A definition typically has the form "<word> is defined as <definition>", or "$|\cdot|$ is defined as <definition>", although the exact form can vary.

We call it an axiom if it's a statement making use of the words and symbols we defined, that is accepted as implicitly true.But hey, you don't have to take my word for it if you think you know better.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K