Mixing
If comparativity and reflexivity imply symmetry and transitivity how can the axioms of equivalence be...
$begingroup$
According to BBFSK a relation with the properties of comparativity and reflexivity satisfies symmetry and transitivity. Comparativity is defined as $xsim{z}land{ysim{z}}implies{xsim{y}}$. Apparently the proof of this is as simple as $xsim{x}land{ysim{x}}implies{xsim{y}},$ which shows symmetry. From symmetry and comparativity, transitivity clearly follows.
Using the sets
$$mathcal{S}equivleft{1,2,3right};mathcal{P}equivleft{langle2,1rangle,langle3,1rangle,langle3,2rangleright};mathcal{Q}equivleft{langle1,3rangle,langle3,1rangleright};$$
and relations
$$F(x,y)equivtext{False};L(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{P};A(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{Q};$$
it is possible to show that each relation satisfies exactly two of the axioms of an equivalence relation. Each pair of satisfied axioms is different from that of another of the relations. This demonstrates that the axioms are independent, that is orthogonal.
I know that "orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms. Nonetheless, I find it unsettling that a system of three axioms can be shown to be isomorphic to a system of two axioms. Is this an acceptable state of affairs?
elementary-set-theory logic equivalence-relations axioms
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to BBFSK a relation with the properties of comparativity and reflexivity satisfies symmetry and transitivity. Comparativity is defined as $xsim{z}land{ysim{z}}implies{xsim{y}}$. Apparently the proof of this is as simple as $xsim{x}land{ysim{x}}implies{xsim{y}},$ which shows symmetry. From symmetry and comparativity, transitivity clearly follows.
Using the sets
$$mathcal{S}equivleft{1,2,3right};mathcal{P}equivleft{langle2,1rangle,langle3,1rangle,langle3,2rangleright};mathcal{Q}equivleft{langle1,3rangle,langle3,1rangleright};$$
and relations
$$F(x,y)equivtext{False};L(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{P};A(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{Q};$$
it is possible to show that each relation satisfies exactly two of the axioms of an equivalence relation. Each pair of satisfied axioms is different from that of another of the relations. This demonstrates that the axioms are independent, that is orthogonal.
I know that "orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms. Nonetheless, I find it unsettling that a system of three axioms can be shown to be isomorphic to a system of two axioms. Is this an acceptable state of affairs?
elementary-set-theory logic equivalence-relations axioms
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to BBFSK a relation with the properties of comparativity and reflexivity satisfies symmetry and transitivity. Comparativity is defined as $xsim{z}land{ysim{z}}implies{xsim{y}}$. Apparently the proof of this is as simple as $xsim{x}land{ysim{x}}implies{xsim{y}},$ which shows symmetry. From symmetry and comparativity, transitivity clearly follows.
Using the sets
$$mathcal{S}equivleft{1,2,3right};mathcal{P}equivleft{langle2,1rangle,langle3,1rangle,langle3,2rangleright};mathcal{Q}equivleft{langle1,3rangle,langle3,1rangleright};$$
and relations
$$F(x,y)equivtext{False};L(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{P};A(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{Q};$$
it is possible to show that each relation satisfies exactly two of the axioms of an equivalence relation. Each pair of satisfied axioms is different from that of another of the relations. This demonstrates that the axioms are independent, that is orthogonal.
I know that "orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms. Nonetheless, I find it unsettling that a system of three axioms can be shown to be isomorphic to a system of two axioms. Is this an acceptable state of affairs?
elementary-set-theory logic equivalence-relations axioms
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
$endgroup$
According to BBFSK a relation with the properties of comparativity and reflexivity satisfies symmetry and transitivity. Comparativity is defined as $xsim{z}land{ysim{z}}implies{xsim{y}}$. Apparently the proof of this is as simple as $xsim{x}land{ysim{x}}implies{xsim{y}},$ which shows symmetry. From symmetry and comparativity, transitivity clearly follows.
Using the sets
$$mathcal{S}equivleft{1,2,3right};mathcal{P}equivleft{langle2,1rangle,langle3,1rangle,langle3,2rangleright};mathcal{Q}equivleft{langle1,3rangle,langle3,1rangleright};$$
and relations
$$F(x,y)equivtext{False};L(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{P};A(a,b)equivlangle a,branglenotinmathcal{Q};$$
it is possible to show that each relation satisfies exactly two of the axioms of an equivalence relation. Each pair of satisfied axioms is different from that of another of the relations. This demonstrates that the axioms are independent, that is orthogonal.
I know that "orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms. Nonetheless, I find it unsettling that a system of three axioms can be shown to be isomorphic to a system of two axioms. Is this an acceptable state of affairs?
elementary-set-theory logic equivalence-relations axioms
elementary-set-theory logic equivalence-relations axioms
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
edited Jan 27 at 4:44
Steven Hatton
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
asked Jan 27 at 4:24
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
975422
975422
3
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27
3
3
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In fact, it's equivalent to a system with one axiom, since we can always take the conjunction of any finite number of sentences.
Of course, you may object that doing so changes the form of the axioms in some way, and there are interesting questions to be asked here. For example, in the context of general algebras (= structures in a purely functional signature), we can ask $(i)$ whether a class of structures can be axiomatized by equations (this has a complete answer, essentially) and $(ii)$ if so, how many equations are needed (e.g. for the class of groups). But this is a side issue; the situation is completely acceptable, some axiomatizations are different from others.
