What Defines Group Axioms in Mathematics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter broegger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axiom Axioms Group
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition of group axioms in mathematics, specifically the four axioms: associativity, the existence of a neutral element, the existence of inverse elements, and closure. Participants clarify that these axioms are foundational properties that a set must satisfy to be considered a group, rather than being mere definitions. The distinction between axioms and models is emphasized, highlighting that axioms cannot be proven but can be applied to various sets with binary operations. Additionally, a recommendation for Robert R. Stoll's "Set Theory and Logic" is provided as a valuable resource for those interested in mathematical logic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic mathematical concepts, including sets and operations.
  • Familiarity with group theory fundamentals.
  • Knowledge of mathematical logic principles.
  • Ability to differentiate between axioms and models in mathematics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of group theory, focusing on specific examples like isometries of geometric shapes.
  • Explore mathematical logic through Robert R. Stoll's "Set Theory and Logic."
  • Learn about binary operations and their role in defining algebraic structures.
  • Investigate the implications of axioms in various mathematical frameworks.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, educators teaching group theory, and anyone interested in the foundations of mathematical logic.

broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi.

I'm reading a simple introduction to groups. A group is said to be a set satisfying the following axioms (called the 'group axioms'):

1) Associativity.

2) There is a neutral element.

3) Every element has an inverse element.

4) Closure.

My questions is simply: why are they called axioms? I thought an axiom was something we take as a starting point, defining it to be true and then deduce something from it (possibly together with other axioms). Why are 1-4 not just the definition of a group?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are the definition of a a group (modulo the fact that you've omitted to mention the binary operation). A group is something that satisfies these axioms (a model). Note, axioms are not things that are 'defined to be true' . They are just 'things' and in any model of the axioms they are true.

It just depends on how you like to label these things.
 
Last edited:
more useful is to think about an example, like the isometries of a cube, possibly orientation preserving, i.e. rotations carrying a cube into itself.
 
But you can't prove an axiom, and 1-4 can be proved (or disproved) for a given set?
 
In that case you are just proving that whatever set with whatever binary operation satisfies those axioms. You are not proving the axioms themselves.
 
Cincinnatus said:
In that case you are just proving that whatever set with whatever binary operation satisfies those axioms. You are not proving the axioms themselves.

Oh, I think I get it now. I guess I was confused about the distinction between the axioms themselves and 'the model' to which they are applied. Thanks, everyone.
 
By the way, does anybody know of a good, relatively accessible, introduction to the subject of mathematical logic?
 
Robert R. Stoll's Set Theory and Logic is an okay intro set theory text (although it only looks at naive set theory), but an excellent intro logic text. It's also put out by Dover so it's cheap.

edit: Link to book.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I think I'll pick that one up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
907
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
576
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K