Separately, it's worth saying that your statement
"orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms
is quite true, and is why the word "orthogonality" really shouldn't be used here: I suspect your worry comes from the sense that somehow we have an object which is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional, but this is only due to a misrepresentation of a logical phenomenon as a geometric one.
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089133%2fif-comparativity-and-reflexivity-imply-symmetry-and-transitivity-how-can-the-axi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In fact, it's equivalent to a system with one axiom, since we can always take the conjunction of any finite number of sentences.
Of course, you may object that doing so changes the form of the axioms in some way, and there are interesting questions to be asked here. For example, in the context of general algebras (= structures in a purely functional signature), we can ask $(i)$ whether a class of structures can be axiomatized by equations (this has a complete answer, essentially) and $(ii)$ if so, how many equations are needed (e.g. for the class of groups). But this is a side issue; the situation is completely acceptable, some axiomatizations are different from others.
Separately, it's worth saying that your statement
"orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms
is quite true, and is why the word "orthogonality" really shouldn't be used here: I suspect your worry comes from the sense that somehow we have an object which is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional, but this is only due to a misrepresentation of a logical phenomenon as a geometric one.
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In fact, it's equivalent to a system with one axiom, since we can always take the conjunction of any finite number of sentences.
Of course, you may object that doing so changes the form of the axioms in some way, and there are interesting questions to be asked here. For example, in the context of general algebras (= structures in a purely functional signature), we can ask $(i)$ whether a class of structures can be axiomatized by equations (this has a complete answer, essentially) and $(ii)$ if so, how many equations are needed (e.g. for the class of groups). But this is a side issue; the situation is completely acceptable, some axiomatizations are different from others.
Separately, it's worth saying that your statement
"orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms
is quite true, and is why the word "orthogonality" really shouldn't be used here: I suspect your worry comes from the sense that somehow we have an object which is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional, but this is only due to a misrepresentation of a logical phenomenon as a geometric one.
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In fact, it's equivalent to a system with one axiom, since we can always take the conjunction of any finite number of sentences.
Of course, you may object that doing so changes the form of the axioms in some way, and there are interesting questions to be asked here. For example, in the context of general algebras (= structures in a purely functional signature), we can ask $(i)$ whether a class of structures can be axiomatized by equations (this has a complete answer, essentially) and $(ii)$ if so, how many equations are needed (e.g. for the class of groups). But this is a side issue; the situation is completely acceptable, some axiomatizations are different from others.
Separately, it's worth saying that your statement
"orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms
is quite true, and is why the word "orthogonality" really shouldn't be used here: I suspect your worry comes from the sense that somehow we have an object which is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional, but this is only due to a misrepresentation of a logical phenomenon as a geometric one.
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
$endgroup$
In fact, it's equivalent to a system with one axiom, since we can always take the conjunction of any finite number of sentences.
Of course, you may object that doing so changes the form of the axioms in some way, and there are interesting questions to be asked here. For example, in the context of general algebras (= structures in a purely functional signature), we can ask $(i)$ whether a class of structures can be axiomatized by equations (this has a complete answer, essentially) and $(ii)$ if so, how many equations are needed (e.g. for the class of groups). But this is a side issue; the situation is completely acceptable, some axiomatizations are different from others.
Separately, it's worth saying that your statement
"orthogonality" is something of a metaphor when applied to axioms
is quite true, and is why the word "orthogonality" really shouldn't be used here: I suspect your worry comes from the sense that somehow we have an object which is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional, but this is only due to a misrepresentation of a logical phenomenon as a geometric one.
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
answered Jan 27 at 5:15
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
127k10151292
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
I think my misgiving derives from the same intuition that leads one to speak of orthogonality of axioms. Having a system completely determined by two independent rules which is equivalent to a system completely determined by three independent rules make me suspect that the ideas haven't been completely atomized. I know there are other places where this happens. In the theory of groups the axioms of identity and inverse are redundant, but they may be replaced by left and right division. It just bothers me.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 5:58
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
The more interesting question than how few "orthogonal" axioms can we use to characterize a system may be: what is the maximum number of independent axioms possible?
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 9:30
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
@StevenHatton That also doesn't work properly: consider the single sentence $p$ versus the pair of sentences $pvee q, pveeneg q$ for $q$ "sufficiently independent of" $p$. You need to do more work to get an interesting notion of "number of axioms." Finitely axiomatizable versus non-finitely axiomatizable works, as does smallest number of axioms after restricting to a sufficiently narrow syntactic class of sentences.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 27 at 18:50
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
$begingroup$
I need to step away from the crack pipe. I love this stuff, but it is distracting me from other goals. Please see my comment in response to Derek Elkins for a sketch of how I'm thinking about this matter.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:35
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089133%2fif-comparativity-and-reflexivity-imply-symmetry-and-transitivity-how-can-the-axi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
I'm confused by why you find that "unsettling" or even surprising. (I'm also confused by what "acceptable" is supposed to mean. The equivalence just is, whether you "accept" it or not.) As long as there are multiple perspectives on and ways of analyzing some concept, there will be multiple distinct but equivalent axiomatizations.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 27 at 5:21
$begingroup$
It's a question of the number of "objects" and relations between them. In programing it is often possible to simplify the first hack down the a bare minimum of code, but once that is reached, any further "simplification" means moving the complexity somewhere else. We might rely on the OS to do the work for us; or use a library call, overload an operator, etc. But there will still be some minimum number of independent variables and instructions needed to accomplish a task. That is based on experience, not on theory. But I'll bet there is theory to back up my assertion.
$endgroup$
– Steven Hatton
Jan 27 at 19:27